You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Ultrasonographic evaluation in psoriatic arthritis is of major importance in evaluating disease activity
  1. Brigitte Michelsen1,
  2. Andreas P Diamantopoulos1,2,
  3. Hilde B Hammer3,
  4. Dag M Soldal1,
  5. Arthur Kavanaugh4,
  6. Glenn Haugeberg5,6
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology, Hospital of Southern Norway Trust, Kristiansand, Norway
  2. 2Department of Rheumatology, Haugesund Rheumatism Hospital, Haugesund, Norway
  3. 3Department of Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway
  4. 4Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, Immunology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California, USA
  5. 5Department of Rheumatology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  6. 6Department of Rheumatology, Martina Hansens Hospital, Bærum, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Dr Brigitte Michelsen, Department of Rheumatology, Hospital of Southern Norway Trust, Service box 416, Kristiansand 4604, Norway; brigitte_michelsen{at}yahoo.no

Abstract

Objective To investigate the association between clinical and ultrasonographic (US) evidence of inflammation in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as well as to compare clinical and US remission criteria.

Methods In this cross-sectional study 141 PsA outpatients were included. Minimal disease activity (MDA), 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) and modified versions of Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI) and Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) were assessed. Remission criteria were explored. US evaluation was performed on 34 joints, in addition to joints being tender/swollen by 66/68 joint count, 30 tendons, 10 entheses and additionally entheses found to be tender by clinical examination of 19 other entheses. Power Doppler (PD) and grey scale global scores on joints, entheses and tendons were assessed. US remission was defined as no PD activity in joints, entheses and tendons.

Results DAPSA and DAS28, but not CPDAI and PASDAS, were associated with PD activity. MDA was fulfilled in 22.7% and the clinical remission criteria in 5.7%–9.9% of the patients. US remission was found in 49.6% of the patients. The prevalence of PD activity at joints, entheses and tendons was similar for patients fulfilling versus not fulfilling MDA/clinical remission criteria. MDA (OR 2.3, p=0.048), DAPSA ≤3.3 (OR 4.2, p=0.025) and Boolean's (OR=7.8, p=0.033) definitions of remission were found to predict US remission.

Conclusions We found major discrepancies between US and clinical findings. DAPSA and DAS28 reflected US findings better than CPDAI and PASDAS. MDA, DAPSA and Boolean's remission criteria predicted US remission.

  • Psoriatic Arthritis
  • Ultrasonography
  • Disease Activity

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208806

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Clinical joint examination in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may be challenging.1 In clinical practice the use of composite scores validated only for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are widely used in PsA.2 The need for PsA specific composite scores has been emphasised by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.3 In recent years, several methods for scoring have been developed, and among them are the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA),4 Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI)5 and the Psoriatic ArthritiS Disease Activity Score (PASDAS).6 CPDAI is a five-component score including involvement of joints, entheses, dactylitis, axial skeleton and skin, and PASDAS includes joints, entheses and dactylitis, whereas DAPSA is strictly joint focused.

    During the recent years the use of ultrasound (US) evaluation in ordinary clinical practice has become more common, and US evaluation of arthritis including PsA has shown to be more sensitive in detecting arthritis than clinical examination.7 ,8

    The associations between clinical and US findings have been well explored in RA, and are mostly described as weak to moderate.9 ,10 The associations between clinical and US findings of arthritis, tenosynovitis and enthesitis in PsA remain much less investigated to date. One recent study, including CPDAI and DAPSA, described disparity between US and clinical findings.11 Studies comparing both RA and PsA specific composite scores as well as PASDAS with US findings in PsA are lacking in the current literature.

    To date there are no validated remission criteria for PsA, but criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA) in PsA have been established.12 Several remission criteria in PsA have been proposed.11 ,13 ,14 Similar to RA, there is consensus that a treat-to-target approach in PsA should result in better disease outcome.15

    The present objectives were to investigate the association between clinical and US evidence of inflammation in consecutive patients with PsA from the outpatient clinic. Further, we compared clinical and ultrasonographic remission criteria. As part of the clinical evaluation we included DAPSA, modified versions of CPDAI and PASDAS as well as composite scores initially developed for RA.

    Methods

    Patients

    The study size was specified at the beginning of the study. Assuming a correlation between clinical and ultrasonographic findings of 0.25, power 80% and significance 5%, we needed at least 124 patients. In total, there were 581 patients with PsA registered in the outpatient clinic of the Hospital of Southern Norway Trust, Norway, during the study period from January 2013 to May 2014, of whom 471 fulfilled the ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis criteria.16 Of these 471 patients 141 were included in the study in a random manner at consecutive clinic visits. All the included patients had peripheral inflammatory involvement clinically.16 A comparison of the characteristics of the included and non-included patients is listed in online supplementary table S1. The study was approved by the Norwegian Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (Regional komité for Medisinsk og helsefaglig forskningsetikk Midt-Norge 2012/101) and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. The patients performed registration of demographics and patient-reported outcome measures in a computer system (GoTreatIT),17 including Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ, range 0–3),18 Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI, range 0–10),19 Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI, range 0–30)20 and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID, range 0–10).21 C reactive protein (CRP, mg/L) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, mm/h) were assessed. Two specially trained nurses, unaware of the US results, performed 66/68 joint count, tender dactylitis count, “Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score”22 (MASES, range 0–13, including first and seventh costosternal joints, anterior superior iliac spine, iliac crest, fifth lumbar spinous process, posterior superior iliac spine, Achilles) and evaluation of additionally 16 other entheses (lateral and medial epicondyle, triceps, great trochanter, quadriceps, proximal and distal patellar tendons, plantar fasciae) and Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI, range 0–72).23 The presence of enthesitis was defined as tenderness on firm palpation. Visual analogue scales for evaluator's global assessment of disease activity (EGA) and patient's global assessment of disease activity (PGA), pain and joint pain were recorded (range 0–100 mm). The presence of erosions on X-rays of hands and feet was assessed by a radiologist as part of general care.

    Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI),24 disease activity score for 28 joints (DAS28)25 and DAPSA score were calculated. Modified versions of PASDAS (including EGA, PGA, MHAQ, SJC66, TJC68, MASES, dactylitis count, CRP) and CPDAI (including 66/68 joint count, MHAQ, PASI, DLQI, MASES, dactylitis count, BASDAI, RAID), including CPDAI joint, entheses and dactylitis domains (CPDAI-JED), were calculated (see online supplementary table S2). In the PASDAS and CPDAI calculations we used MHAQ instead of HAQ26/SF36-PCS (Physical Component Summary score of the Medical Outcome Survey Short Form-36),27 RAID instead of AsQol (Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life)28 and MASES instead of Leeds enthesitis index, as MHAQ, RAID and MASES but not HAQ, SF36-PCS, AsQol or Leeds enthesitis index29 were assessed in this study.

    The patients were classified as achieving MDA12 when meeting five of the seven following criteria: TJ≤1, SJ≤1, PASI≤1, pain≤15, PGA≤20, MHAQ≤0.5 and MASES≤1. The following suggested criteria for clinical remission were assessed: (1) DAPSA≤3.3,11 (2) CPDAI<213 or CPDAI joint, entheses and dactylitis domains (CPDAI-JED)=0,11 (3) PASDAS < 2.4,13 (4) a Boolean's definition of remission modified for PsA,11 meeting all of the following criteria: TJ≤1, SJ≤1, MASES≤1, dactylitis count ≤1, EGA≤10, PGA≤10 and CRP≤1 mg/dL.

    Ultrasonography protocol

    For the complete US protocol see the online supplementary files, including overview of US assessments in online supplementary table S3 and examples of characteristic US findings in online supplementary figure S1. US evaluation was performed by a rheumatologist experienced in US (APD) on the day of clinical examination. The duration of each US examination was 45 min. The sonographer was aware of the clinical results. Grey scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) sonography were performed at 34 mandatory joints (bilateral metacarpo-phalangeal 1–5, radio-carpal, inter-carpal, radio-ulnar, knees, talo-crural, subtalar, talo-navicular, metatarso-phalangeal 1–5) and additional joints found to be swollen or tender by 66/68 joint count; 10 mandatory entheses (bilateral quadriceps, proximal and distal patellar tendons, Achilles, plantar fasciae) and additionally entheses found to be tender by clinical examination of 19 other entheses (first and seventh costosternal joints, anterior superior iliac spine, iliac crest, fifth lumbar spinous process, posterior superior iliac spine, lateral and medial epicondyle, triceps, great trochanter); 30 tendons were examined for tenosynovitis (bilateral finger flexor digiti 1–5, flexor (digitorum superficialis and profundus) and extensor (compartments 1–6) groups in the wrists, medial, anterior and lateral tendon sheets in the ankle, flexor digiti pedis 1–5). The US examinations were performed using two US devices (Siemens Acuson S2000 and GE logic E) with two multifrequency linear transducers (6–18 MHz and 4–10 MHz), as it is standard practice in the clinic to share US machines between physicians. A head-to-head comparison of the two US devices showed similar results including GS and PD synovitis, enthesitis and tenosynovitis (kappa with linear weighting 0.83–1.0). GS and PD signals in joints and tendons were semiquantitatively graded 0–3.30–34 GS and PD sum scores for joints (both range 0–228) and tendons (both range 0–90) were calculated. The Global OMERACT-European League Against Rheumatism Synovitis Score (GLOESS)35 was additionally used to score synovitis. The number of entheses with enthesitis defined as GS structural pathology (thickening, hypoechogenicity, fibrillar separation, calcifications, erosions or enthesophytes) and/or PD signal at the entheses were registered (scored absent/present, both range 0–29).34 ,36 GS and PD sum scores on joints, entheses and tendons (both range 0–347) were calculated. To date no US remission criteria in PsA has been established. We defined US remission as no PD activity in all examined joints, entheses and tendons, in accordance with the previously proposed definition of US remission in RA33 ,37 and PsA.11

    Statistical analyses

    Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics (V.21.0.0.2). Descriptive statistics were used to calculate patients' demographic variables. The median and range were calculated for non-parametric data and the mean and SD for parametric data. Proportions were analysed using χ2 test or Fisher's exact test with mid-p correction as appropriate. Quantitative results were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test and correlation analyses were performed by Spearman's rank correlation test (non-parametric distribution of the data). Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to examine the possible association between clinical factors (Pain, ESR, CRP, SJC66, TJC68, MHAQ, MASES, EGA, PGA) and US remission. A significance level of 0.1 was set as discriminatory for included variables. Hosmer–Lemeshow statistics was performed for testing of goodness of fit.

    Results

    Clinical findings

    Patients' demographic characteristics are summarised in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Demographic characteristics

    Significantly more patients with bDMARD treatment were in US remission, compared with patients without bDMARD treatment. No such difference was found for csDMARD and prednisolone treatment (see online supplementary table S4).

    Patient-reported outcome measures, inflammatory markers and composite scores of disease activity are listed in online supplementary table S5. CPDAI categories are listed in online supplementary table S6.

    Associations between clinical and US findings

    US sum and prevalence scores are summarised in online supplementary table S7. Correlation between US sum scores and clinical findings are summarised in table 2.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Correlations between US findings and clinical variables/composite scores

    Of the PsA specific composite scores, only DAPSA was associated to the PD global score. Similar weak correlations were found between the PD global score and DAS28ESR(4) and SDAI. The GLOESS showed the same correlations to clinical findings as the GS arthritis score. In online supplementary table S8 the findings for patients with discrepancies between US examination and 66/68 joint count are further explored.

    Clinical remission criteria versus US pathology

    The MDA criterion was fulfilled by 22.7% of the patients. Of the remission criteria DAPSA≤3.3 was fulfilled by 9.9%, CPDAI<2 by 8.6%, CPDAI-JED domain=0 by 7.8%, PASDAS<2.4 by 7.8% and Boolean's by 5.7% of the patients.

    As shown in table 3 the PD global score was higher in patients with active versus inactive disease according to DAPSA and Boolean's definitions of remission and the GS sum score was higher in patients with active versus inactive disease according to CPDAI-JED definition of remission.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Clinical remission criteria versus US sum scores

    In online supplementary table S9, US findings of arthritis, enthesitis and tenosynovitis were explored for patients with active versus inactive disease according to clinical remission/MDA criteria. The GS entheses score was higher for patients with active versus inactive disease according to DAPSA and CPDAI-JED. The other US scores were similar for patients fulfilling versus not fulfilling the clinical remission criteria.

    US remission criteria versus clinical remission criteria

    US remission with PD=0 in all joints, entheses and tendons was found in 70 (49.6%) patients. GLOESS=0 was found in 35 (24.8%) patients. Only three (2.1%) patients had PD=0 and GS=0 for joints, entheses and tendons.

    The prevalence of patients with PD score>0 at joints, entheses and tendons was similar for patients fulfilling clinical remission/MDA criteria compared with patients not fulfilling these criteria (see online supplementary table S10). The MDA, DAPSA and Boolean's PsA remission criteria were useful to identify patients in US remission according to PD signal=0 at joints, entheses and tendons (table 4). The specificity of these indices was good, but the sensitivity poor.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Sensitivity and specificity of clinical criteria to identify patients in US remission (n=70)

    Association between clinical factors and ultrasound remission

    The possible association between clinical factors and US remission with PD=0 on joints, entheses and tendons was explored with pairwise comparisons and univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

    MASES, MHAQ, CRP and ESR were similar in the US activity and US remission groups. TJC68, SJC66, pain, PGA and EGA tended to be lower in the US remission group compared with the US activity group (see online supplementary table S11). By means of multivariable logistic regression analysis, only SJC66 was associated to US remission (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.79, p=0.002). Correction of the model for age, gender, disease duration, body mass index, current use of biologics and steroids did not change the primary outcome (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79, p=0.003).

    Discussion

    We found poor correlations between clinical and US evidence of joint inflammation in PsA. However, the correlations between clinical composite scores and US findings improved to some extent when evaluating entheses and tendons in addition to joints. This underlines the heterogeneity of inflammation in PsA, often involving joints and periarticular structures. To date there is no consensus on the US definitions of active versus chronic enthesitis changes, and often both will be present.36 A high prevalence of subclinical enthesitis in patients with PsA has been described.38 ,39 It is important to be aware that some US findings may be permanent changes, for example, enthesophytes, erosions and calcifications at the entheses. Enthesitis is demonstrated to be seen in a majority of patients with spondyloarthropathy, but not in controls.40 However, the extent to which healthy controls may have inflammatory findings on US assessment is poorly investigated. Witt et al41 reported recently grade 1 GS findings in the joints of healthy controls.

    In RA, subclinical arthritis is found to be of negative prognostic value,42 and whether this is also valid in PsA remains to be explored.

    It is important to keep in mind that US is prone to operator influence and experience. The interobserver reliability of US findings in PsA is reported as fair to excellent,10 ,43 and can be improved by standardisation of US examinations.44

    The PD global score was weakly correlated to both composite scores developed for RA, but frequently used also for PsA (DAS28ESR, SDAI) as well as to DAPSA, specifically developed for PsA. DAS28, SDAI and DAPSA are heavily peripheral joint focused, but did not perform better when compared with the PD joints score or the GLOESS. The PsA specific composite scores PASDAS and CPDAI-JED domains did not correlate significantly to US activity, although incorporating arthritis, enthesitis and dactylitis, in contrast to DAPSA, DAS28 and SDAI, which only incorporate arthritis. None of the composite scores were found to adequately reflect US findings. Similar results were described in a recent study by Husic et al,11 exploring DAPSA and CPDAI, but not DAS28, SDAI or PASDAS.

    In contrast to MDA, which is validated for PsA, remission criteria in PsA have not yet been established. However, cut-off values for clinical remission have been proposed, but not validated for the PsA specific composite scores; DAPSA≤3.3,11 CPDAI-JED=011 and PASDAS<2.4.13 We found the MDA, DAPSA and Boolean's remission criteria somewhat useful for discriminating between patients with and without US activity, which is in line with Husic et al11 reporting DAPSA and Boolean's remission definitions useful for discriminating between patients with and without minimal US activity. In both studies the specificity of the remission criteria was good, but the sensitivity poor.

    To date no US remission criteria in PsA have been established. We defined US remission as the absence of PD signals at joints, entheses and tendons in accordance with previous studies in RA33 ,37 and PsA.11 About half of our patients were in US remission according to this definition. We also explored the newly developed GLOESS, previously examined only in RA, which did not perform better than the PD joints score. Interestingly, the GLOESS in our population was very similar to the GS joints score, as the GLOESS is more weighted after GS than PD findings and most of the patients in our population had higher GS score compared with PD score in individual joints.

    ESR and CRP are regularly used in the clinic to monitor disease activity in inflammatory arthritides. Both were weakly correlated to the PD score on joints, which is consistent with the previous findings for ESR11 ,45 ,46 and CRP45 in PsA.

    US is an important, sensitive tool to detect inflammation in articular and periarticular structures. Our study underlines the value of US examination in addition to clinical examination in the evaluation of disease activity in PsA. It also underlines the need for further development of both clinical and ultrasonographic PsA specific composite scores. According to our findings, evaluator's global assessment and 66 swollen joint count are the clinical scores best correlated to US findings and ought to be included in further development of PsA specific composite scores.

    Recently, specific US composite scores for treatment monitoring in PsA have been proposed.43 ,47 Interestingly, these scores were shown to have only weak to moderate correlations to clinical findings, which is in accordance with our study.

    Our study has several strengths. The basis of the study was a comprehensive clinical and ultrasonographic examination of joints, but also periarticular structures, which gave a good basis for comparison between clinical and US findings. In addition, we compared US findings with recently developed PsA specific composite scores, as well as clinical composite scores developed for RA, but frequently used in the clinic also for PsA. Similar comparison between PsA specific composite scores and a thorough US examination has to our knowledge only been reported in one previous study in a smaller patient sample, excluding composite scores initially developed for RA.11 Further, evaluation of the discriminatory capacity of MDA and newly proposed PsA remission criteria to predict US remission is previously explored only in one smaller study, which did not include PASDAS.11 Finally, our study is based on ‘real-life’ data, as consecutive patients from the outpatient clinic were included.

    Limitations of the study include the relatively low disease activity of the patients. This is to be expected in a clinic where the goal is to get patients to the lowest possible disease activity, but it may impact the results of assessments such as this, because the strength of association between US and clinical findings in RA is demonstrated to diminish as patients are in or near to remission.33 Another limitation of the study is that the ultrasonographer was aware of the clinical findings, which may have biased the results. Further, the modifications of CPDAI and PASDAS used in the study are not validated and represent a limitation of the generalisability of the results.

    In conclusion, we report discrepancy between clinical and US evidence of inflammation in PsA. DAPSA and DAS28 reflected US findings better than CPDAI and PASDAS. The MDA, DAPSA and Boolean's definitions of remission predicted US remission. Further advances in US, with development and validation of US composite scores including joints and periarticular structures, may improve sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis and assessment in PsA.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors thank the patients for participating in this study and the local rheumatology staff for data collection.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Gladman DD,
      2. Antoni C,
      3. Mease P, et al
      . Psoriatic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64(Suppl 2):ii14–17.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Smolen JS,
      2. Braun J,
      3. Dougados M, et al
      . Treating spondyloarthritis, including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, to target: recommendations of an international task force. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:6–16. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203419
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Coates LC,
      2. FitzGerald O,
      3. Mease PJ, et al
      . Development of a disease activity and responder index for psoriatic arthritis--report of the Psoriatic Arthritis Module at OMERACT 11. J Rheumatol 2014;41:782–91. doi:10.3899/jrheum.131250
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Schoels M,
      2. Aletaha D,
      3. Funovits J, et al
      . Application of the DAREA/DAPSA score for assessment of disease activity in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2010;69:1441–7. doi:10.1136/ard.2009.122259
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Mumtaz A,
      2. Gallagher P,
      3. Kirby B, et al
      . Development of a preliminary composite disease activity index in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:272–7. doi:10.1136/ard.2010.129379
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Helliwell PS,
      2. FitzGerald O,
      3. Fransen J, et al
      . The development of candidate composite disease activity and responder indices for psoriatic arthritis (GRACE project). Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:986–91. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201341
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Wiell C,
      2. Szkudlarek M,
      3. Hasselquist M, et al
      . Ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, radiography, and clinical assessment of inflammatory and destructive changes in fingers and toes of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2007;9:R119. doi:10.1186/ar2327
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Backhaus M,
      2. Ohrndorf S,
      3. Kellner H, et al
      . Evaluation of a novel 7-joint ultrasound score in daily rheumatologic practice: a pilot project. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1194–201. doi:10.1002/art.24646
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Chakr RM,
      2. Mendonça JA,
      3. Brenol CV, et al
      . Assessing rheumatoid arthritis disease activity with ultrasound. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:1249–54. doi:10.1007/s10067-013-2291-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Schirmer M,
      2. Duftner C,
      3. Schmidt WA, et al
      . Ultrasonography in inflammatory rheumatic disease: an overview. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011;7:479–88. doi:10.1038/nrrheum.2011.95
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Husic R,
      2. Gretler J,
      3. Felber A, et al
      . Disparity between ultrasound and clinical findings in psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1529–36. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-203073
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Coates LC,
      2. Helliwell PS
      . Validation of minimal disease activity criteria for psoriatic arthritis using interventional trial data. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:965–9. doi:10.1002/acr.20155
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      1. Salaffi F,
      2. Ciapetti A,
      3. Carotti M, et al
      . Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: comparison of the discriminative capacity and construct validity of six composite indices in a real world. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:528105. doi:10.1155/2014/528105
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Schoels MM,
      2. Aletaha D,
      3. Alasti F, et al
      . Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:811–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Mease P
      . Update on treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis 2012;70:167–71.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Taylor W,
      2. Gladman D,
      3. Helliwell P, et al
      . Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:2665–73. doi:10.1002/art.21972
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Haugeberg G,
      2. Hansen IJ,
      3. Soldal DM, et al
      . Ten years of change in clinical disease status and treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: results based on standardized monitoring of patients in an ordinary outpatient clinic in southern Norway. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17:219. doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0716-0
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Pincus T,
      2. Summey JA,
      3. Soraci SA Jr., et al
      . Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 1983;26:1346–53. doi:10.1002/art.1780261107
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Garrett S,
      2. Jenkinson T,
      3. Kennedy LG, et al
      . A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol 1994;21:2286–91.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Finlay AY,
      2. Khan GK
      . Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI)--a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol 1994;19:210–16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2230.1994.tb01167.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Gossec L,
      2. Paternotte S,
      3. Aanerud GJ, et al
      . Finalisation and validation of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease score, a patient-derived composite measure of impact of rheumatoid arthritis: a EULAR initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:935–42. doi:10.1136/ard.2010.142901
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. Heuft-Dorenbosch L,
      2. Spoorenberg A,
      3. van Tubergen A, et al
      . Assessment of enthesitis in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:127–32. doi:10.1136/ard.62.2.127
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Fredriksson T,
      2. Pettersson U
      . Severe psoriasis--oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica 1978;157:238–44. doi:10.1159/000250839
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Aletaha D,
      2. Smolen J
      . The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23:S100–8.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Wells G,
      2. Becker JC,
      3. Teng J, et al
      . Validation of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on C-reactive protein against disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and comparison with the DAS28 based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:954–60. doi:10.1136/ard.2007.084459
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Fries JF,
      2. Spitz P,
      3. Kraines RG, et al
      . Measurement of patient outcome in arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23:137–45. doi:10.1002/art.1780230202
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Ware JE Jr.,
      2. Sherbourne CD
      . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Doward LC,
      2. Spoorenberg A,
      3. Cook SA, et al
      . Development of the ASQoL: a quality of life instrument specific to ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 2003;62:20–6. doi:10.1136/ard.62.1.20
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Healy PJ,
      2. Helliwell PS
      . Measuring clinical enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis: assessment of existing measures and development of an instrument specific to psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:686–91. doi:10.1002/art.23568
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Hammer HB,
      2. Bolton-King P,
      3. Bakkeheim V, et al
      . Examination of intra and interrater reliability with a new ultrasonographic reference atlas for scoring of synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1995–8. doi:10.1136/ard.2011.152926
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. Naredo E,
      2. D'Agostino MA,
      3. Wakefield RJ, et al
      . Reliability of a consensus-based ultrasound score for tenosynovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1328–34. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202092
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Hartung W,
      2. Kellner H,
      3. Strunk J, et al
      . Development and evaluation of a novel ultrasound score for large joints in rheumatoid arthritis: one year of experience in daily clinical practice. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012;64:675–82. doi:10.1002/acr.21574
      OpenUrl
    33. ↵
      1. Dejaco C,
      2. Duftner C,
      3. Wipfler-Freissmuth E, et al
      . Ultrasound-defined remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: association with clinical and serologic parameters. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012;41:761–7. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2011.09.005
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Wakefield RJ,
      2. Balint PV,
      3. Szkudlarek M, et al
      . Musculoskeletal ultrasound including definitions for ultrasonographic pathology. J Rheumatol 2005;32:2485–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. D'Agostino MA,
      2. Wakefield RJ,
      3. Berner-Hammer H, et al
      . Value of ultrasonography as a marker of early response to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results from the APPRAISE study. Ann Rheum Dis Published Online First: 20 Nov 2015. Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207709.
    36. ↵
      1. Terslev L,
      2. Naredo E,
      3. Iagnocco A, et al
      . Defining enthesitis in spondyloarthritis by ultrasound: results of a Delphi process and of a reliability reading exercise. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66:741–8. doi:10.1002/acr.22191
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Balsa A,
      2. de Miguel E,
      3. Castillo C, et al
      . Superiority of SDAI over DAS-28 in assessment of remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients using power Doppler ultrasonography as a gold standard. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:683–90. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kep442
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. Gutierrez M,
      2. Filippucci E,
      3. De Angelis R, et al
      . Subclinical entheseal involvement in patients with psoriasis: an ultrasound study. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2011;40:407–12. doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2010.05.009
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Gisondi P,
      2. Tinazzi I,
      3. El-Dalati G, et al
      . Lower limb enthesopathy in patients with psoriasis without clinical signs of arthropathy: a hospital-based case-control study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:26–30. doi:10.1136/ard.2007.075101
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. D'Agostino MA,
      2. Said-Nahal R,
      3. Hacquard-Bouder C, et al
      . Assessment of peripheral enthesitis in the spondylarthropathies by ultrasonography combined with power Doppler: a cross-sectional study. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:523–33. doi:10.1002/art.10812
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Witt M,
      2. Mueller F,
      3. Nigg A, et al
      . Relevance of grade 1 gray-scale ultrasound findings in wrists and small joints to the assessment of subclinical synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:1694–701. doi:10.1002/art.37954
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Saleem B,
      2. Brown AK,
      3. Quinn M, et al
      . Can flare be predicted in DMARD treated RA patients in remission, and is it important? A cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2012;71:1316–21. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2011-200548
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Ficjan A,
      2. Husic R,
      3. Gretler J, et al
      . Ultrasound composite scores for the assessment of inflammatory and structural pathologies in Psoriatic Arthritis (PsASon-Score). Arthritis Res Ther 2014;16:476. doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0476-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. D'Agostino MA,
      2. Aegerter P,
      3. Jousse-Joulin S, et al
      . How to evaluate and improve the reliability of power Doppler ultrasonography for assessing enthesitis in spondylarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:61–9. doi:10.1002/art.24369
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Bandinelli F,
      2. Denaro V,
      3. Prignano F, et al
      . Ultrasonographic wrist and hand abnormalities in early psoriatic arthritis patients: correlation with clinical, dermatological, serological and genetic indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015;33:330–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Schäfer VS,
      2. Fleck M,
      3. Kellner H, et al
      . Evaluation of the novel ultrasound score for large joints in psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: six month experience in daily clinical practice. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:358. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-14-358
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Gutierrez M,
      2. Di Geso L,
      3. Salaffi F, et al
      . Development of a preliminary US power Doppler composite score for monitoring treatment in PsA. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012;51:1261–8. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kes014
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Gerd R Burmester

    • Contributors GH, DMS, APD, HBH, AK and BM were responsible for study design. BM, APD, DMS and GH were responsible for data acquisition. BM analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

    • Funding Unrestricted grant from Pfizer ID WS1948310 (GH). Clinical research fellowship from the Hospital of Southern Norway Trust (BM).

    • Competing interests APD: advisory board for Novartis and Pfizer, speaker fees from Abbvie; HBH: honorary fee from Abbvie, Pfizer, UCB, Roche; GH: founder and shareholder in DiaGraphIT. Unrestricted grant from Pfizer Norway.

    • Ethics approval Norwegian Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics Midt-Norge.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement All important data are within the text.