POS1101 DAPSA CORRECTED FOR PsAID12 IMPROVES ITS CONCORDANCE WITH MINIMAL DISEASE ACTIVITY.

<jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of highly variable presentation, which determines a physical and psychological deterioration, with a negative impact on the quality of life of patients and knowing the patient’s perception of their health status is very important for a good management of PsA.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To assess an adjustment of the DAPSA according to the status of the PsAID-12 (Impact of the disease in psoriatic arthritis) and to analyze its relation in clinical practice with the minimal activity of the disease (Minimal Disease Activity or MDA) in psoriatic arthritis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Multicenter cross-sectional study, which recruited 200 patients, who met the criteria for Classification of Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR), in six Spanish rheumatology centers. At the time of the visit, demographic, clinical, laboratory data, HAQ (0-3) and PsAID12 (0-10) self-questionnaires were collected. Disease activity was measured using DAPSA (with its cut-off points), MDA status was obtained, and the PsAID12 index was calculated. When a PsAID≤4 was not reached, the DAPSA was scaled to a higher interval (DAPSA corrected) obtaining a new index, DAPSA-PsAID. All analyzes were performed using SPSS23 software. Differences were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Of the total number of patients, 55% were men, with an age of 55.2 ± 11.6 years; 75% had only peripheral involvement and 25% had pure or mixed axial involvement. 43% were on biological treatment (18% join to csDMARDs). The patients who reached the MDA were 102 (51%), 62.7% in men vs 37.3% in women (p 0.025). With the PsAID-corrected DAPSA, the proportion of patients in low activity-remission who did not reach the MDA was lower than with the standard DAPSA (see Table 1), 16.3% vs 27.6% (Kappa 0.750 vs 0.688). In the binary regression analysis for MDA status, adjusted for sex, an OR (95% CI) for DAPSA and DAPSA corrected for PsAID of 8.12 (1.88-35.04) and 12.31 (3.74-40.50), respectively, was obtained.</jats:p><jats:table-wrap id="T1" position="float" orientation="portrait"><jats:label>Table 1.</jats:label><jats:table><jats:thead><jats:tr><jats:th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"/><jats:th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>MDA N=102</jats:bold></jats:th><jats:th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>No MDA N= 98</jats:bold></jats:th><jats:th align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>p</jats:bold></jats:th></jats:tr></jats:thead><jats:tbody><jats:tr><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">HAQ≤0.5, n (%)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">82 (92.0)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>31 (36.5</jats:bold>)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><0.0001</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">DAPSA REM/LDA, n (%)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">98 (96.1)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>27 (27.6</jats:bold>)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><0.0001</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">PsAID≤4, n (%)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">92 (90.2)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>45 (45.9</jats:bold>)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><0.0001</jats:td></jats:tr><jats:tr><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">DAPSA-PsAID REM/LDA, n (%)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1">93 (91.2)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><jats:bold>16 (16.3</jats:bold>)</jats:td><jats:td align="left" rowspan="1" colspan="1"><0.0001</jats:td></jats:tr></jats:tbody></jats:table></jats:table-wrap></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>A PsAID-corrected DAPSA could be a more reliable alternative to MDA than conventional DAPSA and facilitate clinician decisions in daily practice.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>References</jats:title><jats:p>[1]Schoels MM, et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75(5):811-8.</jats:p><jats:p>[2]Gossec L, et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jun;79(6):700-712.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Acknowledgements</jats:title><jats:p>To SOGARE</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Disclosure of Interests</jats:title><jats:p>Guillermo Gonzalez Arribas: None declared, Carlota Laura Iñíguez: None declared, Francisco Maceiras-Pan Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, UCB, Víctor Quevedo Vila: None declared, Luis Fernández-Dominguez Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, UCB, José Antonio Mosquera Martínez: None declared, Carlos García-Porrúa Speakers bureau: Janssen, Novartis, Lilly, Abbvie, UCB, Jose L. Guerra-Vazq ...