Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

How Should We Measure Peripheral Spondyloarthritis?

Laura C. Coates and William Tillett
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2022, 49 (3) 239-241; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.211043
Laura C. Coates
1L.C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Laura C. Coates
  • For correspondence: laura.coates@ndorms.ox.ac.uk
William Tillett
2W. Tillett, MBChB, BSc, PhD, Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, and Department of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for William Tillett
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is recognized as an overarching spectrum of disease characterized by axial SpA (axSpA), peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis. Despite significant overlap, patients are often characterized as having predominantly peripheral or axial involvement. There are advantages to the separate assessment of peripheral and axial disease, particularly in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) setting, in trying to understand the differential effectiveness of novel biologic and targeted synthetic drugs on the peripheral and axial skeleton. While some diagnoses within the SpA concept have attracted increasing research over recent decades, it seems that peripheral SpA (pSpA; excluding psoriatic arthritis [PsA]) still lags behind.

Peripheral SpA, as defined by the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, allows a diagnosis in patients with peripheral arthritis alongside other features of SpA.1 This encompasses PsA but also inflammatory bowel disease–related arthritis, reactive arthritis, and undifferentiated pSpA, representing a diverse group of patients. To date, there have been large numbers of observational and treatment trials in PsA, but there are relatively few in the other forms of pSpA. The aim of the publication of these classification criteria was to support future research into this group.

However, in addition to classifying the condition, valid outcome measures are required to examine disease activity, response, and impact in pSpA in the RCT and clinical practice settings. The only large RCT of treatment for nonpsoriatic pSpA to date has been the ABILITY-2 study, which compared adalimumab (ADA) vs placebo.2 This study used the ASAS criteria for inclusion but also excluded patients with predominant axial disease or PsA, as studies of ADA in these populations had already been completed.

In this study,2 due to a lack of validated outcome measures addressing arthritis, enthesitis, and dactylitis in this population, a novel composite efficacy outcome measure was designed: the Peripheral SpA Response Criteria (PSpARC40). The PSpARC40 is defined as ≥ 40% improvement (≥ 20-mm absolute improvement) in the patient global and pain visual analog scale scores, and ≥ 40% improvement in one of the following: (1) peripheral joint count; (2) total enthesitis count; or (3) dactylitis count.2 While this study met its primary outcome of PSpARC40 at Week 12 for ADA compared to placebo, no other validation data are published on this outcome. Interestingly, the trial cohort has attracted attention from researchers as there are few large studies in nonpsoriatic pSpA, and subsequent papers have looked at the validation of “borrowed” outcome measures including the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), American College of Rheumatology outcomes, and minimal disease activity as used in PsA.3,4 However, trial cohorts are never reflective of the more heterogenous real-world populations and so further research in additional real-world datasets in pSpA are needed.

The study by Beckers et al5 in this edition of The Journal of Rheumatology analyzed 3 different composite measures in pSpA, with a focus on examining concurrent validity in the clinical practice setting. This represents a step forward toward validation of outcome measures in pSpA that could support future research, and is strengthened with the use of data from a real-world dataset. The study used data from a Dutch SpA registry and focused on 304 patients with pSpA having treatment in routine clinical practice. The study included data on the Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and ASDAS. All these measures correlated well with individual measures of disease activity or impact such as patient/physician global scores and quality of life measures. The ASDAS performed well despite the focus on peripheral SpA rather than axial symptoms, although this is in keeping with previous studies of BASDAI and ASDAS in PsA populations.6,7 The DAPSA and PASDAS, which were designed for PsA, also performed well, although the proportion of patients classified with active disease activity (moderate–high disease) by the DAPSA was a lot lower than the other measures. This may be because the score is proportional to the tender and swollen joint counts, which may not accurately reflect disease in a predominantly oligoarticular disease.

Unfortunately, as this study5 was reliant on real-world data collection within the clinic, quite a high number of patients had missing data, particularly for the DAPSA and PASDAS. The other key limitation is that because most patients with pSpA have PsA, this study includes a limited number of patients with nonpsoriatic pSpA (82 of 304 patients), where data are particularly needed.

One of the widely recognized challenges in the pSpA field is the heterogeneous nature of disease. For example, pSpA could encompass a patient with PsA and asymptomatic axial disease, and a patient with nonpsoriatic pSpA monoarthritis. The DAPSA and PASDAS were developed for the purpose of assessing peripheral joint involvement in PsA, whereas the ASDAS was developed to assess disease activity in axSpA. As Beckers et al highlight, a composite measure that includes psoriasis (PsO) may not be appropriate in a patient without PsO.5 The same concern could apply to those with PsA and no axial involvement where instruments such as ASDAS may not be appropriate. In both instances, the instrument may lack face validity. A further challenge is the influence of axSpA and pSpA on an instrument and for this reason, subanalyses are often made on modified versions of the BASDAI and ASDAS to try and separate out change in axial and peripheral symptoms. The question that arises is whether we should be repurposing outcome measures developed for subtypes of axSpA to apply to the axSpA population as a whole, or whether some subtypes are sufficiently different and prevalent to justify dedicated outcome measures.

The same dilemma of lumping or splitting exists with respect to axial involvement in PsA, where there the exact nature of axial involvement in PsA is yet to be determined. To that end, a collaboration between the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) and ASAS has been formed to study axial PsA in a multinational, multicenter cross-sectional study. The Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Cohort (AXIS) study aims to enroll 400 patients to determine the prevalence and phenotype of axial PsA using imaging, clinical, and laboratory assessments.8 The collaboration between ASAS and GRAPPA in the AXIS study could be a future forum to validate or develop a novel composite instrument for use across the spectrum of pSpA.

The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) method for selecting an assessment can be helpful when considering the relative merits of an assessment tool. The instrument selection process starts with understanding what you are trying to measure, including the domains of disease and context such as RCTs, observational studies, or clinical practice, where the requirements of an instrument will vary. The next steps OMERACT recommends are identification of candidate instruments, determining domain match and feasibility, narrowing the field, and synthesizing (and generating) evidence, before final consensus. In its current form, the entire OMERACT instrument selection process must be repeated separately for RCTs, observational studies, and clinical practice. There is certainly a need for a coordinated approach to the assessment of pSpA in research and clinical practice settings to improve clinical integration and reporting of RCTs. The requirements of a measurement instrument may differ in each setting. For example, in the RCT setting, discrimination is a high priority whereas in observational research and routine clinical practice, feasibility may be a priority. In judging each of the instruments tested by Beckers et al5 through the OMERACT lens, there are encouraging results with respect to concurrent validity; however, each instrument has barriers that remain before wider adoption can be considered in the setting of pSpA.

A final consideration when selecting, or developing, an instrument for the assessment of disease activity is the need to assess disease impact. Beckers et al discuss the discordance between instruments when classifying patients into the disease activity states.5 The discordance between patient and physician assessment of disease has been previously reported in a number of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases including PsA.9 In the study by Beckers et al,5 some of the discordance is likely to be due to the different components of the PASDAS, DAPSA, and ASDAS instruments. Each of these instruments has slightly different representations of patient and physician components and it is worth considering that impact should be assessed alongside activity, such that symptoms from noninflammatory causes can be addressed accordingly. Disease activity generally refers to reversible pathophysiological manifestations that can be ameliorated with effective pharmacological therapy. Impact of disease includes all the ways in which an individual can be affected by a disease, including irreversible manifestations such as damage and nondisease factors such as self-management.10 Disease activity and impact may require treatment escalation, but there are advantages in measuring disease activity and impact separately. GRAPPA voted that impact should be assessed separately from activity in PsA using the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease,11 and there may be advantages to a similar approach in the wider setting of pSpA.

There is a clear, unmet need, particularly for patients with nonpsoriatic pSpA, where interventional studies are very limited. The study by Beckers et al5 in this issue of The Journal provides information on some of the composite scores that could be utilized to measure treatment effect, alongside other measures previously studied in the ABILITY-2 population. However, the question of the gold standard in arthritis disease activity in the RCT and routine practice settings remains a complex issue. Future studies would benefit from both patient and physician anchor statements around disease activity and response to help identify the optimal tools for further research.

Footnotes

  • LCC is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist and Senior Clinical Research Fellow funded by an NIHR Clinician Scientist award. The research was supported by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.

  • WT has received research funding, consulting or speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. LCC has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Pfizer; worked as a paid consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has been paid as a speaker for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

  • See Peripheral SpA measures, page 256

  • Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Rudwaleit M,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Landewe R, et al.
    The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society classification criteria for peripheral spondyloarthritis and for spondyloarthritis in general. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:25-31.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Mease P,
    2. Sieper J,
    3. Van den Bosch F,
    4. Rahman P,
    5. Karunaratne PM,
    6. Pangan AL.
    Randomized controlled trial of adalimumab in patients with nonpsoriatic peripheral spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015;67:914-23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Coates LC,
    2. Abraham S,
    3. Tillett W, et al.
    Performance and predictors of minimal disease activity response in peripheral spondyloarthritis patients treated with adalimumab. Arthritis Care Res 2020 Sep 16 (Epub ahead of print).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Turina MC,
    2. Ramiro S,
    3. Baeten DL, et al.
    A psychometric analysis of outcome measures in peripheral spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:1302-7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Beckers E,
    2. Been M,
    3. Webers C, et al.
    Performance of 3 composite measures for disease activity in peripheral spondyloarthritis. J Rheumatol 2022;49:256-64.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Taylor WJ,
    2. Harrison AA.
    Could the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) be a valid measure of disease activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis? Arthritis Rheum 2004;51:311-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Fernandez-Sueiro JL,
    2. Willisch A,
    3. Pertega-Diaz S, et al.
    Validity of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index for the evaluation of disease activity in axial psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2010;62:78-85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Poddubnyy D.
    Identifier NCT04434885. Axial involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Cohort (AXIS). [Internet. Accessed September 20, 2021.] Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04434885
  9. 9.↵
    1. Sacristan JA,
    2. Dilla T,
    3. Diaz-Cerezo S,
    4. Gabas-Rivera C,
    5. Aceituno S,
    6. Lizan L.
    Patient-physician discrepancy in the perception of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. A qualitative systematic review of the literature. PLoS One 2020;15:e0234705.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Tillett W.
    Composite measures of impact and activity in psoriatic arthritis: a conceptual framework. J Rheumatol 2017;44:268-70.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Tillett W,
    2. McHugh N,
    3. Orbai AM, et al.
    Outcomes of the 2019 GRAPPA workshop on continuous composite indices for the assessment of psoriatic arthritis and membership-recommended next steps. J Rheumatol Suppl 2020;96:11-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 49, Issue 3
1 Mar 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
How Should We Measure Peripheral Spondyloarthritis?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
How Should We Measure Peripheral Spondyloarthritis?
Laura C. Coates, William Tillett
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2022, 49 (3) 239-241; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211043

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
How Should We Measure Peripheral Spondyloarthritis?
Laura C. Coates, William Tillett
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2022, 49 (3) 239-241; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211043
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Sex Effect in Psoriatic Arthritis
  • Microdissecting Epigenetic Pathways in Oligoarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: A New Avenue in Transforming Growth Factor β?
  • Ro52, Myositis, and Interstitial Lung Disease
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire