The DAPSA [disease activity in psoriatic
arthritis] is relatively new, but is already widely used; and not only in
studies that bear the name of J.S. Smolen [1,2], whom we should be indebted for
promoting disease activity indices for different rheumatic diseases.
P.J. Mease and collegues presented the
following study [3]: “CORRELATION OF THE ROUTINE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT INDEX
DATA (RAPID-3) WITH OTHER PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS COMPOSITE DISEASE ACTIVITY
MEASURES IN PATIENTS”. They used data from the ADEPT trial in this post hoc
analysis. “Correlations between RAPID-3 and DAPSA over time were assessed
through Pearson and Spearman coefficient.” Conclusions: “In a PBO-controlled
trial of ADA in pts with PsA, there was
good correlation between disease activity
captured by pt’s self-assessment, via
the RAPID-3, and physician assessment,
underscoring the potential utility of
pt-derived measures in assessing disease
activity.”
L.C. Coates an colleagues presented [4]: “COMPARISON
OF DIFFERENT REMISSION TARGETS IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AND
EVALUATION OF THEIR PROGNOSTIC VALUE”. “Remission was investigated for disease
activity index for PsA for 3 definitions: very low disease activity (VLDA),
Disease Activity in PsA (DAPSA), and clinical (c)DAPSA.” Conclusions: “VLDA
remission is a more stringent target than DAPSA and cDAPSA remission, with the
advantage of including a measurement for psoriasis.”
The DAPSA is easily calculated. You count
painful and swollen joint (out of 68), measure CRP in mg/dl, have the patient
indicate the average disease activity and pain during the past seven days [0-10].
Then you add up. 0-4 remission, 5-14 low, 15-28 mean, >28 high disease
activity. 68 joints take more time than 28 joints in the DAS28. Why not take
CRP in mg/l? Or even better ESR, which doesn’t change as quickly as CRP?
With all criticism I think it’s a useful tool
and I’ll try how it works in clinical practice.
Links and References:
[1] DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-eular.2835
[2] DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-eular.3762
[3] DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-eular.1952
[4] DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-eular.1188
.
No comments:
Post a Comment