Objective To update the 2009 Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations for the spectrum of manifestations affecting patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods GRAPPA rheumatologists, dermatologists, and PsA patients drafted overarching principles for the management of PsA, based on consensus achieved at face-to-face meetings and via online surveys. We conducted literature reviews regarding treatment for the key domains of PsA (arthritis, spondylitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin disease, and nail disease) and convened a new group to identify pertinent comorbidities and their effect on treatment. Finally, we drafted treatment recommendations for each of the clinical manifestations and assessed the level of agreement for the overarching principles and treatment recommendations among GRAPPA members, using an online questionnaire. Results Six overarching principles had ≥80% agreement among both health care professionals (n = 135) and patient research partners (n = 10). We developed treatment recommendations and a schema incorporating these principles for arthritis, spondylitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin disease, nail disease, and comorbidities in the setting of PsA, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. Agreement of >80% was reached for approval of the individual recommendations and the overall schema. Conclusion We present overarching principles and updated treatment recommendations for the key manifestations of PsA, including related comorbidities, based on a literature review and consensus of GRAPPA members (rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health care providers, and patient research partners). Further updates are anticipated as the therapeutic landscape in PsA evolves

Objective. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).Methods. We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/ outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.Results. The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.Conclusion. The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA. Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intendedto provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to the recommendations within this guideline to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the health care provider in light of each patient's individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. ACR recommendations are not intended to dictate payment or insurance decisions. These recommendations cannot adequately convey all uncertainties and nuances of patient care.The American College of Rheumatology...

Objective. To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).Methods. We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.Results. The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofaciti nib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.Conclusion. The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to the recommendations within this guideline to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the health care provider in light of each patient's individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. ACR recommendations are not intended to dictate payment or insurance decisions. These recommendations cannot adequately convey all uncertainties and nuances of patient care.The American College of Rheumatology...

No abstract

Objective To develop an evidence‐based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF). Methods We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations. Results The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment‐naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin‐12/23 inhibitors (IL‐12/23i), IL‐17 inhibitors, CTLA4‐Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat‐to‐target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment. Conclusion The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Since the second version of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations were published in 2015, therapeutic options for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have advanced considerably. This work reviews the literature since the previous recommendations (data published 2013–2020, including conference presentations between 2017 and 2020) and reports high-quality, evidence-based, domain-focused recommendations for medication selection in PsA developed by GRAPPA clinicians and patient research partners. The overarching principles for the management of adults with PsA were updated by consensus. Principles considering biosimilars and tapering of therapy were added, and the research agenda was revised. Literature searches covered treatments for the key domains of PsA: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin and nail psoriasis; additional searches were performed for PsA-related conditions (uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease) and comorbidities. Individual subcommittees used a GRADE-informed approach, taking into account the quality of evidence for therapies, to generate recommendations for each of these domains, which were incorporated into an overall schema. Choice of therapy for an individual should ideally address all disease domains active in that patient, supporting shared decision-making. As safety issues often affect potential therapeutic choices, additional consideration was given to relevant comorbidities. These GRAPPA treatment recommendations provide up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on PsA management for clinicians and people with PsA.

Psoriasis of the scalp, face, intertriginous areas, genitals, hands, feet, and nails is often underdiagnosed, and disease management can be challenging. Despite the small surface area commonly affected by psoriasis in these locations, patients have disproportionate levels of physical impairment and emotional distress. Limitations in current disease severity indices do not fully capture the impact of disease on a patient's quality of life, and, combined with limitations in current therapies, many patients do not receive proper or adequate care. In this review, we discuss the clinical manifestations of psoriasis in these less commonly diagnosed areas and its impact on patient quality of life. We also examine clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of therapies on psoriasis in these regions. This article highlights the need to individualize treatment strategies for psoriasis based on the area of the body that is affected and the emerging role of biologic therapy in this regard. The quality of life (QoL) of patients with psoriasis affecting less common areas may be disproportionately impacted relative to the affected area (Figure 1) (Augustin et al., 2010;Sampogna et al., 2004Sampogna et al., , 2014. For example, the presence of lesions in highly visible areas can affect a patient's self-esteem, whereas involvement of the palms can make even opening a jar challenging (Janowski, Steuden, & Bogaczewicz, 2014). Nail or hand psoriasis can cause increased financial burdens due to reduced workplace productivity from disease impairment (Augustin et al., 2010;Schmitt & Ford, 2006). Using current scoring systems to measure the severity of psoriasis, such as the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA), will not capture the substantial impact of disease in these regions because they do not include a specific measurement of these areas nor do they incorporate QoL measures. If using only PASI scores, for example, the location of the skin findings may not be considered and patients can be greatly affected by location versus size alone.Thus, evaluation scales were developed that specifically measure disease impact in these areas such as the Nail Psoriasis and Severity Index | M ETH OD SPubMed literature searches were conducted with the following terms: psoriasis and face/facial, psoriasis and palmoplantar, psoriasis and intertriginous or inverse, psoriasis and genital, psoriasis and scalp, and psoriasis and nail. Abstracts from English-language articles in the last 10 years were screened for relevance.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) golimumab treatment in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsIn this phase III, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial, patients were randomly assigned to receive IV placebo (n = 239) or golimumab at 2 mg/kg (n = 241) at weeks 0, 4, 12, and 20. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 14. Controlled secondary end points included change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) score at week 14, proportions of patients with ACR50 and ACR70 responses and ≥75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (a PASI75 response) at week 14, and change from baseline at week 24 in the total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) with modifications for patients with PsA.ResultsAt week 14, an ACR20 response was achieved by 75.1% of patients in the golimumab group compared with 21.8% of patients in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Greater proportions of golimumab‐treated patients had an ACR50 response (43.6% versus 6.3%), an ACR70 response (24.5% versus 2.1%), and a PASI75 response (59.2% versus 13.6%) at week 14 (P < 0.001 for all). Patients in the golimumab group had greater mean changes at week 14 in HAQ DI score (–0.60 versus –0.12; P < 0.001). At week 24, the mean change in total PsA‐modified SHS was –0.4 in the golimumab group and 2.0 in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Through week 24, 40.6% of patients in the placebo group and 46.3% of patients in the golimumab group had ≥1 adverse event (AE); infections were the most common type.ConclusionPatients receiving IV golimumab at 2 mg/kg had significantly greater improvements in the signs and symptoms of PsA and less radiographic progression through week 24. AEs were consistent with those seen with other anti–tumor necrosis factor agents.