Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Tools Research Articles

[Translated article] Validation of the Spanish Version of the PURE-4 Questionnaire for the Early Detection of Psoriatic Arthritis in Psoriatic Patients

Background and objectivePsoriasis often precedes the onset of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), so dermatologists often face the challenge of early identifying signs of PsA in patients with psoriasis. Our aim was to validate the Spanish version of the PURE-4 questionnaire as a screening tool for PsA, evaluate its performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, feasibility, reliability, and build validity. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter trial of adult patients with psoriasis. Initially, patients were assessed by a dermatologist and completed 2 self-administered versions (in print and online) of the PURE-4 questionnaire. Afterwards, the rheumatologist, blinded to the PURE-4 results, assessed the presence/absence of PsA, being the reference to determine the performance of the PURE-4 questionnaire. ResultsA total of 268 patients were included (115 [42.9%] women; mean age, 47.1±12.6). The prevalence of PsA according to rheumatologist diagnosis was 12.7% (34 patients). The mean PURE-4 score for patients with psoriasis diagnosed with PsA was 2.3±1.1, and 1.3±1.3 for patients without PsA (P<.001). The cutoff value ≥2 demonstrated the best performance for detecting PsA, with a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.3-97.6). ConclusionsThe PURE-4 questionnaire demonstrated good performance in detecting PsA, with an optimal cutoff point ≥2. This simple tool could facilitate early referral of patients to the rheumatology unit.

Successful Screening of Undiagnosed Psoriatic Arthritis in Primary Care Utilising Digital Interventions Within a Quality Improvement Programme

Background: Despite the advancements in the management of psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), there remains a significant delay to diagnosis of PsA. National guidelines recommend regular screening of patients with PsO for PsA. The aim of this study was to increase the screening of patients with PsO, and reduce the delay to diagnosis in PsA. Methods: A retrospective baseline audit was conducted in patients with PsO attending a large general practice (Brookside Group Practice, Reading, UK) between November 2022–April 2023. In the follow-up stage between May–November 2023, a digital Egton Medical Information System (EMIS; Emis Health, Rawdon, Leeds, UK) web template, using the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) questionnaire was implemented. The number of patients with PsO screened for PsA, and the number of newly diagnosed PsA cases, were recorded. Results: At baseline, 15 patients with PsO were identified, and none had PsA screening done. In the follow-up phase, 28 patients coded for PsO were identified. There was an increase in the number of patients screened for PsO from 15 to 28, representing an increase of 87% from baseline. From the follow-up group, 12 (43%) patients were screened for PsA. These patients were referred to the specialist clinic, and seven (58%) had confirmed PsA. This represented a population of patients with previously undiagnosed PsA within the general practitioner (GP) surgery. Conclusions: The authors have successfully implemented an integrated and interactive digital screening tool for PsA within the GP system. This has led to an increase in the detection of patients with PsA. This practical and effective approach is in line with national guidelines for early detection, to prevent long-term damage and disability from PsA.

Successful Screening of Undiagnosed Psoriatic Arthritis in Primary Care Utilising Digital Interventions Within a Quality Improvement Programme

Background: Despite the advancements in the management of psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), there remains a significant delay to diagnosis of PsA. National guidelines recommend regular screening of patients with PsO for PsA. The aim of this study was to increase the screening of patients with PsO, and reduce the delay to diagnosis in PsA. Methods: A retrospective baseline audit was conducted in patients with PsO attending a large general practice (Brookside Group Practice, Reading, UK) between November 2022–April 2023. In the follow-up stage between May–November 2023, a digital Egton Medical Information System (EMIS; Emis Health, Rawdon, Leeds, UK) web template, using the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) questionnaire was implemented. The number of patients with PsO screened for PsA, and the number of newly diagnosed PsA cases, were recorded. Results: At baseline, 15 patients with PsO were identified, and none had PsA screening done. In the follow-up phase, 28 patients coded for PsO were identified. There was an increase in the number of patients screened for PsO from 15 to 28, representing an increase of 87% from baseline. From the follow-up group, 12 (43%) patients were screened for PsA. These patients were referred to the specialist clinic, and seven (58%) had confirmed PsA. This represented a population of patients with previously undiagnosed PsA within the general practitioner (GP) surgery. Conclusions: The authors have successfully implemented an integrated and interactive digital screening tool for PsA within the GP system. This has led to an increase in the detection of patients with PsA. This practical and effective approach is in line with national guidelines for early detection, to prevent long-term damage and disability from PsA.

Screening Tools for Spondyloarthritis in Patients With Psoriasis, Uveitis, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Scoping Review.

Extramusculoskeletal manifestations of spondyloarthritis (SpA) may precede the development of articular features. Patients seen in ophthalmology, dermatology, and gastroenterology clinics with uveitis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may have undiagnosed SpA. We set out to identify and evaluate screening tools for SpA in patients with psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD and determine factors that influence the performance of these instruments. This scoping review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to January 2022. We identified 13 screening tools for psoriatic arthritis, 2 SpA screening tools for uveitis, and 3 SpA screening tools for IBD. All screening tools were patient-oriented questionnaires except for the Dublin Uveitis Evaluation Tool, a physician-applied algorithm. The questionnaires varied in length, scoring method, cutoff score, and spectrum of included SpA features. Average completion time was less than five minutes. Across the three patient populations, the sensitivities and specificities of these screening tools were comparable in the primary validation cohorts. Sensitivities and specificities were generally lower in secondary validation studies, with marked variability among cohorts. Our results highlight the heterogeneity and limitations of existing SpA screening tools. Although these tools show promise for use within a specific target population, none are generalizable to all patients with extramusculoskeletal manifestations at risk of SpA. Future studies should explore the utility of a generic patient-oriented SpA screening tool that can be applied to patients with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD; is easy to use and comprehend; and captures all clinical domains of SpA.

Validación de la versión española del cuestionario PURE-4 para la detección precoz de la artritis psoriásica en pacientes con psoriasis

Background and objectivePsoriasis often precedes the onset of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), so dermatologists often face the challenge of early identifying signs of PsA in patients with psoriasis. Our aim was to validate the Spanish version of the PURE-4 questionnaire as a screening tool for PsA, evaluate its performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, feasibility, reliability, and build validity. MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, observational, multicenter trial of adult patients with psoriasis. Initially, patients were assessed by a dermatologist and completed 2 self-administered versions (in print and online) of the PURE-4 questionnaire. Afterwards, the rheumatologist, blinded to the PURE-4 results, assessed the presence/absence of PsA, being the reference to determine the performance of the PURE-4 questionnaire. ResultsA total of 268 patients were included (115 [42.9%] women; mean age, 47.1±12.6). The prevalence of PsA according to rheumatologist diagnosis was 12.7% (34 patients). The mean PURE-4 score for patients with psoriasis diagnosed with PsA was 2.3±1.1, and 1.3±1.3 for patients without PsA (P<.001). The cutoff value ≥2 demonstrated the best performance for detecting PsA, with a negative predictive value of 95.1% (95% confidence interval, 90.3-97.6). ConclusionsThe PURE-4 questionnaire demonstrated good performance in detecting PsA, with an optimal cutoff point ≥2. This simple tool could facilitate early referral of patients to the rheumatology unit.

Prologue: Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2022 Annual Meeting.

The 2022 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) was held from July 14 to 17, 2022, in New York City, New York, USA, and was attended by 420 rheumatologists, dermatologists, basic scientists, allied health professionals, patient research partners, and industry partners from 31 countries. A GRAPPA executive retreat, a Trainee Symposium, and the Patient Research Partners Network meeting were held prior to the annual meeting. Presentations included updates in basic research, focusing on biomarkers, personalization of treatments, and the promise of single-cell omics, elucidating the pathogenesis of psoriatic disease (PsD). Presentations also highlighted guttate and plaque psoriasis (PsO), the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its treatments on patients with PsD globally, and the effects of sex and gender in PsD. Reports of ongoing projects included an update on the recently published treatment recommendations, educational initiatives, and the Diagnostic Ultrasound Enthesitis Tool (DUET) study. A session on early identification of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) among patients with PsO included an update on PsA screening tools. Debates were held on whether early intervention for PsO will reduce PsA, whether interleukin (IL)-17 or IL-23 inhibition is a better treatment for PsO and PsA, similarities and differences between axial PsA and axial spondyloarthritis with PsO, and data affecting the understanding of guttate and plaque PsO. Reports from the International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) and Young GRAPPiAns concurrent sessions were presented in addition to reports of several other partner groups. Here, we highlight features of the annual meeting and introduce the manuscripts published together as a meeting report.

National Psoriasis Foundation Telemedicine Task Force guidance for management of psoriatic disease via telemedicine

Telemedicine emerged as an alternative care delivery system used to offer effective long-term management to patients with chronic, inflammatory conditions such as psoriatic disease. Teledermatology can provide reliable clinical information through thorough history-taking and virtual evaluations that include patient-provided images and disease activity assessment tools that may help accurately diagnose and manage patients with psoriasis. The integration of validated screening tools for psoriatic arthritis and effective teledermatology practices may improve access to specialists, thus avoiding preventable delays in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Although the provision of telehealthcare should not completely replace high quality, in-person dermatologic or rheumatologic visits, the convenience and collaborative nature of teledermatology may lead to expanded access and expedited care in the appropriate setting, whether it be in a virtual or in-person visit.

Assessment of the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen 2 as a Screening Tool for Psoriasis.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting multiple organ systems and resulting in reduced quality of life for many patients. A screening tool would be useful, particularly in underserviced or research settings with limited access to dermatologists. The Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen, version 2 (ToPAS 2) is a validated screening tool for psoriatic arthritis containing questions specific for psoriasis. To evaluate the performance of skin-specific questions from ToPAS 2 for the diagnosis of psoriasis. Participants aged >18 were recruited from Dermatology and Family Medicine clinics and completed the ToPAS 2 questionnaire prior to being examined by a dermatologist for psoriasis. Two scoring indexes were derived from the ToPAS 2 skin-related questions using backward selection regression models. Statistical analysis was performed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to measure their performances. Two hundred and fifty eight participants were recruited. 32 (12%) were diagnosed with psoriasis by dermatologist assessment. Index 1 includes all 5 skin-related questions from ToPAS 2, while Index 2 includes three of the five questions. Both indexes demonstrate high specificity (82% to 92%), sensitivity (69% to 84%), and excellent negative predictive value (NPV) (>95%) for a diagnosis of psoriasis. The overall discriminatory power of these models is 0.823 (Index 1) and 0.875 (Index 2). Skin-related questions from ToPAS 2 have discriminatory value in detecting psoriasis, specifically questions relating to a family history, a prior physician diagnosis of psoriasis or a rash consistent with images of plaque psoriasis. This study is a valuable step in developing a screening tool for psoriasis.

AB0566 CONSENSUS-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA

Background:Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory condition associated with psoriasis. The common clinical features of PsA include peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, spondylitis, skin and nail disease1. Considering the heterogeneous course of disease and the different patient characteristics, there is a need to standardize management of PsA patients. At present, no established guidelines are available on PsA care pathway in Saudi Arabia.Objectives:To provide consensus-based guidance to all Saudi health care providers (HCPs) on the management of PsA patients including referral pathway, definition of remission and treat-to-target approach.Methods:A Delphi technique was used to understand PsA patient care pathway. In first step, a targeted literature review was conducted and a survey questionnaire including 16 questions was developed to explore PsA patient journey. In second step, this questionnaire was submitted to 127 HCPs and 33 of them provided their response. In third step, a panel of 12 experts including 10 rheumatologists, 1 dermatologist and 1 general physician reviewed the available evidence along with survey results to align on final recommendations.Results:The most common management guidelines recommended for PsA were European League against Rheumatism (EULAR, 100% agreed) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR, 100% agreed). Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) was recommended by 67% of experts as validated screening tool for PsA in dermatology clinic. The laboratory investigations included were C-reactive protein (CRP, 100%), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, 100%), complete blood count (92%), urea and creatinine (92%), liver function (92%), rheumatoid factor (56%) and X-ray of affected joints (75%). For patients with additional symptoms of back pain, X-ray of sacroiliac joints and human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) test to be included. Only rheumatologists should recommend a magnetic resonance imaging based on the individual clinical picture. The agreement criteria for HCPs for referring patient to a rheumatologist were presence of psoriasis (100%) and one of the following features: dactylitis [100%], joint pain [100%], arthritis [100%], nail dystrophy [91%]. Patient with active arthritis should be referred to rheumatologist within 4 weeks. The referral pathway agreed by the experts for PsA patients is presented in Figure 1. Majority of experts (57%) defined clinical remission as absence of disease activity in all facets of disease assessed using the disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA) or minimal disease activity (MDA) index. For treat-to-target, 71% of experts agreed on EULAR recommendations2. For remission and treat-to-target, experts identified a need for more clear definition.Conclusion:This expert consensus aimed to provide guidance to Saudi HCPs on standardizing diagnosis and care of PsA patients. Most experts recommended PEST as validated screening tool for PsA along with laboratory investigations such as CRP, ESR, X-ray, etc. Referral to a rheumatologist should be considered for patient with presence of psoriasis and one of the other defining features for PsA. There is a need for more clear definition of remission and treat-to-target.

Psoriatic arthritis screening: A systematic literature review and experts' recommendations.

To analyze the performance of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) screening tools, examine their implementation in daily practice, and reach a consensus about the best screening tool for implementation in daily practice in different medical settings. A systematic literature review (SLR), structured telephone interviews to hospitals, and a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting were all conducted. The SLR employed sensitive search strategies using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020. Two reviewers independently selected articles that reported data on PsA screening tools and that included sufficient data to at least calculate the sensitivity and specificity of those tools (e.g., questionnaires, algorithms, specific questions, and biomarkers). The hospital interviews collected data regarding the process of suspected PsA diagnosis and referral to rheumatology, the implementation of PsA screening tools, and barriers and facilitators to implementation of those tools. In the nominal group meeting, a multidisciplinary team of experts discussed all these data and subsequently recommended a screening tool for implementation. The SLR included 41 moderate-quality studies that analyzed 14 PsA screening tools, most of which were questionnaire-based tools. All of these studies reported a moderate-good performance but presented different characteristics regarding the time to completion or the number and type of items or questions. The implementation of screening tools was low (30.5%). The experts ultimately recommended regular use of a PsA screening tool, preferably the PURE-4 questionnaire. The implementation of PsA screening tools like the PURE-4 questionnaire in daily practice likely improves the prognosis of PsA patients.

Evaluating the Persian versions of two psoriatic arthritis screening questionnaires early arthritis for psoriatic patients questionnaire (EARP) and psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) in Iranian psoriatic patients

Background/aimThe majority of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients present at dermatology clinics with cutaneous psoriasis up to 10 years prior to arthritis onset; therefore, applying a suitable screening tool to detect PsA early is essential for dermatologists. This study aimed to validate and evaluate the Persian version of two PsA screening questionnaires, the early arthritis for psoriatic patients questionnaire (EARP) and the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST) in Iranian psoriatic patients.Materials and methodsIn this cross-sectional study, psoriatic patients who presented to the dermatology clinic without a previously established PsA were asked to fill out the Persian version of EARP and PEST. PsA was diagnosed by a rheumatologist based on the fulfillment of the classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for both questionnaires.ResultsA total of 75 patients (33 [44%] female, 42 [56%] male, with a mean age of 43.2 ± 14.6) were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of PsA based on rheumatologist diagnosis was 25.3% (19 patients had PsA). The ROC curve analysis of EARP and PEST were 0.949 (95% CI: 0.897–1) and 0.922 (95% CI: 0.834–1). The sensitivity of EARP and PEST questionnaires was 94.7% and 58%, respectively, while the specificity was 78.6% and 96.4%, respectively, with a cut-off of 3.ConclusionThe Persian version of both questionnaires showed good performance. We suggest EARP as a screening tool for PsA in the dermatology clinics due to much higher sensitivity with acceptable specificity compared to PEST.

Validation of Sinhala version of Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) occurs in one-third of patients with psoriasis and mostly remains undetected leading to debilitating deforming arthritis, eventually. The Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) is a quick and valid tool, widely used to detect PsA in clinical practice, and it has been validated to many languages. In this study, we intended to validate a Sinhala version of the PEST and assess its psychometric properties. The Sinhala version of the questionnaire was tested on 199 patients with psoriasis attending the dermatology clinic at a tertiary care National Hospital in Sri Lanka. Patients who were detected to have PsA previously (n = 5) and those with other rheumatologic conditions (n = 12) were excluded. All patients were examined by a dermatologist, and demographic and disease characteristics were obtained. All patients were assessed by two rheumatologists who were blinded to the answers provided in the questionnaire. The diagnosis of PsA was made based on the CASPAR criteria. We observed the total PEST score of 3 or more to be the best cutoff value to screen for PsA. This cutoff value showed the highest Youden index (sensitivity = 0.89, specificity = 0.95). In the ROC analysis, the area under the curve of the PEST_sv was 0.95 (SE 0.02, p < 0.001). PEST_sv total score showed a significant correlation with body surface area involved but not with Dermatology Life Quality Index or Psoriasis area and severity index score. The Sinhala version of PEST demonstrated satisfactory performance as a screening tool for PsA. Key Points • Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is the most debilitating complication of psoriasis and lack of quick, valid screening tool is a limiting factor for early identification in Sri Lankan context. • Sinhala version of the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST_sv) was tested on 199 patients with psoriasis and examined for the diagnosis of PsA according to Classification of Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria. • PEST_sv score of 3 or more was observed to be the best cutoff value to screen for PsA with sensitivity and specificity of 0.89 and 0.95 respectively. • PEST_sv demonstrated satisfactory performance as a screening tool for PsA.

Cross-cultural validation and psychometric properties of the Brazilian Portuguese version of the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST-bp).

Although the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) questionnaire is a useful tool for screening patients for psoriatic arthritis (PsA), it has not been validated in Portuguese. Our aim was to perform a cross-cultural validation of the PEST for Brazilian Portuguese, as well as to analyse its psychometric properties and to test the association of PEST scores with patient clinical characteristics. The first step was the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the PEST questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese, which included forward translation, synthesis, back translation, consolidation with an expert panel and cognitive debriefing with pilot testing. The second step was validation and psychometric testing, in which 124 dermatology patients with no previous PsA diagnosis completed the new adapted questionnaire (PEST-bp). Patients were initially assessed by a dermatologist for clinical characteristics, then they answered the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and PEST-bp questionnaires. Afterwards, a rheumatologist, blind to former tests, evaluated the presence of PsA according to CASPAR criteria. The PEST-bp proved to be 0.81 accurate (95% CI: 0.73-0.88) in the ROC curve, indicating a cutoff score ≥ 3 as suggestive of PsA (sensitivity = 84.6%, specificity = 63.3%). The assessment of internal consistency, via the Cronbach test, presented a coefficient of 0.72 (acceptable). A higher PEST-bp score was positively associated with lower quality of life scores and with male patients. In conclusion, the PEST-bp questionnaire proved to be suitable as a screening tool for PsA in patients with psoriasis. Elevated PEST-bp scores are associated with decreased patient quality of life.

Utility of the Siriraj Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Tool, the Thai Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, and the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients Questionnaire to Screen for Psoriatic Arthritis in an Outpatient Dermatology Clinic Setting, and Identification of Factors Significantly Associated with Psoriatic Arthritis

Utility of the Siriraj Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Tool, the Thai Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, and the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients Questionnaire to Screen for Psoriatic Arthritis in an Outpatient Dermatology Clinic Setting, and Identification of Factors Significantly Associated with Psoriatic Arthritis

PP36 Early Diagnosis And Treatment Of Psoriatic Arthritis

Introduction:Screening for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is expected to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening tools for PsA in Canada.Methods:A Markov model was built to estimate the associated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in patients using topical treatment for psoriasis. The screening tools included: the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (ToPAS) questionnaire; the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST); the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE) questionnaire; and the Early ARthritis for Psoriatic patients (EARP) questionnaire. Health states were defined by disability levels, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and state transition was modeled according to annual disease progression. Screening was assumed to be effective during a 2-year sojourn period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated based on health-state specific costs and utilities. A probabilistic analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty. All results were compared with the commonly cited cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600) per additional QALY.Results:Screening with the ToPAS questionnaire resulted in cost savings compared with no screening or the EARP questionnaire, with a total cost of CAD 30,706 (USD 23,090) and 17.29 QALYs. The PEST dominated the PASE questionnaire and was more costly and more effective than the ToPAS questionnaire, with an ICER of CAD 312,398 (USD 234,909). The results were most sensitive to test sensitivity and specificity, HAQ progression, and average HAQ score at diagnosis and the start of biologic therapy. A scenario analysis tested screening efficacy for a 1-year period before diagnosis, with the ToPAS questionnaire remaining the most cost-effective option.Conclusions:Screening was cost-effective compared with no screening at the commonly used cost-effectiveness threshold of CAD 50,000 (USD 37, 600). Value of information analyses will be useful for determining the need to collect further information around test accuracy parameters.

Spanish Cultural Adaptation of the Questionnaire Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients

Introduction and objectivesThe Early Arthritis for Psoriatic patients (EARP) questionnaire is a screening tool for psoriatic arthritis. The original Italian version has good measurement properties but the EARP required translation and adaptation for use in Spain. This article describes the cultural adaptation process as a step prior to validation. Material and methodsWe used the principles of good practice for the cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcomes measurement established by the International Society Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research. The steps in this process were preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back-translation and review, harmonization, cognitive debriefing and review, and proofreading. During preparation the developers of the original questionnaire were asked for their permission to adapt the EARP for use in Spain and to act as consultants during the process. ResultsThe original questionnaire was translated into Spanish by native Spanish translators, who made slight changes that were approved by the questionnaire's developers. The Spanish version was then back-translated into Italian; that version was reviewed to confirm equivalence with the original Italian text. The reconciled Spanish EARP was then tested for comprehensibility and interpretation in a group of 35 patients. All the patients answered all items without making additional comments. ConclusionThis cultural adaptation of the EARP questionnaire for Spanish populations is the first step towards its later use in routine clinical practice. The application of a cross-cultural adaptation method ensured equivalence between the original and Spanish versions of the EARP. The Spanish questionnaire will be validated in a second stage.

Adaptación cultural al español del cuestionario Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients

Introduction and objectivesThe Early Arthritis for Psoriatic patients (EARP) questionnaire is a screening tool for psoriatic arthritis. The original Italian version has good measurement properties but the EARP required translation and adaptation for use in Spain. This article describes the cultural adaptation process as a step prior to validation. Material and methodsWe used the principles of good practice for the cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcomes measurement established by the International Society Pharmacoeconomics and Outcome Research. The steps in this process were preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back-translation and review, harmonization, cognitive debriefing and review, and proofreading. During preparation the developers of the original questionnaire were asked for their permission to adapt the EARP for use in Spain and to act as consultants during the process. ResultsThe original questionnaire was translated into Spanish by native Spanish translators, who made slight changes that were approved by the questionnaire's developers. The Spanish version was then back-translated into Italian; that version was reviewed to confirm equivalence with the original Italian text. The reconciled Spanish EARP was then tested for comprehensibility and interpretation in a group of 35 patients. All the patients answered all items without making additional comments. ConclusionThis cultural adaptation of the EARP questionnaire for Spanish populations is the first step towards its later use in routine clinical practice. The application of a cross-cultural adaptation method ensured equivalence between the original and Spanish versions of the EARP. The Spanish questionnaire will be validated in a second stage.

Translation and validation of the Spanish version of the ToPAS (Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening) questionnaire for use on patients with psoriatic arthritis in Dermatology clinics in Colombia

Abstract Introduction Psoriatic arthritis screening tools are useful for the rheumatologist in optimizing referrals to the dermatology clinic. The Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (ToPAS) is a tool that has been developed and validated in Canada. Objectives To translate, and perform some validation tests on TOPAS for use in dermatology clinics in Colombia. Methods Translation and validation of scales. Results ToPAS was translated using standardized methodology. A pilot test was conducted on 20 patients diagnosed with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis using the final version of the document translated into Spanish, in order to evaluate items of aspects such as understanding, ambiguity, and response time. The tool was then used on 108 patients, including 65 (60.2%) males, with 36 (33.3%) cases with a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, and 72 (64.7%) with psoriasis only. Using a cut-off score >8 points, it showed a sensitivity of 75% and specificity 92%, positive predictive value 82% and negative predictive value of 88%. To assess the reliability test–retest, 25 participants were selected and Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the correlation between the first and second application of ToPAS, which gave a value of p = 0.94, which represents a high level of correlation between the first and second application. Conclusions A translation, validation and evaluation of operational characteristics of the ToPAS questionnaire was conducted, being a practical tool for use in the dermatology clinic.

Developing the Thai Siriraj Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Tool and validating the Thai Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool and the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients questionnaire.

To validate the Thai language version of the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) and the Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients Questionnaire (EARP), as well as also to develop a new tool for screening psoriatic arthritis (PsA) among psoriasis (Ps) patients. This was a cross-sectional study. Ps patients visiting the psoriasis clinic at Siriraj Hospital were recruited. They completed the EARP and PEST. Full musculoskeletal history, examination, and radiography were evaluated. PsA was diagnosed by a rheumatologist's evaluation and fulfillment of the classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, and specificity were used to evaluate the performances of the tools. The Siriraj Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Tool (SiPAT) contained questions most relevant to peripheral arthritis, axial inflammation, and enthesitis, selected from multivariate analysis. Of a total of 159 patients, the prevalence of PsA was 78.6%. The ROC curve analyses of Thai EARP, PEST, and SiPAT were 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.96), 0.85 (0.78, 0.92), and 0.89 (0.83, 0.95), respectively. The sensitivities of SiPAT, Thai EARP, and PEST were 91.0, 83.0, and 72.0%, respectively, while the specificities were 69.0, 79.3, and 89.7%, respectively. All screening questionnaires showed good diagnostic performances. SiPAT could be considered as a screening tool with its desirable properties: higher sensitivity and taking less time. Thai PEST and EARP could possibly be sequentially administered for people with a positive test from SiPAT to reduce the number of false positives.

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the four validated psoriatic arthritis screening tools (TOPAS, PASE, PEST and EARP) in diagnosing Psoriatic Arthritis(PsA) in Indian patients with Psoriasis (PsO)

Early intervention and tight control of inflammation optimise outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis but these approaches have not yet been studied in psoriatic arthritis. We aimed to assess the effect of tight control on early psoriatic arthritis using a treat-to-target approach.For this open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with early psoriatic arthritis (<24 months symptom duration), who had not previously received treatment with any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tight control (with review every 4 weeks and with escalation of treatment if minimal disease activity criteria not met) or standard care (standard therapy according to the treating clinician, with review every 12 weeks) for 48 weeks. Randomisation was done by minimisation incorporating a random element, to ensure treatment groups were balanced for randomising centre and pattern of arthritis (oligoarticular vs polyarticular). The randomisation procedure was done through a central 24-h automated telephone system based at the Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research (Leeds, UK). This was an open-label study in which patients and clinicians were aware of treatment group assignment. Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, analysed by intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing ACR components. Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106079, and the ISCRCTN registry, number ISCRCTN30147736.Between May 28, 2008, and March 21, 2012, 206 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tight control (n=101) or standard care (n=105). In the intention-to-treat patient population, the odds of achieving an ACR20 response at 48 weeks were higher in the tight control group than in the standard care group (odds ratio 1·91, 95% CI 1·03–3·55; p=0·0392). Serious adverse events were reported by 20 (10%) patients (25 events in 14 [14%] patients in the tight control group and eight events in six [6%] patients in the standard care group) during the course of the study. No unexpected serious adverse events or deaths occurred.Tight control of psoriatic arthritis disease activity through a treat-to-target approach significantly improves joint outcomes for newly diagnosed patients, with no unexpected serious adverse events reported.Arthritis Research UK and Pfizer.