银屑病关节炎难以治疗的概念:对一大群患者中两种潜在定义的分析。一项横断面研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
Fabio Massimo Perrotta, Stefano Gentileschi, Silvia Scriffignano, Riccardo Terribili, Elena Bianchi, Bruno Frediani, Ennio Lubrano
{"title":"银屑病关节炎难以治疗的概念:对一大群患者中两种潜在定义的分析。一项横断面研究。","authors":"Fabio Massimo Perrotta, Stefano Gentileschi, Silvia Scriffignano, Riccardo Terribili, Elena Bianchi, Bruno Frediani, Ennio Lubrano","doi":"10.3899/jrheum.2024-0101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The main aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of 2 proposed criteria for difficult-to-treat (D2T) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a group of patients and to evaluate the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2 longitudinal cohorts of patients with PsA fulfilling the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR), with at least 1 year of follow-up. A detailed medical history was collected and a physical examination was performed for all recruited patients. The proposed criteria for patients with D2T PsA were applied in our group. To test the performance of the 2 sets of criteria, we used an external validator (absence of patient acceptable symptom state + physician global assessment ≥ 6 cm). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We evaluated 378 patients with PsA (219 male/159 female), with a mean age (range) of 58 (19-75) years. Seventy-five (19.8%) patients fulfilled the D2T criteria proposed by Perrotta et al and 58 (15.3%) the D2T criteria proposed by Kumthekar et al. Both criteria showed comparable performance, with low sensitivity (Perrotta: 37.8%, Kumthekar: 29.7%) but good specificity (Perrotta: 82.1%, Kumthekar: 86.2%). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria is substantial (Fleiss [Formula: see text] 0.72), suggesting that both criteria identify nearly the same group of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study compared 2 published sets of criteria showing comparable performance and substantial agreement. This study may pave the way for further research in this field.</p>","PeriodicalId":50064,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Difficult-to-Treat Concept in Psoriatic Arthritis: Analysis of 2 Potential Definitions in a Large Group of Patients. A Cross-Sectional Study.\",\"authors\":\"Fabio Massimo Perrotta, Stefano Gentileschi, Silvia Scriffignano, Riccardo Terribili, Elena Bianchi, Bruno Frediani, Ennio Lubrano\",\"doi\":\"10.3899/jrheum.2024-0101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The main aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of 2 proposed criteria for difficult-to-treat (D2T) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a group of patients and to evaluate the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2 longitudinal cohorts of patients with PsA fulfilling the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR), with at least 1 year of follow-up. A detailed medical history was collected and a physical examination was performed for all recruited patients. The proposed criteria for patients with D2T PsA were applied in our group. To test the performance of the 2 sets of criteria, we used an external validator (absence of patient acceptable symptom state + physician global assessment ≥ 6 cm). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We evaluated 378 patients with PsA (219 male/159 female), with a mean age (range) of 58 (19-75) years. Seventy-five (19.8%) patients fulfilled the D2T criteria proposed by Perrotta et al and 58 (15.3%) the D2T criteria proposed by Kumthekar et al. Both criteria showed comparable performance, with low sensitivity (Perrotta: 37.8%, Kumthekar: 29.7%) but good specificity (Perrotta: 82.1%, Kumthekar: 86.2%). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria is substantial (Fleiss [Formula: see text] 0.72), suggesting that both criteria identify nearly the same group of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study compared 2 published sets of criteria showing comparable performance and substantial agreement. This study may pave the way for further research in this field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Rheumatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2024-0101\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2024-0101","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究的主要目的是评估难以治疗(D2T)的银屑病关节炎(PsA)的两个拟议标准在一组患者中的表现,并评估两套标准之间的一致性:我们对符合 CASPAR 标准且随访至少 1 年的两组 PsA 患者进行了横断面分析。我们收集了所有入组患者的详细病史和体格检查。我们小组采用了建议的 D2T PsA 患者标准。为了检验两套标准的性能,我们使用了外部验证器(无患者可接受症状状态(PASS no)+医生全局评估(PhGA)≥6 厘米)。结果:我们评估了 378 名 PsA 患者(男/女:219/159),平均年龄(范围)58(19-75)岁,中位随访时间 6(4-8)年。75名患者(19.8%)符合Perrotta等人提出的D2T标准,58名患者(15.3%)符合Kumthekar等人提出的D2T标准。这两种标准的灵敏度较低(Perrotta等人:37.8%,Kumthekar等人:29.7%),但特异性较好(Perrotta等人:82.1%,Kumthekar等人:86.2%),性能相当。最后,两套标准之间的一致性很高(弗莱斯卡帕:0.72),表明这两套标准几乎能识别同一类患者:结论:我们的研究比较了两套已出版的标准,结果表明这两套标准具有可比性和很高的一致性。结论:我们的研究对两套已发表的标准进行了比较,结果表明这两套标准具有可比性,且一致性很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Difficult-to-Treat Concept in Psoriatic Arthritis: Analysis of 2 Potential Definitions in a Large Group of Patients. A Cross-Sectional Study.

Objective: The main aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of 2 proposed criteria for difficult-to-treat (D2T) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a group of patients and to evaluate the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 2 longitudinal cohorts of patients with PsA fulfilling the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR), with at least 1 year of follow-up. A detailed medical history was collected and a physical examination was performed for all recruited patients. The proposed criteria for patients with D2T PsA were applied in our group. To test the performance of the 2 sets of criteria, we used an external validator (absence of patient acceptable symptom state + physician global assessment ≥ 6 cm). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria was assessed.

Results: We evaluated 378 patients with PsA (219 male/159 female), with a mean age (range) of 58 (19-75) years. Seventy-five (19.8%) patients fulfilled the D2T criteria proposed by Perrotta et al and 58 (15.3%) the D2T criteria proposed by Kumthekar et al. Both criteria showed comparable performance, with low sensitivity (Perrotta: 37.8%, Kumthekar: 29.7%) but good specificity (Perrotta: 82.1%, Kumthekar: 86.2%). Finally, the agreement between the 2 sets of criteria is substantial (Fleiss [Formula: see text] 0.72), suggesting that both criteria identify nearly the same group of patients.

Conclusion: Our study compared 2 published sets of criteria showing comparable performance and substantial agreement. This study may pave the way for further research in this field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Rheumatology
Journal of Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.10%
发文量
285
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rheumatology is a monthly international serial edited by Earl D. Silverman. The Journal features research articles on clinical subjects from scientists working in rheumatology and related fields, as well as proceedings of meetings as supplements to regular issues. Highlights of our 41 years serving Rheumatology include: groundbreaking and provocative editorials such as "Inverting the Pyramid," renowned Pediatric Rheumatology, proceedings of OMERACT and the Canadian Rheumatology Association, Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews, and supplements on emerging therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信