RESUMEN
BackgroundDelay in the diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis may be associated with poorer outcome. However, the effectiveness of strategies to enable early detection of psoriatic arthritis in a primary care population with psoriasis have not been investigated in a prospective randomised control trial.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to determine whether early detection of undiagnosed PsA in people with psoriasis by an enhanced surveillance (ES) intervention compared to standard care (SC) improves outcome in physical function at 24 months post-registration. Secondary objectives were to compare disease activity and impact of disease between groups in those participants diagnosed with PsA.MethodsA multi-centre, prospective, parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial in patients with psoriasis with no prior diagnosis of PsA was conducted. GP practices were randomised in a 1:1 allocation ratio with stratification for GP practice list size and Central Commissioning Group (CCG). A total of 133 GP practices and 2226 participants were required to achieve a target sample size for the primary analysis population of 148 participants (74 per group) with a positive diagnosis of PsA;the latter corresponding to 80% power for detecting the MCID in the primary outcome measure of 0.35 units. Participants recruited were managed according to either SC, or ES by annual rheumatological assessment. Participants with suspected inflammatory arthritis were referred, via their GP, to the local rheumatology outpatient clinic at participating hospitals for an assessment of PsA by the ‘treating rheumatologist' (ES arm: at baseline, 12 and 24 months;SC arm: at 24 months). Participants diagnosed with PsA then entered the PsA-care pathway element of the trial. The primary outcome measure was the HAQ_DI at 24 months post registration in participants diagnosed with PsA. Secondary outcome measures, PASDAS and PsAID-12, were assessed over time in participants with a positive diagnosis of PsA.ResultsA total of 2225 participants across 135 GP practices were registered, corresponding to 1123 allocated to ES and 1102 to SC;primary analysis population consisted of 87 participants with a positive diagnosis of PsA: 64 in ES, 23 in SC (Figure one). Baseline characteristics were similar across both treatment groups. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for achieving a HAQ-DI score of 0 at 24 months post registration in ES compared to SC was 0.64 (95% CI (0.17, 2.38)), indicating no evidence of a difference between treatment groups (p=0.5075). Moreover, the adjusted OR of achieving a higher (non-zero) HAQ-DI score at 24 months post registration in ES relative to SC arm was 1.12 (95% CI: 0.67, 1.86), again indicating no evidence of a difference between the two treatment groups (p=0.6612). There was high variability on the impact of the disease between participants over time, although the impact is generally low in this group of participants with an ‘early' diagnosis of PsA. Moreover, the overall PASDAS score and component scores over time post PsA diagnosis show high variability in PsA disease activity. No adverse events were reported.ConclusionThere was insufficient evidence that early diagnosis by ES and subsequent treatment improves physical function compared to SC in patients with psoriasis. Limitations included the trial being underpowered for demonstrating the pre-specified treatment effect;only 6.2% of participants recruited had a positive diagnosis of PsA, much lower than assumed (18%). The imbalance observed between treatment groups (~ 3:1 ratio (ES:SC)), is largely explained by the lower proportion of participants especially in the SC arm attending the screening visit at 24 months, and delays between referral and attending appointment with the treating clinician, all further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, a longer duration of follow-up may be necessary to detect differences in outcome and is planned.ReferencesNil.Figure 1.AcknowledgementsThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Programme rants for Applied Research programme.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a multi-system disease with a range of management options. Treatment may vary by geographic location. We compared disease characteristics and prescribing practices in the UK and Europe in the post-Covid era. Methods The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged 18 years and older selected from 24 centres across 5 countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) between July 2021 and March 2022 (IRAS: 287039). Patients attending a face-to-face appointment with a diagnosis of PsA made by a rheumatologist were selected by systematic sampling at each centre and treated in routine clinical practice. Patient and disease characteristics, current treatment and treatment decisions (medications unchanged, switched, added or reduced) were recorded. The analysis was descriptive, with no imputation of missing data. Results 503 patients were included, with arthritis subtype, patient age, disease activity and duration shown (Table 1). Physician- and patient-reported disease severity was highest in the UK, where median patient age was lowest. Conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDS constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), whereas biologic use was more frequent in Europe (68.1% vs 36.4%). Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic in the UK and Spain. Adalimumab and secukinumab were equally used in Germany, and ixekizumab and adalimumab were joint-first in Italy. Implementing change to the current PsA treatment was most common in the UK, predominantly being a treatment increase. This may reflect the higher level of disease activity or younger patient age in the UK than other countries, as treatment escalation is more likely earlier in the disease course. In the UK, treatment escalation was more commonly achieved by medication addition (26.2%) than medication switch (14%) or dose increase (7.5%). In Europe, medication addition and switch were of more similar frequency (10.9% vs 9.85%). Conclusion Disease characteristics and treatment strategies varied between countries, but particularly between UK and the rest of Europe. In contrast to mainland Europe, csDMARDs predominated in the UK, perhaps reflecting current NICE guidelines. Treatment escalation was most common in the UK, in keeping with higher disease activity. (Table Presented).
RESUMEN
Background/Aims This process aimed to identify and prioritise the top 10 research questions or evidence uncertainties for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adults. The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals, in association with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to identify the key questions and priorities. Methods The JLA methodology involved a three-stage process: 1. A steering group composed of stakeholders conducted an initial online survey of people with PsA, families, carers and healthcare professionals to identify PsA questions. Participants were asked, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?'. Duplicate questions and those which were out of scope were removed. Questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties', which were then grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes of the original submissions (diagnosis, effects of disease and treatment, flares, psychological, financial and social factors, gender-associated issues, Covid-19 and treatment) to facilitate prioritisation in stage two. 2. In a second online survey, people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. 3. During the final workshop, including people with PsA and clinicians, participants worked together to rank the questions to generate a top 10 list of research priorities. Results The initial survey recruited 317 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. The individual submissions generated 46 indicative questions. 69% of the respondents were people with PsA, and 15% were friends, relatives, or carers of someone affected by PsA. In the second survey, 422 respondents, of whom 82% were people with PsA, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties;18 of these questions were shortlisted and taken forward to the final online workshop. In the last stage, people with PsA, carers, and healthcare professionals met and reached a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities (Table 1). Conclusion The top 10 priorities identified will guide PsA research, ensuring that PsA researchers and those who fund research know the most urgent needs of people living with PsA, their families and carers, and those treating people with PsA. (Table Presented).