Real-world apremilast use in biologic-naïve psoriatic arthritis patients. Data from Spanish clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Apremilast is approved for treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Real-world evidence on apremilast effectiveness in clinical practice is limited. METHODS: Observational study enrolling adult patients, across 21 Spanish centres, who had initiated apremilast in the prior 6 (±1) months and were biologic naive. Data were collected at routine follow-up visits 6 and 12 months after apremilast initiation. Primary outcome was 6 and 12-month persistence to apremilast. Secondary outcomes included Disease Activity for PsA (DAPSA), joint erosions, enthesitis, dactylitis, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL, measured using the PsA impact of disease [PsAID] questionnaire). RESULTS: We included 59 patients. Most had oligoarticular PsA, moderate disease activity, and high comorbidity burden. Three-quarters were continuing apremilast at 6 months and two-thirds at 12 months; mean (SD) apremilast treatment duration was 9.43 (1.75) months. DAPSA scores showed improved disease activity: one-third of patients in remission or low activity at apremilast initiation versus 62% and 78% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Eleven of 46 patients with radiographic assessments had joint erosions at apremilast initiation and none at month 12. Median (Q1, Q3) number of swollen joints was 4.0 (2.0, 6.0) at apremilast initiation versus 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) at 12 months. Incidence of dactylitis and enthesitis decreased between apremilast initiation (35.6% and 28.8%, respectively) and month 12 (11.6% and 2.4%, respectively). Over two-thirds of patients had a PSAID-9 score <4 (cut-off for patient-acceptable symptom state) at month 12. CONCLUSIONS: In Spanish clinical practice, two-thirds of PsA patients continued apremilast at 12 months, with clinical benefits at the joint level, no radiographic progression of erosions, and a positive impact on patient-reported QoL. Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03828045.

Recomendaciones de expertos para el uso de apremilast en artritis psoriásica / Expert recommendations for the use of apremilast in psoriatic arthritis

Introducción y objetivos: A pesar de la evidencia, existen dudas sobre el posicionamiento de apremilast en el algoritmo de tratamiento de la artritis psoriásica (APs). El objetivo del presente proyecto fue recoger la evidencia científica y la experiencia de un grupo de reumatólogos expertos en el manejo de la APs sobre el uso de apremilast en la práctica clínica en España. Material y métodos: Un comité científico formado por 6 expertos propuso 5 escenarios clínicos donde la evidencia sobre el uso de apremilast en APs era controvertida: 1) eficacia en APs periférica; 2) eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis; 3) eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea; 4) comorbilidades, y 5) seguridad de apremilast. Tras esto, un panel de 17 reumatólogos expertos en el tratamiento de la APs discutió estos escenarios y generó un cuestionario con 50 preguntas y 156 ítems según metodología Delphi, el cual fue respondido de forma anónima por los panelistas. Resultados: Tras 2 rondas de votación, el panel de expertos alcanzó el consenso en 93 de los 156 ítems planteados (59,6%) (67 apropiados y 26 inapropiados). El grado de consenso fue del 53,3% en el área de «Eficacia en APs periférica»; del 60,0% en «Eficacia en entesitis y dactilitis»; del 50,0% en «Eficacia en APs con afectación cutánea»; del 57,1% en «Manejo de las comorbilidades en pacientes con APs», y del 67,3% en «Implicaciones de la seguridad en el uso de apremilast». Conclusiones: La opinión estructurada de los expertos complementa la evidencia disponible y contribuye al establecimiento de pautas consensuadas para el uso de apremilast en APs.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: Despite the evidence, there are doubts about the positioning of apremilast in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment algorithm. The objective of this project was to collect the scientific evidence and the experience of a group of rheumatologists who are experts in the management of PsA with apremilast in clinical practice in Spain. Material and methods: A scientific committee made up of 6 experts proposed 5 clinical scenarios where the evidence on the use of apremilast in PsA was controversial: 1) efficacy in peripheral PsA; 2) efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis; 3) efficacy in PsA with skin involvement; 4) comorbidities, and 5) apremilast safety. After this, a panel of 17 rheumatologists with expertise in PsA management discussed these scenarios and generated a questionnaire with 50 questions and 156 items following the Delphi methodology. This questionnaire was anonymously answered by the panel. Results: After 2 voting rounds, the panel of experts reached consensus in 93 of the 156 items raised (59.6%) (67 appropiate and 26 inappropiate). The degree of consensus was 53.3% in the area of “Efficacy in peripheral PsA”; 60.0% in “Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis”; 50.0% in “Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement”; 57.1% in “Management of comorbidities in patients with PsA”, and 67.3% in “Implications of safety in the use of apremilast”. Conclusions: The structured opinion of the experts complements the available evidence and contributes to the establishment of consensual guidelines for the use of apremilast in PsA.(AU)

Expert recommendations for the use of apremilast in psoriatic arthritis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the evidence, there are doubts about the positioning of apremilast in the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment algorithm. The objective of this project was to collect the scientific evidence and the experience of a group of rheumatologists who are experts in the management of PsA with apremilast in clinical practice in Spain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scientific committee made up of 6 experts proposed 5 clinical scenarios where the evidence on the use of apremilast in PsA was controversial: (i) Efficacy in peripheral PsA; (ii) Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis; (iii) Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement; (iv) Comorbidities; and (v) Apremilast safety. After this, a panel of 17 rheumatologists with expertise in PsA management discussed these scenarios and generated a questionnaire with 50 questions and 156 items following the Delphi methodology. This questionnaire was anonymously answered by the panel. RESULTS: After 2 voting rounds, the panel of experts reached consensus in 93 of the 156 items raised (59.6%) (67 in agreement and 26 in disagreement). The degree of consensus was 53.3% in the area of "Efficacy in peripheral PsA"; 60.0% in "Efficacy in enthesitis and dactylitis"; 50.0% in "Efficacy in PsA with skin involvement"; 57.1% in "Management of comorbidities in patients with PsA"; and 67.3% in "Implications of safety in the use of apremilast". CONCLUSIONS: The structured opinion of the experts complements the available evidence and contributes to the establishment of consensual guidelines for the use of apremilast in PsA.

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.

Development and feasibility of 4 checklists for the evaluation of comorbidity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: GECOAI Project. / Desarrollo y viabilidad de cuatro checklists para la evaluación de la comorbilidad en pacientes con artritis reumatoide, espondiloartritis axial y artritis psoriásica: Proyecto GECOAI.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and assess the feasibility in daily practice of four comorbidity checklists, for common use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of experts on comorbidity was established. Data from the GECOAR, GECOAX and GECOAP projects were analysed and a narrative literature review in Medline on RA, axSpA and PsA comorbidity was performed in order to select the most relevant and common comorbidities across the three diseases. With these results and those obtained from a focus group of patients, in a nominal group meeting, the experts generated preliminary checklists. These were afterwards modified by an external evaluation by two associations, a patients' association and an association of health professionals related to rheumatology. As a result, the final checklists were generated. A cross-sectional study was conducted to test the feasibility of three of the checklists in daily practice, in which eight health professionals evaluated the checklists in five patients with RA, five with axSpA and five with SpA. RESULTS: Four comorbidity checklists were designed, three for health professionals (one to assess current comorbidity, one on prevention/health promotion and one with the referral criteria to other health professionals), and another for patients. The feasibility study showed them to be simple, clear, and useful for use in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific and common checklists for patients with RA, axSpA and PsA is feasible and might contribute favorably to their prognosis as well as in daily practice.

Introducción: Importancia y papel actual de la imagen en las espondiloartritis / No disponible

No disponible

Recomendaciones para la prescripción de ejercicio físico en pacientes con espondiloartritis / Recommendations for the prescription of physical exercise for patients with spondyloarthritis

Objetivos: Desarrollar recomendaciones sobre la actividad física y el ejercicio para pacientes con espondiloartritis (EspA) basadas en la opinión de expertos. Métodos: Dos grupos de expertos, uno de fisioterapeutas, rehabilitadores y profesionales de la actividad física y deporte y otro de reumatólogos con interés en EspA, se reunieron para discutir los resultados de grupos focales con pacientes sobre barreras al ejercicio y de una encuesta a reumatólogos sobre ejercicio en EspA. A continuación se redactaron unas recomendaciones preliminares que fueron sometidas a la opinión de los expertos de ambos grupos mediante metodología Delphi a dos rondas. Resultados: Se emitieron 21 recomendaciones que cubren el ejercicio físico, la adaptación al paciente, el modo de dar los mensajes, el manejo del dolor, el tipo de ejercicios indicado y el seguimiento. El grado de acuerdo varía ligeramente entre los grupos de expertos pero en general fue alto. Los ítems discordantes o con poco acuerdo fueron eliminados del consenso. Conclusiones: Se han emitido recomendaciones sobre cuándo y cómo prescribir ejercicio físico y monitorizarlo en pacientes con EspA basadas en la opinión de expertos en espondilitis y en la prescripción de ejercicio. Deberemos confirmar si estas recomendaciones son útiles para la práctica clínica y tienen efecto en los pacientes con EspA atendidos por reumatólogos

Objective: To develop expert-based recommendations on physical activity and exercise for patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: Two discussion groups, one of physical therapists, rehabilitation physicians, and professionals of physical activity and sports, and another of rheumatologists interested in SpA, were held to discuss the results of a survey of rheumatologists on exercise and two focus groups with patients on barriers to exercise. Preliminary recommendations were drafted. These were submitted to the opinion of the experts in both groups according to a two round Delphi methodology. Results: Twenty one recommendations covering general aspects of exercise, adaptation to patient, how to deliver messages, pain management, and type of exercise and monitoring were issued. The level of agreement varied slightly between expert groups but it was high overall. Items with poor agreement were removed from the consensus. Conclusions: We present recommendations on when and how to prescribe and monitor exercise in patients with SpA based on the opinion of experts in exercise and in SpA. We must now test whether these recommendations are useful for clinical practice and have an effect on patients with SpA seen by rheumatologists

Genetic variation at the glycosaminoglycan metabolism pathway contributes to the risk of psoriatic arthritis but not psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis affecting up to 30% of patients with psoriasis (Ps). To date, most of the known risk loci for PsA are shared with Ps, and identifying disease-specific variation has proven very challenging. The objective of the present study was to identify genetic variation specific for PsA. METHODS: We performed a genome-wide association study in a cohort of 835 patients with PsA and 1558 controls from Spain. Genetic association was tested at the single marker level and at the pathway level. Meta-analysis was performed with a case-control cohort of 2847 individuals from North America. To confirm the specificity of the genetic associations with PsA, we tested the associated variation using a purely cutaneous psoriasis cohort (PsC, n=614) and a rheumatoid arthritis cohort (RA, n=1191). Using network and drug-repurposing analyses, we further investigated the potential of the PsA-specific associations to guide the development of new drugs in PsA. RESULTS: We identified a new PsA risk single-nucleotide polymorphism at B3GNT2 locus (p=1.10e-08). At the pathway level, we found 14 genetic pathways significantly associated with PsA (pFDR<0.05). From these, the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) metabolism pathway was confirmed to be disease-specific after comparing the PsA cohort with the cohorts of patients with PsC and RA. Finally, we identified candidate drug targets in the GAG metabolism pathway as well as new PsA indications for approved drugs. CONCLUSION: These findings provide insights into the biological mechanisms that are specific for PsA and could contribute to develop more effective therapies.

Recommendations for the prescription of physical exercise for patients with spondyloarthritis. / Recomendaciones para la prescripción de ejercicio físico en pacientes con espondiloartritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop expert-based recommendations on physical activity and exercise for patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: Two discussion groups, one of physical therapists, rehabilitation physicians, and professionals of physical activity and sports, and another of rheumatologists interested in SpA, were held to discuss the results of a survey of rheumatologists on exercise and two focus groups with patients on barriers to exercise. Preliminary recommendations were drafted. These were submitted to the opinion of the experts in both groups according to a two round Delphi methodology. RESULTS: Twenty one recommendations covering general aspects of exercise, adaptation to patient, how to deliver messages, pain management, and type of exercise and monitoring were issued. The level of agreement varied slightly between expert groups but it was high overall. Items with poor agreement were removed from the consensus. CONCLUSIONS: We present recommendations on when and how to prescribe and monitor exercise in patients with SpA based on the opinion of experts in exercise and in SpA. We must now test whether these recommendations are useful for clinical practice and have an effect on patients with SpA seen by rheumatologists.

Recomendaciones para el manejo de la comorbilidad en la práctica clínica en pacientes con espondiloartritis axia / Recommendations for the Management of Comorbidity in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Clinical Practice

Objetivos: Identificar las comorbilidades prioritarias en la espondiloartritis axial (EspAx) y recomendar cómo hacer su seguimiento desde una perspectiva eminentemente práctica. Métodos: Se seleccionó a un grupo multidisciplinar (10 reumatólogos [6 expertos en EspAx], 2 médicos de familia, una internista, una cardióloga, una gastroenteróloga y una psicóloga). En una primera reunión de discusión, se establecieron el alcance y los usuarios, y se votó una lista de comorbilidades sobre la base de la frecuencia y el impacto. Los panelistas debían defender con argumentos consistentes la inclusión de cada comorbilidad/ítem en el documento. Cuatro panelistas y 2 metodólogos, desarrollaron revisiones sistemáticas en temas controvertidos. En una segunda reunión se presentaron los resultados de las revisiones y los argumentos de todos los ítems a incluir. Tras esta reunión se redactó el documento final. Resultados: El documento final incluye 2 listas de comprobación (checklist), una para profesionales sanitarios y otra para pacientes, que recogen: riesgo cardiovascular, comorbilidad renal, riesgo gastrointestinal, estilo de vida, riesgo de infecciones y vacunación, afectación pulmonar, medicación concomitante, trastornos psicoafectivos, osteoporosis y riesgo de fractura. Además, el documento refleja los argumentos para incluir cada ítem y la manera de recoger los ítems. Asimismo, el panel consideró oportuno establecer unas «prácticas a evitar» aplicables a la comorbilidad de la EspAx. Conclusiones: Se generaron 2 listas de comprobación y un listado de escenarios a evitar para facilitar el manejo de las comorbilidades de la EspAx. En pasos posteriores probaremos su utilidad y su aceptación por un grupo amplio de usuarios que incluya médicos, pacientes y enfermeras

Objectives: To identify priorities among comorbidities in axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and recommend how to follow them from an eminently practical perspective. Methods: A multidisciplinary group was selected (10 rheumatologists-six of them experts in AxSpA-, 2 general practitioners, an internist, a cardiologist, a gastroenterologist and a psychologist). In a first discussion meeting, the scope and users were established and a list of comorbidities was voted based on frequency and impact. The panelists had to defend the inclusion of each comorbidity/item in the document with consistent arguments. Four panelists and two methodologists developed systematic reviews on controversial topics. In a second meeting, the results of the reviews and the arguments concerning the items to be included were presented. After the meeting, the final document was drafted. Results: The final document includes two checklists, one for health professionals and another for patients; they incorporate cardiovascular risk, renal comorbidities, gastrointestinal risk, lifestyle, risk of infections and vaccinations, pulmonary involvement, concomitant medication, psycho-affective disorders, osteoporosis, and risk of fracture. In addition, the document reflects the arguments favoring the inclusion of each item and how to record the items for subsequent collection. The panel considered it also appropriate to likewise establish «practices to avoid» applicable to comorbidity in AxSpA. Conclusions: Two checklists and a list of situations to avoid were generated to facilitate the management of comorbidities in AxSpA. In a future step, their utility and acceptance will be tested by a broad group of users that includes doctors, patients and nurses

Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología sobre el tratamiento y uso de terapias sistémicas biológicas y no biológicas en artritis psoriásica / Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on treatment and use of systemic biological and non-biological therapies in psoriatic arthritis

Objetivo: La primera finalidad de este documento de recomendaciones es proporcionar al clínico la mejor evidencia disponible y, en su defecto, la mejor opinión consensuada por los panelistas para un uso racional y fundado de las diversas opciones de tratamiento con fármacos antirreumáticos modificadores de la enfermedad (FAME) sintéticos y biológicos en artropatía psoriásica (APs). El presente documento también incide sobre aspectos importantes en el manejo de la APs, como el diagnóstico precoz, los objetivos terapéuticos, las comorbilidades y la optimización del tratamiento. Métodos: Las recomendaciones se consensuaron a través de un panel de 8 reumatólogos expertos, previamente seleccionados por la Sociedad Española de Reumatología (SER) mediante una convocatoria abierta. Las fases del trabajo fueron: identificación de las áreas claves para la actualización del consenso anterior, análisis y síntesis de la evidencia científica (sistema modificado de Oxford, CEBM, 2009) y formulación de recomendaciones a partir de esta evidencia y de técnicas de consenso. Resultados: Se emiten un total de 17 recomendaciones para el tratamiento de los pacientes con APs. Seis de ellas de carácter general, que abarcan desde la transcendencia del diagnóstico y tratamiento precoz hasta la importancia de las comorbilidades. El resto, las 11 específicas, se centran en las indicaciones de los FAME y la terapia biológica en las diferentes formas clínicas de la enfermedad. Así mismo, se abordan las situaciones de fracaso a un primer biológico y se incluyen los algoritmos de tratamientos y una tabla con las diferentes terapias biológicas. Conclusiones: Se presenta la actualización de las recomendaciones de la SER para el tratamiento de la APs con FAME y terapia biológica

Objective: The main purpose of this recommendation statement is to provide clinicians with the best available evidence and the best opinion agreed upon by the panelists for a rational use of synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologicals in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The present document also focuses on important aspects in the management of PsA, such as early diagnosis, therapeutic objectives, comorbidities and optimization of treatment. Methods: The recommendations were agreed by consensus by a panel of 8 expert rheumatologists, previously selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) through an open call. The phases of the work were: identification of key areas for updating the previous consensus, analysis and synthesis of scientific evidence (modified Oxford system, Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, 2009) and formulation of recommendations based on this evidence and by consensus techniques. Results: Seventeen recommendations were issued for the treatment of PsA patients. Six of them were of general nature, ranging from the early diagnosis and treatment to the importance of assessing comorbidities. The other 11 were focused on the indications for DMARDs and biological therapy in the distinct clinical forms of the disease. Likewise, the situation of failure of the first biological is addressed and treatment algorithms and a table with the different biological therapies are also included. Conclusions: We present the update of SER recommendations for the treatment of PsA with DMARDs and biologics

Patient-reported outcomes in European spondyloarthritis patients: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: This review aims to summarize the current literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in spondyloarthritis (SpA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review to identify studies (original articles and narrative and systematic reviews) regarding PROs (health-related quality of life [HRQoL], satisfaction, preferences, adherence/compliance, and persistence) in SpA patients published in the European Union through December 2016. International databases (Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus) were searched using keywords in English. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. RESULTS: A total of 26 publications met the inclusion criteria. Generally, studies indicated that SpA has a negative impact on patients' HRQoL. In patients with ankylosing spondylitis, physical domains were more affected than emotional ones, whereas for psoriatic arthritis, both physical and psychological factors were strongly affected by the disease. Data indicated that biological agents (BAs) greatly contributed to improvement in HRQoL in both ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis patients. Findings on compliance with BAs were heterogeneous. However, persistence rates exceeded 50% irrespective of the BA administered. Results on preferences indicated that most SpA patients prefer being involved in decisions regarding their treatment and that besides efficacy and safety, frequency and route of administration may influence patients' preferences for BAs. CONCLUSION: Implementing management programs for SpA patients focuses on the physical, emotional, and social consequences of the disease, in addition to assessing and including patient preferences in the treatment decision-making process, could be crucial to improve patients' HRQoL and ensure their satisfaction and compliance with treatment.

The EJES-3D tool for personalized prescription of exercise in axial spondyloarthritis through multimedia animations: pilot study.

To develop and evaluate a web application based on multimedia animations, combined with a training program, to improve the prescription of exercises in spondyloarthritis (SpA). After a review of exercises included in the main clinical trials and recommendations of international societies, a multidisciplinary team-rehabilitators, rheumatologists, physiotherapists, computer scientists and graphic designers-developed a web application for the prescription of exercises (EJES-3D). Once completed, this was presented to 12 pairs of rehabilitators-rheumatologists from the same hospital in a workshop. Knowledge about exercise was tested in rheumatologists before and 6 months after the workshop, when they also evaluated the application. The EJES-3D application includes 38 multimedia videos and allows prescribing predesigned programs or customizing them. A patient can consult the prescribed exercises at any time from a device with internet connection (mobile, tablet, or computer). The vast majority of the evaluators (89%) were satisfied or very satisfied and considered that their expectations regarding the usefulness of the web application had been met. They highlighted the ability to tailor exercises adapted to the different stages of the disease and the quality and variety of the videos. They also indicated some limitations of the application and operational problems. The EJES-3D tool was positively evaluated by experts in SpA, potentially the most demanding group of users with the most critical capacity. This allows a preliminary validation of the contents, usefulness, and ease of use. Analyzing and correcting the errors and limitations detected is allowing us to improve the EJES-3D tool.

Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on treatment and use of systemic biological and non-biological therapies in psoriatic arthritis. / Recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Reumatología sobre el tratamiento y uso de terapias sistémicas biológicas y no biológicas en artritis psoriásica.

OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this recommendation statement is to provide clinicians with the best available evidence and the best opinion agreed upon by the panelists for a rational use of synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologicals in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients. The present document also focuses on important aspects in the management of PsA, such as early diagnosis, therapeutic objectives, comorbidities and optimization of treatment. METHODS: The recommendations were agreed by consensus by a panel of 8 expert rheumatologists, previously selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) through an open call. The phases of the work were: identification of key areas for updating the previous consensus, analysis and synthesis of scientific evidence (modified Oxford system, Centre for Evidence-based Medicine, 2009) and formulation of recommendations based on this evidence and by consensus techniques. RESULTS: Seventeen recommendations were issued for the treatment of PsA patients. Six of them were of general nature, ranging from the early diagnosis and treatment to the importance of assessing comorbidities. The other 11 were focused on the indications for DMARDs and biological therapy in the distinct clinical forms of the disease. Likewise, the situation of failure of the first biological is addressed and treatment algorithms and a table with the different biological therapies are also included. CONCLUSIONS: We present the update of SER recommendations for the treatment of PsA with DMARDs and biologics.

Recommendations for the Management of Comorbidity in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Clinical Practice. / Recomendaciones para el manejo de la comorbilidad en la práctica clínica en pacientes con espondiloartritis axial.

OBJECTIVES: To identify priorities among comorbidities in axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) and recommend how to follow them from an eminently practical perspective. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group was selected (10 rheumatologists-six of them experts in AxSpA-, 2 general practitioners, an internist, a cardiologist, a gastroenterologist and a psychologist). In a first discussion meeting, the scope and users were established and a list of comorbidities was voted based on frequency and impact. The panelists had to defend the inclusion of each comorbidity/item in the document with consistent arguments. Four panelists and two methodologists developed systematic reviews on controversial topics. In a second meeting, the results of the reviews and the arguments concerning the items to be included were presented. After the meeting, the final document was drafted. RESULTS: The final document includes two checklists, one for health professionals and another for patients; they incorporate cardiovascular risk, renal comorbidities, gastrointestinal risk, lifestyle, risk of infections and vaccinations, pulmonary involvement, concomitant medication, psycho-affective disorders, osteoporosis, and risk of fracture. In addition, the document reflects the arguments favoring the inclusion of each item and how to record the items for subsequent collection. The panel considered it also appropriate to likewise establish «practices to avoid¼ applicable to comorbidity in AxSpA. CONCLUSIONS: Two checklists and a list of situations to avoid were generated to facilitate the management of comorbidities in AxSpA. In a future step, their utility and acceptance will be tested by a broad group of users that includes doctors, patients and nurses.

Identification and management of comorbidity in psoriatic arthritis: evidence- and expert-based recommendations from a multidisciplinary panel from Spain.

The objective is to establish recommendations, based on evidence and expert opinion, for the identification and management of comorbidities in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The following techniques were applied: discussion group, systematic review, and Delphi survey for agreement. A panel of professionals from four specialties defined the users, the sections of the document, possible recommendations, and what systematic reviews should be performed. A second discussion was held with the results of the systematic reviews. Recommendations were formulated in the second meeting and voted online from 1 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Agreement was considered if at least 70% voted ≥7. The level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidance. The full document was critically appraised by the experts, and the project was supervised at all times by a methodologist. In a final step, the document was reviewed and commented by a patient and a health management specialist. Fourteen recommendations were produced, together with a checklist to facilitate the implementation. The items with the largest support from evidence were those related to cardiovascular disease and risk factors. The panel recommends paying special attention to obesity, smoking, and alcohol consumption, as they are all modifiable factors with an impact on treatment response or complications of PsA. Psychological and organizational aspects were also deemed important. We herein suggest practical recommendations for the management of comorbidities in PsA based on evidence and expert opinion.

A deletion at ADAMTS9-MAGI1 locus is associated with psoriatic arthritis risk.

OBJECTIVE: Copy number variants (CNVs) have been associated with the risk to develop multiple autoimmune diseases. Our objective was to identify CNVs associated with the risk to develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using a genome-wide analysis approach. METHODS: A total of 835 patients with PsA and 1498 healthy controls were genotyped for CNVs using the Illumina HumanHap610 BeadChip genotyping platform. Genomic CNVs were characterised using CNstream analysis software and analysed for association using the χ(2) test. The most significant genomic CNV associations with PsA risk were independently tested in a validation sample of 1133 patients with PsA and 1831 healthy controls. In order to test for the specificity of the variants with PsA aetiology, we also analysed the association to a cohort of 822 patients with purely cutaneous psoriasis (PsC). RESULTS: A total of 165 common CNVs were identified in the genome-wide analysis. We found a highly significant association of an intergenic deletion between ADAMTS9 and MAGI1 genes on chromosome 3p14.1 (p=0.00014). Using the independent patient and control cohort, we validated the association between ADAMTS9-MAGI1 deletion and PsA risk (p=0.032). Using next-generation sequencing, we characterised the 26 kb associated deletion. Finally, analysing the PsC cohort we found a lower frequency of the deletion compared with the PsA cohort (p=0.0088) and a similar frequency to that of healthy controls (p>0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The present genome-wide scan for CNVs associated with PsA risk has identified a new deletion associated with disease risk and which is also differential from PsC risk.

PDE3A-SLCO1C1 locus is associated with response to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in psoriatic arthritis.

Aim: Variation at PDE3A-SLCO1C1 locus has been recently associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. We undertook the present study to determine whether PDE3A-SLCO1C1 is also associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Patients & methods: Genomic DNA was obtained from 81 psoriatic arthritis patients that had been treated with anti-TNF therapy. PDE3A-SLCO1C1 SNP rs3794271 was genotyped using Taqman realt-time PCR. The clinical response to anti-TNF therapy was measured as the change from baseline in the level of disease activity according to the DAS28 score. Results: A significant association between rs3794271 and anti-TNF response in psoriatic arthritis was found (beta = -0.71; p = 0.0036). Conclusion: PDE3A-SLCO1C1 locus is also associated with response to anti-TNF therapy in psoriatic arthritis. Original submitted 12 May 2014; Revision submitted 18 August 2014.

Development and validation of a new instrument to measure health-related quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis: the VITACORA-19.

OBJECTIVE: To develop/validate an instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), for use in clinical studies. METHODS: An item pool of 35 items was generated following standardized procedures. Item reduction was performed using clinimetric and psychometric approaches after administration to 66 patients with PsA. The resulting instrument, the VITACORA-19, consists of 19 items. Its validity content, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, known groups/convergent validity, and sensitivity to change were tested in a longitudinal and multicenter study conducted in 10 hospitals in Spain, with 323 patients who also completed the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) and a health status transition item. There were 3 study groups: group A (n = 209, patients with PsA), group B (n = 71, patients with arthritis without psoriatic aspect, patients with arthrosis, and patients with dermatitis), and group C (n = 43, healthy controls). RESULTS: The questionnaire was considered easy/very easy to answer by 94.7% of the patients with PsA. The factorial analysis clearly identified only 1 factor. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and interclass correlation coefficients exceeded 0.90. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) were observed between groups: subjects from group C had better HRQoL, followed by group B, and finally group A had the worst HRQoL. The VITACORA-19 scores showed significant correlations (p < 0.001) to PsA disease activity, EQ-5D, and perceived health state, scoring the patients with better health state higher. The minimum important difference was established as an 8-point change in the global score. CONCLUSION: The Spanish-developed VITACORA-19, designed to measure HRQoL in patients with PsA, has good validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change.

Standards of care for patients with spondyloarthritis.

To define and give priory to standards of care in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). A systematic literature review on SpA standards of care and a specific search in relevant and related sources was performed. An expert panel was established who developed the standards of care and graded their priority (high, mild, low, or no priority) following qualitative methodology and Delphi process. An electronic survey was sent to a representative sample of 167 rheumatologists all around the country, who also gave priority to the standards of care (same scale). A descriptive analysis is presented. The systematic literature review retrieved no article specifically related to SpA patients. A total of 38 standards of care were obtained-12 related to structure, 20 to process, and 6 to result. Access to care, treatment, and safety standards of care were given a high priority by most of rheumatologists. Standards not directly connected to daily practice were not given such priority, as standards which included a time framework. The standards generated for the performance evaluation (including patient and professionals satisfaction) were not considered especially important in general. This set of standards of care should help improve the quality of care in SpA patients.