ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 1346

Comparison of Three Screening Tools in Psoriatic Arthritis: The Contest Study

Laura C. Coates1, Tariq Aslam1, A. D. Burden2, Esther Burden-Teh3, Anna R. Caperon4, Rino Cerio5, Chandra Chattopadhyay6, Hector Chinoy7, Mark J. D. Goodfield8, Lesley Kay9, Bruce W. Kirkham10, Christopher R. Lovell11, Helena Marzo-Ortega12, Neil McHugh13, Ruth Murphy3, Costantino Pitzalis14, NJ Reynolds15, Catherine H. Smith16, Elizabeth Stewart17, Richard B. Warren18, Hilary E. Wilson19 and Philip S. Helliwell20, 1LIMM, University of Leeds, Division of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, LIMM, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 2Department of Dermatology, Western Infirmary, Dumbarton Road, United Kingdom, 3Department of Dermatology, Nottingham Independent Treatment Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 4Division of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, University of Leeds and NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds, United Kingdom, 5CMS/CAU Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, Bart's and The London NHS Tust, United Kingdom, 6Department of Rheumatology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, United Kingdom, 7Rheumatic Diseases Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 8Department of Dermatology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom, 9Department of Rheumatology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 10Rheum Dept/ Guys Hospital, 4th Fl Thomas Guy House, London, United Kingdom, 11Department of Dermatology, Royal United Hospital, Bath, United Kingdom, 12Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit and University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom, 13Department of Rheumatology, Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, Bath, United Kingdom, 14Centre for Experimental Medicine and Rheumatology, William Harvey Research Institute, QMUL, London, United Kingdom, 15Department of Dermatology, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 16St John's Institute of Dermatology, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital, London, 17Department of Dermatology, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust, Wigan, United Kingdom, 18Dermatology Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 19Department of Rheumatology, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 20PsAID taskforce, EULAR, Zurich, Switzerland

Meeting: 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: diagnosis, psoriatic arthritis and questionnaires

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Title: Spondylarthropathies and Psoriatic Arthritis: Clinical Aspects and Treatment

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: The majority of patients with PsA have psoriasis prior to arthritis and there is evidence that a significant proportion of patients in dermatology clinics have undiagnosed PsA.  Multiple screening questionnaires have been developed and tested for the early detection of PsA but there has been no direct comparison to identify which is the optimal screening questionnaire. The aim of this study was to compare three existing PsA screening questionnaires (PASE, PEST, TOPAS) in a head-to-head study in secondary care dermatology clinics using the CASPAR criteria as the gold standard.

Methods: This study recruited from 10 UK secondary care dermatology clinics.  Patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis, not previously diagnosed as PsA, were given a pack containing study information, and all 3 questionnaires in a random order.  The completed questionnaires were compiled and scored by a study co-ordinator and all patients who were positive on any of the questionnaires were invited for a rheumatological assessment where consent was obtained.  This assessment included physical examination of joints, entheses, dactylitis, spine, skin and nails.  Where available, rheumatoid factor positivity and radiographic reports were collected. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC) of the 3 questionnaires with their diagnosis according to CASPAR criteria.

Results: In total, 938 patients with psoriasis were invited to participate and given a screening pack.  Of these, 657 (70%) patients returned the screening questionnaires.  One or more questionnaires were positive in 314 patients (48%) and these were invited for rheumatological assessment.  Of these positive patients, 119 (37%) declined to attend for examination, leaving 195 (63%) patients with positive questionnaires who were assessed. There were 47 patients diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR Criteria, equating to 24% of those with positive questionnaires who attended for examination.  The proportion of patients found to have PsA increased with the number of positive questionnaires (1 questionnaire = 19.1%, 2 questionnaires = 34.0%, 3 questionnaires = 46.8%).  Sensitivities and specificities for the three questionnaires are shown in the table below. A positive non-PsA diagnosis was made in 54 subjects: 40 of these had degenerative tendinopathy or osteoarthritis.

Questionnaire

Sensitivity

Specificity

AUC

P value

PASE

 74.5

 38.5

 0.594

 0.052

PEST

 76.6

 37.2

 0.610

 0.023

TOPAS

 76.6

 29.7

 0.554

 0.267

Conclusion: Both the PEST and TOPAS questionnaires performed slightly better than the PASE questionnaire at identifying PsA but discriminatory capacity overall was best for the PEST questionnaire.  As patients scoring negative for the questionnaires were not examined these results are likely to overestimate the sensitivity and underestimate the specificity. Nevertheless, these screening tools do identify many cases of musculoskeletal disease other than PsA.


Disclosure:

L. C. Coates,
None;

T. Aslam,
None;

A. D. Burden,
None;

E. Burden-Teh,
None;

A. R. Caperon,
None;

R. Cerio,
None;

C. Chattopadhyay,
None;

H. Chinoy,
None;

M. J. D. Goodfield,
None;

L. Kay,

Pfizer Inc,

8,

Abbott Immunology Pharmaceuticals,

8,

Roche Pharmaceuticals,

6;

B. W. Kirkham,

Roche Pharmaceuticals, UCB Pharma,

2,

Abbott Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Pfizer Inc, Roche Pharmaceuticals, UCB Pharma,

5;

C. R. Lovell,
None;

H. Marzo-Ortega,
None;

N. McHugh,
None;

R. Murphy,
None;

C. Pitzalis,
None;

N. Reynolds,
None;

C. H. Smith,
None;

E. Stewart,
None;

R. B. Warren,
None;

H. E. Wilson,

Pfizer Inc,

8,

Abbott Immunology Pharmaceuticals,

9,

Roche Pharmaceuticals,

9;

P. S. Helliwell,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2012 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparison-of-three-screening-tools-in-psoriatic-arthritis-the-contest-study/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology