The relationship between patient acceptable symptom state and disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis

Relationship between patient acceptable symptom state and disease scores in psoriasis

Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a patient-reported outcome that reflects patients' perspective well. The relationship between the PASS and disease scores in psoriasis has not been described. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association of PASS with Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and body surface area (BSA) affected by lesions in patients with psoriasis. A sectional study was conducted. PASS was evaluated by a binary question on the patient's feeling that they have about their symptoms. Clinical data including PASI, BSA, and other patient characteristics were collected. Logistic regression was used to investigate the associations. Receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis was utilized to determine the PASI/BSA thresholds for PASS. A total of 198 participants (27.8% female, mean age 41.9 ± 12.6 years, mean disease duration 10.2 ± 8.6 years) completed this study. Of patients with mild psoriasis, 71.4% based on PASI and 76.3% based on BSA considered their symptom state acceptable. Female sex (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI = 0.42-0.92) and patients with exposed skin involved (adjusted OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.19-0.76) were less likely to report acceptable symptom state. The threshold for differentiating psoriasis patients in PASS was 3.85 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67; sensitivity, 0.67; specificity, 0.60) for PASI and 2.85% (AUC, 0.66; sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.54) for BSA, respectively. These results showed that mild psoriasis based on PASI/BSA score align well with PASS status. Female and exposed skin involved are risk factors for acceptable status. Both PASI and BSA have limited capability in differentiating acceptable symptom state in psoriasis.

2021 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis. Colombian Association of Rheumatology

BACKGROUND

Peripheral spondyloarthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which clinical presentation is related to the presence of arthritis, enthesitis and/or dactylitis. This term is used interchangeably with some of its subtypes such as psoriatic arthritis, reactive arthritis, and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and formulate a set of specific recommendations based on the best available evidence for the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of adult patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis.

METHODS

A working group was established, clinical questions were formulated, outcomes were graded, and a systematic search for evidence was conducted. The guideline panel was multidisciplinary (including patient representatives) and balanced. Following the formal expert consensus method, the GRADE methodology "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" was used to assess the quality of the evidence and generate the recommendations. The Clinical Practice Guideline includes ten recommendations; related to monitoring of disease activity (n = 1) and treatment (n = 9).

RESULTS

In patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis, the use of methotrexate or sulfasalazine as the first line of treatment is suggested, and local injections of glucocorticoids is recommended conditionally. In patients with failure to cDMARDs, an anti TNFα or an anti IL17A is recommended. In case of failure to bDMARDs, it is suggested to use another bDMARD or JAK inhibitor. In patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis associated to inflammatory bowel disease, it is recommended to start treatment with cDMARDs; in the absence of response, the use of an anti TNFα over an anti-IL-17 or an anti-IL-12-23 is recommended as a second line of treatment. In patients with psoriatic arthritis, the combined use of methotrexate with bDMARD is conditionally recommended for optimization of dosing. To assess disease activity in Psoriatic Arthritis, the use of DAPSA or MDA is suggested for patient monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

This set of recommendations provides an updated guide on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral spondyloarthritis.

Using the patient-acceptable symptom state to evaluate patients' perspectives of living with psoriasis: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Taking the perspectives of patients into consideration is of the utmost importance when defining treatment goals for psoriasis. The patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a dichotomised question that captures patients' perceptions of their overall health state.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate PASS and determine the factors associated with a satisfactory PASS for psoriatic patients.

METHODS

Three questions were asked: (Q1) Considering the ways that your skin symptoms affect your functioning, is your current skin psoriasis satisfactory? (Current PASS), (Q2) Considering the ways that your psoriasis is affecting you, if you were to remain in this state for the next few months, would this be satisfactory? (Future PASS) and (Q3) If you were to remain for the rest of your life as you were during the last 48 hours, would this be satisfactory? (Lifelong PASS). Disease severity, symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were collected.

RESULTS

Of 140 patients, 74.3%, 70.0% and 85.7% expressed satisfaction with their current, future and lifelong skin psoriasis conditions respectively. A satisfactory PASS was significantly associated with older and married patients; lower disease severity; fewer skin symptoms; and a higher HRQoL. A multivariate analysis revealed that the independent factors associated with a satisfactory PASS were being older than 40 years, being married, practising meditation, not having extensive lesions at sensitive areas and having a high HRQoL.

CONCLUSIONS

PASS is a simple and easily administered questionnaire that reflects both disease severity and HRQoL. Understanding patients' needs and satisfaction levels will result in better care for psoriatic patients than otherwise.

Safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 treatment with nebulized and/or intravenous neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone: A randomized, open-label, controlled trial

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently the major public health problem worldwide. Neutral electrolyzed saline solution that contains reactive chlorine and oxygen species may be an effective therapeutic. In the present study, the treatment efficacy of intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care vs. usual medical care alone was evaluated in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. A prospective, 2-arm, parallel-group, randomized, open-label, multi-center, phase I-II clinical trial including 214 patients was performed. The following two outcomes were evaluated during the 20-day follow-up: i) The number of patients with disease progression; and ii) the patient acceptable symptom state. Serial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 naso/oro-pharyngeal detection by reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q) PCR was performed in certain patients of the experimental group. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were also evaluated in the experimental group. The experimental treatment decreased the risk of hospitalization by 89% [adjusted relative risk (RR)=0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.37, P<0.001] and the risk of death by 96% (adjusted RR=0.04, 95% CI: 0.01-0.42, P=0.007) and also resulted in an 18-fold higher probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR=18.14, 95% CI: 7.29-45.09, P<0.001), compared with usual medical care alone. Overall, neutral electrolyzed saline solution was better than usual medical care alone. Of the patients analyzed, >50% were negative for the virus as detected by RT-qPCR in naso/oro-pharyngeal samples on day 4, with only a small number of positive patients on day 6. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, aberrant monocytes and increased lymphocytes and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated and a decrease in cortisol levels and an increase in the testosterone-cortisol ratio were observed on days 2 and 4. The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, neutral electrolyzed saline solution markedly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression in ambulatory patients with COVID-19. The present clinical trial was registered in the Cuban public registry of clinical trials (RPCEC) database (May 5, 2020; no. TX-COVID19: RPCEC00000309).

A clinical and radiographic comparison of patients with psoriatic arthritis from different ethnic backgrounds

OBJECTIVES

There are few papers concerning ethnic differences in disease expression in PsA, which may be influenced by a number of genetic, lifestyle and cultural factors. This article aims to compare clinical and radiographic phenotypes in people of South Asian (SA) and North European (NE) origin with a diagnosis of PsA.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study recruiting patients of SA and NE origin from two hospitals in a well-defined area in the North of England.

RESULTS

A total of 58 SA and 48 NE patients were recruited. SA patients had a more severe clinical phenotype with more tender (median 5 vs 2) and swollen (median 1 vs 0) joints, more severe enthesitis (median 3 vs 1.5), more patients with dactylitis (24% vs 8%), more severe skin disease (median PASI 2.2 vs 1) and worse disease activity as measured by the composite Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (mean 4.5 vs 3.6). With regards to patient-completed measures, SA patients had worse impact with poorer quality of life and function (mean HAQ 0.9 vs 0.6; mean PsAQoL 10.8 vs 6.2; mean 36-item short form physical component score 33.5 vs 38.9). No significant differences in current MTX and biologics use were found.

CONCLUSIONS

SA patients had a worse clinical phenotype and worse impact of disease than NE patients. Further studies are needed to confirm and explore the reasons behind these differences.

Assessment of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) in psoriatic arthritis: association with disease activity and quality of life indices

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the discriminant capability of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) according to disease activity, remission/low disease activity indices and quality of life indices in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods

Consecutive patients with PsA were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. At each visit, the patients underwent a complete physical examination and their clinical/laboratory data were collected. Disease activity was assessed using the Disease Activity Score for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and remission/low disease activity using the DAPSA minimal disease activity (MDA) and very low disease activity (VLDA) criteria. The Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores were also collected. Finally, PASS was assessed by asking all patients to answer yes or no to a single question.

Results

Patients who answered yes to PASS showed a significantly better overall mean DAPSA score than those who were not in PASS. Furthermore, patients in PASS showed a significantly lower level of systemic inflammation, lower Leeds Enthesitis Index score, a significantly lower impact of disease (PsAID), lower pain and better function than patients who answered no to PASS. A moderate to good agreement was found between PASS, MDA, DAPSA low disease activity and PsAID score ≤4. Good sensitivity and specificity were found with PASS with respect to DAPSA low disease activity, and although PASS is sensitive in the identification of patients with MDA, DAPSA remission and VLDA it lacks of specificity.

Discussion

This study showed that PASS might be used as an alternative to determine disease activity in patients with PsA in real clinical practice, mainly in patients with low disease activity according to DAPSA criteria.

Relationships between psoriatic arthritis composite measures of disease activity with patient-reported outcomes in phase 3 studies of tofacitinib

Background

In psoriatic arthritis (PsA), further understanding of the relationships between clinical measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is needed. This post hoc analysis evaluated associations between minimal disease activity (MDA) as a continuous outcome (termed ScoreMDA) or Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) with selected PROs not included in the composite measures.

Methods

Data from two phase 3 studies of tofacitinib in PsA (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668; N = 422]; OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439; N = 394]) were included. MDA (binary outcome) was defined as meeting ≥5/7 criteria. For ScoreMDA, each criterion was assigned a value (1 = true; 0 = false; score range, 0–7; scores ≥5 indicated MDA). For PASDAS (score range, 0–10), higher scores indicated worse disease activity. PROs analyzed included Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Patient’s Assessment of Arthritis Pain visual analog scale (Pain VAS), and EuroQoL-Five Dimensions-Three Level Health Questionnaire visual analog scale (EQ-5D-3L VAS) and utility index. Relationships were evaluated using repeated measures regression models.

Results

Similar, approximately linear relationships were confirmed between PASDAS or ScoreMDA and PROs in both studies. In OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond, a one-point difference in PASDAS was associated with clinically relevant differences in PROs, including EQ-5D-3L VAS (− 6.7 mm, − 6.9 mm), Pain VAS (9.9 mm, 10.7 mm), and FACIT-F (− 2.8, − 3.3). A one-point difference in ScoreMDA was associated with clinically relevant differences in PROs, including EQ-5D-3L VAS (5.0 mm, 5.5 mm) and FACIT-F (1.9, 2.7) in OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond, respectively.

Conclusions

Linear associations between PASDAS or ScoreMDA and PROs provide interpretable and quantifiable metrics between composite clinical measures and PROs, highlighting the importance of these measures in understanding the relevance of treat-to-target goals in PsA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01877668. Registered on June 12, 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01882439. Registered on June 18, 2013

Patient-Reported Health Outcomes After Treatment of COVID-19 with Nebulized and/or Intravenous Neutral Electrolyzed Saline Combined with Usual Medical Care Versus Usual Medical care alone: A Randomized, Open-Label, Controlled Trial

Background:

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is currently the main public health problem worldwide. The administration of neutral electrolyzed saline, a solution that contains reactive species of chlorine and oxygen (ROS), may be an effective therapeutic alternative due to its immunomodulating characteristics, in systemic inflammation control, as well as in immune response improvement, promoting control of the viral infection. The present study evaluated the efficacy of treatment with intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline combined with usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, in ambulatory patients with COVID-19.

Methods:

A prospective, 2-arm, parallel group, randomized, open-label, phase I-II clinical trial included 39 patients in the control group (usual medical care alone) and 45 patients in the experimental group (usual medical care + intravenous and/or nebulized electrolyzed saline, with dose escalation). Two aspects were evaluated during the twenty-day follow-up: i) the number of patients with disease progression (hospitalization or death); and ii) the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), a single-question outcome that determines patient well-being thresholds for pain and function. Biochemical and hematologic parameters, as well as adverse effects, were evaluated in the experimental group.

Results:

The experimental treatment decreased the risk for hospitalization by 92% (adjusted RR=0.08, 95% CI: 0.01–0.50, P=0.007), with a 43-fold increase in the probability of achieving an acceptable symptom state on day 5 (adjusted RR= 42.96, 95% CI: 9.22–200.0, P<0.001). Intravenous + nebulized administration was better than nebulized administration alone, but nebulized administration was better than usual medical care alone. Clinical improvement correlated with a decrease in C-reactive protein, and aberrant monocytes and an increase of lymphocytes, and platelets. Cortisol and testosterone levels were also evaluated, observing a decrease in cortisol levels and an increment of testosterone-cortisol ratio, on days 2 and 4.

Conclusions:

The experimental treatment produced no serious adverse effects. In conclusion, intravenous and/or nebulized neutral electrolyzed saline importantly reduced the symptomatology and risk of progression (hospitalization and death), in ambulatory patients with COVID-19.

Trial registration:

Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000309. Registered: 05. May 2020. https://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000309-En