Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background/Aims Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy, which affects approximately 30% of patients with psoriasis and is associated with a high degree of morbidity. The introduction of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) revolutionised treatment strategies for patients with PsA, however response is not universal. Deprivation and its associated risk factors may impact the initiation of and response to treatment with bDMARDs. There is limited data exploring the effect of deprivation on disease response to biologics in PsA. Psoriasis patients with a higher socioeconomic status have been shown to be more likely to respond to biologics, to our knowledge this has not been investigated in PsA. This study aimed to assess the impact of deprivation on initiation of and clinical response to biologic DMARDs. Methods Patients commencing a bDMARD were recruited to the UK prospective observational study Outcome of Treatment in Psoriatic Arthritis Studies Syndicate (OUTPASS REC ref:13/NW/0068). Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), the official measure of relative deprivation in England, was the exposure of interest. Subjects were ranked based on their IMD and split into the 20% most deprived (deciles 1-2), middle 40% (deciles 3-6) and 40% least deprived (deciles 7-10). This was done to aid analysis as IMD weightings provide greater differentiation among the least advantaged areas with fewer distinctions for less deprived areas. Treatment response was measured using changes in DAS28/PsARC, analysed using multivariate linear regression and multivariate logistic regression, respectively. Response was measured at three months as NICE guidance advises review of biological therapies at this time. Results There was no difference in the distribution of patients between the three groups (most deprived=138, middle deprived=207, least deprived=193). There were no statistically significant differences in the time from diagnosis to starting biologics in the most deprived group compared to the middle (p = 0.62) or least deprived p = 0.42) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in treatment responses between the groups. DAS28 change and PsARC improvement at three months remained similar between the most deprived, the middle deprived (p = 0.71, p = 0.08) and least deprived groups (p = 0.81, p = 0.22). Conclusion There was no difference in the distribution of IMD in patients recruited to OUTPASS, suggesting that the study is inclusive in recruiting across IMD subgroups. There was no difference in time from diagnosis to starting bDMARD therapy or response to treatment across the deprivation spectrum. These findings suggest that the NHS in England is performing its role of providing care according to need and regardless of circumstance. The study assesses deprivation in the context of free healthcare and may not be applicable to fee-paying healthcare systems. Further research is required to determine the relationship between deprivation and other outcomes, including work instability, in PsA. Disclosure M. Lyon: None. S. Zhao: None. A. Barton: Member of speakers’ bureau; speaker fees from Chugai-Roche and Galapagos. Grants/research support; grant funding from BMS, Pfizer, all unrelated to the work presented. H. Chinoy: Corporate appointments; Advisory Board member for Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Argenx, Galapagos; Data and Science Monitoring Board chair for Horizon Therapeutics.. Consultancies; Consulting for PTC Therapeutics. Member of speakers’ bureau; fees as a speaker for GSK, UCB. M. Jani: None. J. Bluett: Grants/research support; research grant award from Pfizer and travel/conference fees from UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.
Lyon et al. (Mon,) studied this question.