open access publication

Article, 2024

Enthesitis in a European registry-based cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: clinical burden, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment response

Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, ISSN 0300-9742, Volume 53, 4, Pages 237-247, 10.1080/03009742.2024.2336743

Contributors

Mathew A.J. 0000-0002-2061-2042 (Corresponding author) [1] [2] Lund M.L. [2] [3] Pedersen M.P. [2] Rasmussen S.H. [2] Glintborg B. 0000-0002-8931-8482 [2] [3] Loft A. 0000-0003-2284-8531 [2] [4] Nissen M.J. 0000-0002-6326-1764 [5] Moller B. 0000-0001-8769-6167 [6] Rodrigues A.M. 0000-0003-2046-8017 [7] [8] Pimentel-Santos F.M. [7] [8] Rotar Z. 0000-0002-9323-9189 [9] Tomsic M. [9] Relas H. 0000-0001-8065-3930 [10] Peltomaa R. [10] Gudbjornsson B. 0000-0003-4631-6505 [11] Love T.J. [12] Kocaer S.B. [11] Koken Avsar A. Midtboll Ornbjerg L. 0000-0002-7832-6831 [2] Ostergaard M. 0000-0003-3690-467X [2] [3]

Affiliations

  1. [1] Christian Medical College
  2. [NORA names: India; Asia, South];
  3. [2] Rigshospitalet
  4. [NORA names: Capital Region of Denmark; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  5. [3] University of Copenhagen
  6. [NORA names: KU University of Copenhagen; University; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  7. [4] Aarhus University Hospital
  8. [NORA names: Central Denmark Region; Hospital; Denmark; Europe, EU; Nordic; OECD];
  9. [5] Geneva University Hospital
  10. [NORA names: Switzerland; Europe, Non-EU; OECD];

Abstract

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.

Funders

  • Novartis

Data Provider: Elsevier