Psoriasis: Pipitone N

Salvarani C, Olivieri I, Pipitone N, Cantini F, Marchesoni A, Punzi L, Scarpa R, Matucci-Cerinic M, Anonymous00280. · Rheumatology Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16539822 No free full text.

Abstract: AIM: To propose recommendations for the use of biologic (TNF-alpha blocking) agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: We developed these recommendations by reviewing the evidence published in medical journals and in abstracts of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and of the European League against Rheumatism. A draft of the recommendations was circulated to a group of Italian Rheumatologists with a special interest in PsA and in therapy with biologic agents, and their suggestions were incorporated in the final version. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation and the monitoring of anti-TNF-alpha agents in PsA. More specifically, we propose that anti-TNF-alphaagents be considered in active PsA resistant to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, to at least two local steroid injections and at least 2 conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents (in cases of oligo/monoarthritis and/or enthesitis), and to at least two conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents (in patients with peripheral joints synovitis). Disease activity monitoring should be based on a variety of outcome measures including the ACR response criteria modified for use in PsA, the Bath ankylosing spondylitis disease activity index (BASDAI), and the Maastricht ankylosing spondylitis enthesis score (MASES). A favorable Expert opinion, based on evaluation of clinical symptoms and signs, of laboratory investigations (particularly acute phase reactants), and of imaging studies (whenever appropriate) should also be obtained. CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with PsA should receive biologic therapy. Regular updates of these recommendations will be implemented on the basis of the results of new clinical studies and of data from post-marketing surveillance.

Griffiths CE, Iaccarino L, Naldi L, Olivieri I, Pipitone N, Salvarani C, Doria A. · The Dermatology Centre, University of Manchester, Hope Hospital, Salford, Manchester, UK. · Clin Exp Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16466629 No free full text.

Abstract: Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin disease that affects 1-3% of the European population. Chronic plaque psoriasis, the commonest form of the condition - affecting the majority of patients - usually manifests as red, heavily scaled plaques on elbows, knees, scalp and lower back, but any skin surface may be affected. Psoriasis is associated with an inflammatory sero-negative arthritis, namely "psoriatic arthritis", in approximately 15%of patients with psoriasis and occurs more commonly in people with inflammatory bowel disease such as patients with Crohn's disease. Several studies have demonstrated the role of genetic predisposition, innate and adaptive immunity in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. There is considerable evidence that innate immunity and specifically a dysregulation of the innate immune response is central to the development of psoriasis. The role of TNFalpha is particularly intriguing. The evidence includes further observations that a variety of anti-TNF approaches such as monoclonal antibodies and fusion proteins of soluble TNF receptors are effective therapies both in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. In this review, in addition to pathogenetic aspects, some preliminary guidelines for the use of anti-TNFalpha therapy in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis will be discussed.

Pipitone N, Kingsley GH, Manzo A, Scott DL, Pitzalis C. · Clinical and Academic Rheumatology, King's College Hospital, London, UK. · Rheumatology (Oxford). · Pubmed #12810935 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy characterized by the association of arthritis with psoriasis. Many agents have been proposed for the treatment of PsA, but their use is based more on clinical experience than on sound scientific evidence. METHODS: We reviewed MedLine up to November 2002, searching for 'psoriatic arthritis', 'drug therapy, 'controlled trials' and 'outcomes' and all possible acronyms for these terms. All relevant papers were then examined in detail. RESULTS: PsA is a condition that runs a variable clinical course. Mild forms can usually be controlled by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Intra-articular glucocorticoid injections are indicated in patients with persistent mono- or oligoarthritis. Patients with severe and progressive articular disease not responsive to NSAIDs should be treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to prevent joint damage and disability. Currently, methotrexate and sulphasalazine are considered the DMARDs of choice, but the evidence for the use of methotrexate in PsA is still largely empirical, while the clinical benefit induced by sulphasalazine appears to be modest. Other DMARDs proposed for the treatment of PsA include cyclosporin, gold salts and, more recently, leflunomide. However, none of the DMARDs available to date are effective in the treatment of psoriatic pelvispondylitis; in addition, a number of patients with severe peripheral arthritis fail to respond to standard DMARDs. Recently, tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors have proved effective in many PsA patients with pelvispondylitis or recalcitrant peripheral synovitis. CONCLUSIONS: None of the current treatments for PsA is curative, but significant clinical amelioration can be achieved in the vast majority of patients. Identification and prompt treatment of patients with severe articular disease is crucial for the achievement of a satisfactory clinical response and the improvement of the long-term outcome.

Pitzalis C, Pipitone N. · Rheumatology Unit, GKT School of Medicine, London, UK. · J R Soc Med. · Pubmed #10983502 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Gladman DD, Inman RD, Cook RJ, Maksymowych WP, Braun J, Davis JC, Landewé RB, Mease P, Brandt J, Vargas RB, Chandran V, Helliwell P, Kavanaugh A, O'Shea FD, Khan MA, Pipitone N, Rahman P, Reveille JD, Stone MA, Taylor W, Veale DJ, van der Heijde D. · Centre for Prognosis Studies in the Rheumatic Diseases, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17659754 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the assessments of peripheral joints and enthesitis were reproducible for both AS and PsA with axial disease, and whether dactylitis assessment is reproducible in patients with PsA. METHODS: A group of 20 rheumatologists from 11 countries with expertise in spondyloarthritis (SpA) met for a combined physical examination exercise to assess 10 patients with PsA with axial involvement (9 men, 1 woman, mean age 52 yrs, disease duration 17 yrs) and 9 patients with AS (7 men, 2 women, mean age 38 yrs, disease duration 16 yrs). A modified Latin-square design that enabled assessment of patient, assessor, and order effect was used. Measures included were number of tender and swollen joints, presence of enthesitis using 6 different indices, and dactylitis score. Data were analyzed using intraclass correlation (ICC) adjusted for order of measurements. RESULTS: The majority of the variance was contributed by the patients. There was no order effect. The assessment of tender joints (ICC 0.69) was more reliable than the assessment of swollen joints (ICC 0.54). Moreover, there was better agreement in patients with PsA (ICC 0.78) than in patients with AS (ICC 0.62). There was excellent agreement on the number of active enthesitis sites (ICC 0.86). All the enthesitis indices provided substantial to excellent agreement among observers. Agreement for the dactylitis score was substantial (ICC 0.70). CONCLUSION: The assessment of peripheral joints is more reliable in patients with PsA. Enthesitis instruments can be used reliably in patients with AS and patients with PsA with spinal involvement. The Leeds dactylitis instrument functions well in PsA.

Gladman DD, Inman RD, Cook RJ, van der Heijde D, Landewé RB, Braun J, Davis JC, Mease P, Brandt J, Vargas RB, Chandran V, Helliwell P, Kavanaugh A, O'Shea FD, Khan MA, Pipitone N, Rahman P, Reveille JD, Stone MA, Taylor W, Veale DJ, Maksymowych WP. · Division of Rheumatology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17611985 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the axial measures used in primary ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were reproducible for both AS and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with axial disease. METHODS: A group of 20 rheumatologists from 11 countries with expertise in spondyloarthritis (SpA) met for a combined physical examination exercise to assess 10 patients with PsA with axial involvement (9 men, 1 woman, mean age 52 yrs, mean disease duration 17 yrs) and 9 AS patients (7 men, 2 women, mean age 38 yrs, mean disease duration 16 yrs). A modified Latin-square design was used. Measures included were occiput to wall, tragus to wall, cervical rotation, chest expansion, lateral spinal bending, modified Schober, and hip mobility. Data were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) adjusted for order of measurements. RESULTS: The majority of the variance was contributed by the patients. There was no order effect. Observer effect was noted especially for chest expansion for both AS and PsA patients, and for the modified Schober in PsA. The ICC demonstrated very good to excellent agreement for most measures for both AS and PsA. Chest expansion provided only moderate agreement for AS and PsA. CONCLUSION: Overall, measures of spinal mobility used in primary AS perform well with respect to interobserver reliability, and are equally reproducible when applied to PsA patients with axial involvement. Thus, these measures should now be evaluated in therapeutic trials of patients with PsA to determine sensitivity to change and concordance with other measures of structural damage.