The Need to Define Musculoskeletal Inflammation: A Report from the GRAPPA 2010 Annual Meeting

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMIT GARG ◽  
DAFNA D. GLADMAN ◽  
PHILIP J. MEASE
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Disease Classification ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Diagnostic Measure ◽  
Breakout Group

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a form of spondyloarthritis, a group of conditions that share a spectrum of components including arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and spine inflammation. In PsA, however, the unpredictable, heterogeneous, and often insidious involvement of joints or juxtaarticular tendons and ligaments can sometimes make clinical recognition of the disease a challenge. Underrecognition of PsA may be due to the absence of a single sensitive and specific diagnostic measure. Although the ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria introduced in 2006 have improved disease classification, they are designed to be applied to cases already diagnosed with inflammatory arthritis. Therefore, in order for these criteria to be applied, the clinician is required to recognize the presence of inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, or spondylitis. At the 2010 annual meeting of GRAPPA (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis), the need to define inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and spondylitis, especially for nonrheumatologists, was discussed. Conclusions from breakout group discussions are summarized.

On Defining Musculoskeletal Inflammation: A Report from the GRAPPA 2011 Annual Meeting

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (11) ◽  
pp. 2214-2215 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMIT GARG ◽  
DAFNA D. GLADMAN ◽  
PHILIP J. MEASE
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Classification Criteria ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disease ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Diagnostic Measure ◽  
Breakout Group

At the 2011 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), members discussed the need to develop a framework for defining inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and spondylitis, particularly as they relate to psoriatic arthritis (PsA). GRAPPA members first addressed this subject at their 2010 meeting, where the CASPAR (ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis) criteria were discussed. Although these are classification criteria, the CASPAR are also often applied as a diagnostic measure by clinicians screening for PsA, particularly its core criterion: recognizing the presence of inflammatory musculoskeletal disease. In breakout group discussions, GRAPPA members discussed the difficulties in recognizing overlapping or mimicking features that may result in underdiagnosing or misdiagnosing PsA.

Arthritis Mutilans: A Report from the GRAPPA 2012 Annual Meeting

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1419-1422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Chandran ◽  
Dafna D. Gladman ◽  
Philip S. Helliwell ◽  
Björn Gudbjörnsson
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Severe Form ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
Epidemiological Research ◽  
Breakout Group ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Arthritis Mutilans ◽  
Broad Consensus

Arthritis mutilans is often described as the most severe form of psoriatic arthritis. However, a widely agreed on definition of the disease has not been developed. At the 2012 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), members hoped to agree on a definition of arthritis mutilans and thus facilitate clinical and molecular epidemiological research into the disease. Members discussed the clinical features of arthritis mutilans and definitions used by researchers to date; reviewed data from the ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis study, the Nordic psoriatic arthritis mutilans study, and the results of a premeeting survey; and participated in breakout group discussions. Through this exercise, GRAPPA members developed a broad consensus on the features of arthritis mutilans, which will help us develop a GRAPPA-endorsed definition of arthritis mutilans.

scholarly journals Review of the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group at OMERACT 12: A Report from the GRAPPA 2014 Annual Meeting

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 1048-1051 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Tillett ◽  
Lihi Eder ◽  
Niti Goel ◽  
Maarten de Wit ◽  
Alexis Ogdie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Group Discussions ◽  
The Core ◽  
Breakout Group ◽  
Core Set

At the 2014 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the psoriatic arthritis (PsA) working group of OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) presented a review of the progress made at the OMERACT 12 meeting, held in 2014. Members of the PsA OMERACT working group presented work from the Patient Involvement in Outcome Measures for PsA initiative to improve the incorporation of patient research partners in PsA outcomes research, the results of discussions within the OMERACT breakout groups, and finally the voting results. The OMERACT 12 participants had endorsed the need to update the PsA core set according to the Filter 2.0 framework. The breakout group discussions identified potential opportunities for revising the core set, including consolidating existing redundancy within the core set, improving incorporation of the patient perspective, and including disease effects such as fatigue as a core criterion. GRAPPA members of the OMERACT working group now have a program of research to update the core set with the goal of seeking endorsement at OMERACT 13, to be held in 2016.

Distinguishing Inflammatory from Noninflammatory Arthritis, Enthesitis, and Dactylitis in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2010 Annual Meeting: Table 1.

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-417 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHILIP J. MEASE
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disease ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Key Variables

The most widely applied criteria for classifying psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are the CASPAR (ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis) criteria. A patient who fulfills the CASPAR criteria must have evidence of inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, or spondylitis, and may have an inflammatory musculoskeletal component, dactylitis. Although the criteria were developed by rheumatologists, not all patients with PsA are seen by rheumatologists. Thus, it is important for clinicians such as dermatologists, primary care providers, physiatrists, and orthopedists, and patients themselves, to be able to recognize the presence of inflammatory musculoskeletal disease and distinguish it from degenerative or traumatic musculoskeletal disease. At their 2010 annual meeting, members of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) discussed the steps they are taking to define the key variables that must be present to distinguish inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis from degenerative, traumatic, mechanical, or infectious forms of these conditions.

Development of Simple Clinical Criteria for the Definition of Inflammatory Arthritis, Enthesitis, Dactylitis, and Spondylitis: A Report from the GRAPPA 2012 Annual Meeting

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1442-1445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Mease ◽  
Amit Garg ◽  
Dafna D. Gladman ◽  
Philip S. Helliwell
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Inflammatory Disease ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Nominal Group Technique ◽  
Nominal Group ◽  
Clinical Criteria ◽  
Expert Clinician ◽  
Primary Care Clinicians ◽  
Definition Of

Dermatologist and primary care clinicians are in an ideal position to identify the emergence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis. Yet these clinicians are not well trained to distinguish inflammatory musculoskeletal disease from other more common problems such as osteoarthritis, traumatic or degenerative tendonitis and back pain, or fibromyalgia. A simple set of clinical criteria to identify inflammatory disease would aid recognition of PsA. At its 2012 annual meeting, the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) discussed development of evidence-based, practical, and reliable definitions of inflammatory arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and spondylitis. This project will be a sequential process of expert clinician nominal-group technique, patient surveys and focus groups, and Delphi exercises to identify core features of inflammatory disease, testing these in a small group of patients with and without inflammatory disease, and finally validating these criteria in larger groups of patients.

Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE) Questionnaire and the Role of Dermatologists: A Report from the GRAPPA 2009 Annual Meeting: Table 1.

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 548-550 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICK DOMINGUEZ ◽  
M. ELAINE HUSNI ◽  
AMIT GARG ◽  
ABRAR A. QURESHI
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Physical Disability ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Diagnosis And Treatment ◽  
Major Focus ◽  
Delay In Diagnosis ◽  
Erosive Arthropathy

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis, often with a variable course that ranges from slowly progressive to rapidly destructive. Delay in diagnosis and treatment may lead to an irreversible erosive arthropathy, leading further to physical disability and deformity. The Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE) tool was developed and validated to help dermatologists screen more effectively for PsA; recently, it has been undergoing further validation. An update on the continuing experience with the PASE questionnaire, along with a discussion of why dermatologists have a critical role in screening for PsA, was a major focus of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) annual meeting at Stockholm, Sweden, in June 2009.

The Path Forward to Biomarker Discovery in Psoriatic Disease: A Report from the GRAPPA 2010 Annual Meeting

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 434-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAFNA D. GLADMAN ◽  
CHRISTOPHER T. RITCHLIN ◽  
OLIVER FITZGERALD
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Biomarker Discovery ◽  
Clinical Phenotype ◽  
Inception Cohort ◽  
Psoriatic Disease ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Biomarker Research

At the 2010 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), wide-ranging discussions were held regarding biomarker research in psoriatic disease. Consensus was reached on 2 areas of priority: (1) the study of soluble biomarkers of radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); and (2) the analysis of comorbidity biomarkers, specifically cardiovascular and articular, in a psoriasis inception cohort. For each of these areas, rigorous definition of the clinical phenotype of PsA will be essential. To date, 2 instruments have been identified to define the phenotype: the ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis criteria and various screening questionnaires. In this overview, we discuss the challenges of the clinical phenotype of PsA and review GRAPPA plans for developing a research program for biomarker discovery.

scholarly journals POS0208 GENDER DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSE TO BIOLOGICALS. WOMEN FARE WORSE ACROSS INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS DISEASES - DATA FROM THE BIOREG

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 320.1-321
Author(s):  
E. Loibner ◽  
V. Ritschl ◽  
B. Leeb ◽  
P. Spellitz ◽  
G. Eichbauer-Sturm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Gender Difference ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Tnf Inhibitors ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
All Diseases

Background:Gender differences in prevalence and disease course are known in various rheumatic diseases; however, investigations of gender difference concerning therapeutical response have yielded variable results.Objectives:The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate, whether a gender difference in response rate to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and apremilast in bDMARD-naïve patients could be observed across the three most prevalent inflammatory arthritis diseases: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondylarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Additionally, a response to individual TNF blockers was investigated in this respect.Methods:Data from bDMARD-naïve RA-, SpA- and PsA-patients from Bioreg, the Austrian registry for biological DMARDs in rheumatic diseases, were used. Patients with a baseline (Visit 1=V1) and follow-up visits at 6 months (Visit 2=V2) and 12 months (Visit 3=V3) were included and response to therapy with TNF-inhibitors (TNFi), furthermore to therapy with rituximab, tocilizumab and apremilast was analyzed according to gender. The remaining bDMARDs were not analyzed due to small numbers. Key response-parameter for RA was disease activity score (DAS28), whereas for PsoA the Stockerau Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (SASPA) and for SpA the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) were employed; in addition, the Health assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was used. Data were analyzed in R Statistic stratified by gender using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests.Results:354 women and 123 men with RA (n=477), 81 women and 69 men with PsA (n=150), 121 women and 191 men with SpA (n=312) were included. No significant differences in biometrics was seen between female and male patients at baseline in all diseases.In RA patients overall DAS28 decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (DAS28: V1: male: 4.38 [3.66, 5.11], female: 4.30 [3.68, 5.03], p(m/f) = 0.905; V2: male: 2.66 [1.73, 3.63], female: 3.10 [2.17, 3.98], p(m/f) = 0.015; V3: male: 2.25 [1.39, 3.36], female: 3.01 [1.87, 3.87], p(m/f) = 0.002). For TNF inhibitors (n=311), there was a significant difference between genders at V2 (Fig.1a). Patients receiving Rituximab (n=41) displayed a significantly higher DAS28 at baseline in females, which diminished in the follow up: V1: (p(m/f) p=0.002; V2: p=0.019; V3: p=0.13); response to tocilizumab (n=63) did not show any gender differences.In PsA patients overall SASPA decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (SASPA: V1: male: 4.00 [2.80, 5.20], female: 4.40 [2.80, 5.80], p(m/f) = 0.399; V2: male: 2.20 [1.20, 3.50], female: 3.40 [2.00, 5.00], p(m/f) = 0.071; V3: male: 1.80 [0.80, 2.70], female: 3.01 [2.35, 4.80], p(m/f) = 0.001). For TNF inhibitors (n=79), there was a significant difference between genders at V3 (Fig 1a). For Apremilast (n=39), there was a significant difference between genders at V2 (Fig.1c).In SpA patients overall BASDAI decreased from baseline (V1) to V2 and V3 (BASDAI: V1: male: 4.70 [2.88, 6.18], female: 4.80 [3.30, 6.20], p(m/f) = 0.463; V2: male: 3.05 [2.00, 4.60], female: 3.64 [2.62, 5.41], p(m/f) = 0.039; V3: male: 3.02 [1.67, 4.20], female: 3.65 [2.18, 5.47], p(m/f) = 0.016). In V3 a differential BASDAI in response to TNFi (n=299) was observed (Fig.1a).Possible differences of response to individual TNFi (etanercept, infliximab, other TNFi) measured by HAQ were investigated in all diseases together. The difference between male and females was significant at baseline for all 3 TNFi; whereas with the use of ETA the significant difference was carried through to V2 and V3, it was lost with the use of IFX and was variable with the other TNFi (Fig.1b)Figure 1.Conclusion:Female patients showed a statistically lower response to TNFi in all three disease entities (RA, SpA and PsoA) to a variable degree in our homogenous central european population. Interestingly, the difference was not uniform across individual TNFi when measured by HAQ. Gender differences were also seen in response to Apremilast.Disclosure of Interests:Elisabeth Loibner: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared, Burkhard Leeb Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Actiopharm, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Kwizda, Celgene, Sandoz, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Grant/research support from: TRB, Roche, Consultancies: AbbVie, Amgen, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Kwizda, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz;, Peter Spellitz: None declared, Gabriela Eichbauer-Sturm: None declared, Jochen Zwerina: None declared, Manfred Herold: None declared, Miriam Stetter: None declared, Rudolf Puchner Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Kwizda, MSD, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Pfizer, Celgene, Grünenthal, Eli-Lilly, Franz Singer: None declared, Ruth Fritsch-Stork: None declared

scholarly journals AB1271 PATIENT EDUCATION IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: A SERVICE EVALUATION AT ONE YEAR

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1926.2-1927
Author(s):  
K. Austin ◽  
R. Prasad
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Support Group ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
World Health ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Education Session ◽  
The World

Background:Recent studies have demonstrated an increasing burden of musculoskeletal (MSK) diseases worldwide.1The importance of patient education (PE) is often overlooked in the management of long term inflammatory conditions. The European League Against Rheumatism recommends that PE should be integral to standard of care in inflammatory arthritis.2PE increases patients’ knowledge, skills and confidence in managing their condition and improves patient activation (PA). Evidence shows that improved PA results in better outcomes and improved experiences of care. We previously reported on improved knowledge and confidence amongst a small patient group with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who had attended a pilot education session.3This education session was delivered to a wider group of patients with PsA over a 12 month period; we report on the evaluation received from this service.Objectives:To provide a PE programme to a wider group of patients with PsA, using a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) approach and to evaluate whether this improved patients’ knowledge, skills and confidence in managing their PsA.Methods:Adult patients with PsA attending their rheumatology clinic appointments were invited to a 2.5 hour MDT education session which covered: 1) a general overview of PsA; 2) medications used in PsA; 3) the role of physiotherapy and occupational therapy; 4) flares and self- management. These were interactive sessions, held in a small group setting to allow for informal discussion and questions to the MDT. Written materials including several booklets and online resources were also provided. Patients evaluated their knowledge or understanding before and after each topic covered, on the same day, using an evaluation tool with1-10 Likert scale items. Changes in ratings were analysed using student’s t-tests. Patients were also asked: which aspects they found particularly helpful; if there was anything they would like to have added/ have more of in the session; whether they found the session helpful; whether they would recommend it to other patients; whether they would be interested in developing a PsA patient support group.Results:Four sessions were held over a 12 month period. A total of 32 patients attended; 10 males and 22 females, across a range of age categories. Disease duration varied from less than1 year to over 10 years. There were statistically significant improvements in all topics covered: mean improvement of 91% in how well informed patients felt about PsA overall (p<0.0001); mean improvement of 74% in confidence in accessing help from the MDT (p<0.0001); mean improvement of 122% in how well informed patients were about medications used in PsA (p<0.0001); mean improvement of 99% in patients’ confidence in self-managing a flare (p<0.0001). Aspects that patients found particularly helpful included “The whole session”, “Asking questions to all different professionals”, “Meeting other sufferers”, “Management of flares”, “Fatigue information” and “Online resources”. Overall, 97% of patients (31 out of 32) found the session helpful and would recommend it to others. Over 40% of patients expressed interest in developing a local PsA support group.Conclusion:Following a 2.5 hour education session, improved knowledge, skills and confidence in managing their PsA was reported by 97% of patients, including patients with disease duration of > 10 years. This supports our previous finding that an interactive, group PsA education programme is a feasible and important adjunct to patient care.References:[1]Sebbag E, Felten R, Sagez F, et al. The world-wide burden of musculoskeletal diseases: a systematic analysis of the World Health Organization Burden of Diseases Database. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2019;78:844-848.[2]Zangi HA, Ndosi M, Adams J, et al. EULAR recommendations for patient education for people with inflammatory arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74(6):954-62[3]Austin K, Jones N, Prasad R. Patient Education in psoriatic arthritis: addressing an unmet need. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(suppl 2):A2134.Disclosure of Interests:Keziah Austin: None declared, Roopa Prasad Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees for Celgene, honorarium from Merck, advisory board fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb; all unrelated to the contents of this abstract.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of a single switch from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar in a cohort of inflammatory arthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Chiara Ditto ◽  
Simone Parisi ◽  
Marta Priora ◽  
Silvia Sanna ◽  
Clara Lisa Peroni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Inflammatory Arthritis ◽  
Health Assessment Questionnaire ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Clinical State ◽  
Assessment Questionnaire

Abstract AntiTNF-α biosimilars are broadly available for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. There are a lot of data concerning the maintenance of clinical efficacy after switching from originators to biosimilars; therefore, such a transition is increasingly encouraged both in the US and Europe. However, there are reports about flares and adverse events (AE) as a non-medical switch remains controversial due to ethical and clinical implications (efficacy, safety, tolerability). The aim of our work was to evaluate the disease activity trend after switching from etanercept originator (oETA-Enbrel) to its biosimilar (bETA-SP4/Benepali) in a cohort of patients in Turin, Piedmont, Italy. In this area, the switch to biosimilars is stalwartly encouraged. We switched 87 patients who were in a clinical state of stability from oETA to bETA: 48 patients were affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA),26 by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 13 by Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS).We evaluated VAS-pain, Global-Health, CRP, number of swollen and tender joints, Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28) for RA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) for PsA, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S),Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for AS patients. 11/85 patients (12.6%) stopped treatment after switching to biosimilar etanercept. No difference was found between oETA and bETA in terms of efficacy. However, some arthritis flare and AE were reported. Our data regarding maintenance of efficacy and percentage of discontinuation were in line with the existing literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document