impact factor
logo
 

Full Papers

 

Current approach to the management of psoriatic arthritis according to a sample of Italian rheumatologists


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

 

  1. Day Hospital of Rheumatology, Gaetano Pini-CTO Orthopaedic Traumatologic Centre, Milan, Italy. marchesoni@gpini.it
  2. Academic Rheumatology Unit, Dipartimento di Medicina e Scienze per la Salute “Vincenzo Tiberio”, Università degli Studi del Molise, Campobasso, Italy.
  3. Day Hospital of Rheumatology, Gaetano Pini-CTO Orthopaedic Traumatologic Centre, Milan, Italy.
  4. Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine DIMED, University of Padova, Italy.
  5. Rheumatology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Italy.
  6. Rheumatology Department of Lucania, San Carlo Hospital of Potenza and Madonna delle Grazie Hospital of Matera, Italy.

CER9315
2016 Vol.34, N°6
PI 1051, PF 1058
Full Papers

Free to view
(click on article PDF icon to read the article)

PMID: 27462870 [PubMed]

Received: 02/02/2016
Accepted : 26/05/2016
In Press: 26/07/2016
Published: 28/11/2016

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:
The purpose of this study was to have an overview of the current approach to psoriatic arthritis (PsA) by a group of Italian rheumatologists.
METHODS:
Rheumatologists from all around Italy were asked to participate in a survey to give their opinion on a number of statements made by a panel of rheumatologists who are experts in PsA. The survey was conducted through two rounds using a Delphi-like method. The two rounds yielded a consensus on the management of PsA.
RESULTS:
Fifty rheumatologist from 50 rheumatology centres participated in the survey. Of the 117 proposed statements, only 10 did not reach the 66% concordance threshold. The main results of the survey were that diagnosis of PsA should be made using both the CASPAR criteria and clinical judgment, that all of the features of the psoriatic disease are relevant in the assessment and therapy of PsA, that treatment recommendations are taken into account, that all of the available biological agents may be used in bio-naïve patients, that anti-drug antibody testing is still not used in daily practice, that both switching or swapping are useful options in the case of bio-failure because of lack or loss of efficacy, and that swapping is considered the best choice in the case of bio-failure due to adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS:
The results of this survey showed that a comprehensive evaluation of the patient and a therapy choice based on both patient clinical features and evidence of drug efficacy and safety are considered the current best of care for PsA patients.

Rheumatology Article