Measuring Choroid Thickness as a Marker of Systemic Inflammation in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is an inflammatory disease, and choroidal thickness (CT) has been proposed and evaluated as a potential marker of systemic inflammation associated with AS and other inflammatory diseases. This study compared CT measurements taken from patients with severe AS disease activity without eye inflammation with those taken from healthy subjects. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multicenter study compared CT in 44 patients with high AS disease activity, and no history of eye inflammation with CT in 44 matched healthy subjects aged between 18 and 65 years. In the AS group, the correlation between CT and C-reactive protein, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) B27 positivity, disease duration, and disease activity was calculated. RESULTS: Mean CT values of patients with AS were significantly higher in the right eye, the left eye, and the thickest choroid eye. The right eye mean CT was 338.3 ± 82.8 µm among patients with AS and 290.5 ± 71.2 µm among healthy subjects (p = 0.005). The left eye mean CT was 339.5 ± 84.7 µm for patients with AS and 298.4 ± 68.9 µm for healthy subjects (P = 0.015). The thickest choroid eye CT was 358.4 ± 82.1 µm among patients with AS and 314.1 ± 65.2 µm among healthy subjects (P = 0.006). We did not find a significant correlation between CT and disease activity, C-reactive protein, human leukocyte antigen B27 positivity, or disease duration. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with active AS but without a history of eye inflammation had a thicker choroid than healthy subjects. This finding suggests that CT is a marker of systemic inflammation in patients with inflammatory disease, regardless of known eye symptoms.

Estado actual de la atención multidisciplinar para pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España: proyecto NEXUS 2.0 / Current status of multidisciplinary care in psoriatic arthritis in Spain: NEXUS 2.0 project

OBJETIVO: 1) Analizar la implementación de los modelos de atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con artritis psoriásica (APs), y 2) definir estándares de calidad de mínimos y de excelencia. MÉTODOS: Se envió una encuesta a profesionales que ya realizan atención multidisciplinar o están en vías preguntando por: 1) tipo de modelo de abordaje multidisciplinar, y 2) grado, prioridad y facilidad de la implementación de los estándares de calidad de estructura, proceso y resultado. En 6 reuniones regionales se presentaron y discutieron los resultados de la encuesta, tanto a nivel nacional como regional, y se definió la prioridad definitiva de los estándares de calidad. En una reunión de grupo nominal, 11 expertos (reumatólogos y dermatólogos) analizaron los resultados de la encuesta y las reuniones regionales. Con ello definieron qué estándares de calidad son actualmente de mínimos y cuáles de excelencia. RESULTADOS: Los modelos de atención multidisciplinar conjunto y paralelo son los más implementados, y los de los estándares de calidad es muy variable: en los de estructura varía del 22 al 74%, en los de proceso del 17 al 54% y en los de resultado del 2 al 28%. De los 25 estándares de calidad originales, 9 se consideran solo de mínimos, 4 de excelencia y 12 tienen definidos unos criterios para ser de mínimos y otros para la excelencia. CONCLUSIONES: La definición de estándares de calidad de mínimos y de excelencia ayudará en la consecución del objetivo de la atención multidisciplinar para pacientes con APs, que es la mejor asistencia sanitaria posible

OBJECTIVE: 1) To analyze the implementation of multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, 2) To define minimum and excellent standards of care. METHODS: A survey was sent to clinicians who already performed multidisciplinary care or were in the process of undertaking it, asking: 1) Type of multidisciplinary care model implemented; 2) Degree, priority and feasibility of the implementation of quality standards in the structure, process and result for care. In 6 regional meetings the results of the survey were presented and discussed, and the ultimate priority of quality standards for care was defined. At a nominal meeting group, 11 experts (rheumatologists and dermatologists) analyzed the results of the survey and the regional meetings. With this information, they defined which standards of care are currently considered as minimum and which are excellent. RESULTS: The simultaneous and parallel models of multidisciplinary care are those most widely implemented, but the implementation of quality standards is highly variable. In terms of structure it ranges from 22% to 74%, in those related to process from 17% to 54% and in the results from 2% to 28%. Of the 25 original quality standards for care, 9 were considered only minimum, 4 were excellent and 12 defined criteria for minimum level and others for excellence. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of minimum and excellent quality standards for care will help achieve the goal of multidisciplinary care for patients with PAs, which is the best healthcare possible

Current status of multidisciplinary care in psoriatic arthritis in Spain: NEXUS 2.0 project. / Estado actual de la atención multidisciplinar para pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España: proyecto NEXUS 2.0.

OBJECTIVE: 1) To analyze the implementation of multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, 2) To define minimum and excellent standards of care. METHODS: A survey was sent to clinicians who already performed multidisciplinary care or were in the process of undertaking it, asking: 1) Type of multidisciplinary care model implemented; 2) Degree, priority and feasibility of the implementation of quality standards in the structure, process and result for care. In 6 regional meetings the results of the survey were presented and discussed, and the ultimate priority of quality standards for care was defined. At a nominal meeting group, 11 experts (rheumatologists and dermatologists) analyzed the results of the survey and the regional meetings. With this information, they defined which standards of care are currently considered as minimum and which are excellent. RESULTS: The simultaneous and parallel models of multidisciplinary care are those most widely implemented, but the implementation of quality standards is highly variable. In terms of structure it ranges from 22% to 74%, in those related to process from 17% to 54% and in the results from 2% to 28%. Of the 25 original quality standards for care, 9 were considered only minimum, 4 were excellent and 12 defined criteria for minimum level and others for excellence. CONCLUSIONS: The definition of minimum and excellent quality standards for care will help achieve the goal of multidisciplinary care for patients with PAs, which is the best healthcare possible.

Registro Español de Artritis Psoriásica de Reciente Comienzo (estudio REAPSER). Objetivos y metodología / Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis (REAPSER study): aims and methodology

OBJETIVOS: Describir la metodología del Registro Español de Artritis Psoriásica de reciente comienzo de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología (REAPSER), así como sus fortalezas y limitaciones. El objetivo principal del proyecto es identificar factores pronósticos de la evolución clínica y radiográfica en una cohorte de pacientes que padecen artritis psoriásica (APs) diagnosticada con menos de 2 años de evolución. MATERIAL Y MÉTODO: Estudio observacional, prospectivo (2 años de seguimiento; periodicidad anual de las visitas), multicéntrico. La intención en la visita basal fue reflejar la situación del paciente antes de que la evolución de la enfermedad se viese modificada por los tratamientos pautados en los servicios de reumatología. Los pacientes fueron invitados a participar consecutivamente en una de sus visitas habituales al reumatólogo. El tamaño muestral finalmente alcanzado fue de 211 pacientes. Se recogen datos sociodemográficos; de situación laboral; historia familiar; antecedentes personales y comorbilidad; antropométricos; estilo de vida; uso de los servicios de salud; situación clínica al diagnóstico de APs; afectación articular y dolor espinal; dolor y valoración global de la enfermedad; entesitis, dactilitis y uveítis; afectación cutánea y ungueal; situación funcional y calidad de vida; evaluación radiográfica; determinaciones analíticas; tratamiento; brotes en esqueleto axial y periférico. CONCLUSIONES: El estudio REAPSER incluye una cohorte de pacientes con APs de inicio reciente reclutados antes de que la evolución de la enfermedad se viese modificada por la prescripción de FAME en los servicios de reumatología. Se espera que la información exhaustiva recogida en las visitas suponga una amplia fuente de datos para futuros análisis

AIMS: To describe the methodology of REAPSER (Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis), its strengths and limitations. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic factors for the clinical and radiographic course in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosed within 2 years of symptom evolution. METHODS: Multicenter, observational and prospective study (with 2-year follow-up including annual visits). Baseline visit intended to reflect patient situation before the disease course was modified by treatments prescribed in rheumatology departments. Patients were invited to participate consecutively in one of their routine visits to the rheumatologist. 211 patients were included. Following data were collected: sociodemographic variables; employment situation; family history; personal history and comorbidities; anthropometric data; lifestyle; use of healthcare services; clinical situation at the time of PsA diagnosis; joint involvement and spinal pain; pain and overall assessment; enthesitis, dactylitis and uveitis; skin and nail involvement; functional situation and quality of life; radiographic evaluation; analytical determinations; treatment; axial and peripheral flare-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The REAPSER study includes a cohort of patients with recent-onset PsA, before the disease course was modified by disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs prescribed in rheumatology departments. Exhaustive information collected in each visit is expected to be an important data source for future analysis

Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis (REAPSER study): Aims and methodology. / Registro Español de Artritis Psoriásica de Reciente Comienzo (estudio REAPSER). Objetivos y metodología.

AIMS: To describe the methodology of REAPSER (Spanish Registry of Recent-onset Psoriatic Arthritis), its strengths and limitations. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic factors for the clinical and radiographic course in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosed within 2years of symptom evolution. METHODS: Multicenter, observational and prospective study (with 2-year follow-up including annual visits). Baseline visit intended to reflect patient situation before the disease course was modified by treatments prescribed in rheumatology departments. Patients were invited to participate consecutively in one of their routine visits to the rheumatologist. 211 patients were included. Following data were collected: sociodemographic variables; employment situation; family history; personal history and comorbidities; anthropometric data; lifestyle; use of healthcare services; clinical situation at the time of PsA diagnosis; joint involvement and spinal pain; pain and overall assessment; enthesitis, dactylitis and uveitis; skin and nail involvement; functional situation and quality of life; radiographic evaluation; analytical determinations; treatment; axial and peripheral flare-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The REAPSER study includes a cohort of patients with recent-onset PsA, before the disease course was modified by disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs prescribed in rheumatology departments. Exhaustive information collected in each visit is expected to be an important data source for future analysis.

Modelos de atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España / Multidisciplinary care models for patients with psoriatic arthritis

Objetivo. Describir la estructura y procesos de distintos modelos de atención multidisciplinar de pacientes con artritis psoriásica (APs) en España, así como las barreras y facilitadores en su implantación. Métodos. Se realizó un estudio cualitativo mediante entrevistas estructuradas a 24 profesionales (12 reumatólogos y 12 dermatólogos que realizan atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con APs). Se recogieron datos relacionados con el centro, servicio, población atendida y sobre el modelo de atención multidisciplinar (tipo, recursos materiales y humanos, requerimientos de los profesionales, objetivos, criterios de entrada y salida, agendas, protocolos de actuación, responsabilidades, toma de decisiones, actividad investigadora y docente, sesiones clínicas conjuntas, creación/inicio, planificación, ventajas/desventajas del modelo y barreras/facilitadores en la implantación del modelo. Se describen sus características. Resultados. Analizamos 12 modelos de atención multidisciplinar en APs, implantados desde hace al menos 1-2 años, que globalmente pueden resumirse en 3 subtipos diferentes: presencial conjunto, presencial paralelo y circuito preferencial. La implantación de uno u otro modelo es consecuencia de la adaptación a las circunstancias del centro y profesionales. Una correcta planificación de la implantación es fundamental. La implicación y buena sintonía entre profesionales así como un acceso y criterios de derivación bien definidos son facilitadores muy importantes en la implantación de un modelo. La gestión de las agendas y la recogida de datos para medir resultados de salud de estos modelos son las principales barreras. Conclusiones. Existen distintos modelos de atención multidisciplinar implantados que tienen como objetivo intentar mejorar la atención del paciente con APs, la eficiencia del sistema y la colaboración entre especialistas (AU)

Objetive. To describe (structure, processes) of the multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Spain, as well as barriers and facilitators of their implementation. Methods. A qualitative study was performed following structured interviews with 24 professionals (12 rheumatologists, 12 dermatologists who provide multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA). We collected data related to the hospital, department, population and multidisciplinary care model (type, physical and human resources, professional requirements, objectives, referral criteria, agendas, protocols, responsibilities, decision- making, research and education, clinical sessions, development and planning of the model, advantages and disadvantages of the model, barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the model. The models characteristics are described. Results. We analyzed 12 multidisciplinary care models in PsA, with at least 1-2 years of experience, and 3 subtypes of models, face-to-face, parallel, and preferential circuit. All are adapted to the hospital and professionals characteristics. A proper implementation planning is essential. The involvement and empathy between professionals and an access and well-defined referral criteria are important facilitators in the implementation of a model. The management of agendas and data collection to measure the multidisciplinary care models health outcomes are the main barriers. Conclusions. There are different multidisciplinary care models in PsA that can improve patient outcomes, system efficiency and collaboration between specialists (AU)

Multidisciplinary Care Models for Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis. / Modelos de atención multidisciplinar en pacientes con artritis psoriásica en España.

OBJETIVE: To describe (structure, processes) of the multidisciplinary care models in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Spain, as well as barriers and facilitators of their implementation. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed following structured interviews with 24 professionals (12 rheumatologists, 12 dermatologists who provide multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA). We collected data related to the hospital, department, population and multidisciplinary care model (type, physical and human resources, professional requirements, objectives, referral criteria, agendas, protocols, responsibilities, decision- making, research and education, clinical sessions, development and planning of the model, advantages and disadvantages of the model, barriers and facilitators in the implementation of the model. The models characteristics are described. RESULTS: We analyzed 12 multidisciplinary care models in PsA, with at least 1-2 years of experience, and 3 subtypes of models, face-to-face, parallel, and preferential circuit. All are adapted to the hospital and professionals characteristics. A proper implementation planning is essential. The involvement and empathy between professionals and an access and well-defined referral criteria are important facilitators in the implementation of a model. The management of agendas and data collection to measure the multidisciplinary care models health outcomes are the main barriers. CONCLUSIONS: There are different multidisciplinary care models in PsA that can improve patient outcomes, system efficiency and collaboration between specialists.