P178 Current prescribing practices in psoriatic arthritis - comparison between the UK and Europe

Abstract

Background/Aims Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a multi-system disease with a range of management options. Treatment may vary by geographic location. We compared disease characteristics and prescribing practices in the UK and Europe in the post-Covid era. Methods The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged 18 years and older selected from 24 centres across 5 countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain) between July 2021 and March 2022 (IRAS: 287039). Patients attending a face-to-face appointment with a diagnosis of PsA made by a rheumatologist were selected by systematic sampling at each centre and treated in routine clinical practice. Patient and disease characteristics, current treatment and treatment decisions (medications unchanged, switched, added or reduced) were recorded. The analysis was descriptive, with no imputation of missing data. Results 503 patients were included, with arthritis subtype, patient age, disease activity and duration shown (Table 1). Physician- and patient-reported disease severity was highest in the UK, where median patient age was lowest. Conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDS constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), whereas biologic use was more frequent in Europe (68.1% vs 36.4%). Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic in the UK and Spain. Adalimumab and secukinumab were equally used in Germany, and ixekizumab and adalimumab were joint-first in Italy. Implementing change to the current PsA treatment was most common in the UK, predominantly being a treatment increase. This may reflect the higher level of disease activity or younger patient age in the UK than other countries, as treatment escalation is more likely earlier in the disease course. In the UK, treatment escalation was more commonly achieved by medication addition (26.2%) than medication switch (14%) or dose increase (7.5%). In Europe, medication addition and switch were of more similar frequency (10.9% vs 9.85%). Conclusion Disease characteristics and treatment strategies varied between countries, but particularly between UK and the rest of Europe. In contrast to mainland Europe, csDMARDs predominated in the UK, perhaps reflecting current NICE guidelines. Treatment escalation was most common in the UK, in keeping with higher disease activity. Disclosure L. Watson: None. C. Coyle: None. M. Brooke: None. U. Kiltz: None. E. Lubrano: None. R. Queiro: None. D. Trigos: None. J. Brandt-Juergens: None. S. D'Angelo: None. A. Delle Sedie : None. E. Dernis: None. P. Helliwell: None. P. Ho: None. A. Hueber: None. B. Joven: None. M. Koehm: None. C. Montilla: None. J. Packham: None. J.P. Tasende: None. F.J.R. Garcia: None. A. Ruyssen-Witrand: None. R. Scrivo: None. S. Twigg: None. M. Welcker: None. M. Soubrier: None. T. Wirth: None. L. Gossec: Consultancies; AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB. Grants/research support; Amgen, Galapagos, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB. L.C. Coates: None.