Autor(es):
Mathew, A. J. ; Lund, M. L. ; Pedersen, M. P. ; Rasmussen, S. H. ; Glintborg, B. ; Loft, A. G. ; Nissen, M. J. ; Möller, B. ; Rodrigues, A. M. ; Santos, F. P. ; Rotar, Z. ; Tomšič, M. ; Relas, H. ; Peltomaa, R. ; Gudbjornsson, B. ; Löve, T. J. ; Kocaer, S. B. ; Koken Avsar, A. ; Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, L. ; Østergaard, M.
Data: 2024
Identificador Persistente: http://hdl.handle.net/10362/167903
Origem: Repositório Institucional da UNL
Assunto(s): Rheumatology; Immunology and Allergy; Immunology
Descrição
Funding Information: The EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network was financially supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis did not influence data collection, statistical analyses, manuscript preparation or decision to submit the manuscript. The outline of was drawn by Mr Rajkumar, Department of Anatomy, Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Objective: To explore the registration of enthesitis among biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment across 12 European registries, compare the disease burden and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients with and without enthesitis, and assess the enthesitis treatment response. Method: Demographics, clinical characteristics, and PROs at first TNFi (TNFi-1) initiation (baseline) were assessed in patients with PsA, diagnosed by a rheumatologist, with versus without assessment of entheses and between those with versus without enthesitis. Enthesitis scores and resolution frequency were identified at follow-up. Results: Of 10 547 patients in the European Spondyloarthritis (EuroSpA) Research Collaboration Network initiating TNFi, 1357 underwent evaluation for enthesitis. Eight registries included a validated scoring system for enthesitis. At baseline, 874 patients underwent entheses assessment [Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) 485 patients, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) 389 patients]. Enthesitis was detected by MASES in 170/485 (35%, mean score ± sd 3.1 ± 2.4) and by SPARCC in 236/389 (61%, 4 ± 3.4). Achilles enthesitis was most frequent, by both MASES (unilateral/bilateral 28%/9%) and SPARCC (48%/18%). MASES/SPARCC baseline and follow-up scores for TNFi-1 were available for 100/105 patients. Of these, 63 patients (63%) (MASES) and 46 (43.8%) (SPARCC) achieved resolution of enthesitis. The site-specific enthesitis resolution was overall lower at SPARCC sites (peripheral; 63–80%) than at MASES sites (mainly axial; 82–100%) following TNFi-1. Disease activity and PROs were worse in patients with versus without enthesitis. Conclusion: Entheseal assessments are only registered in a minority of patients with PsA in routine care. When assessed, enthesitis was common, and a substantial proportion demonstrated resolution following treatment with TNFi-1.
