Introduction: The aim was to study the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) levels and the clinical characteristics of patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (CIRD). Methods: We studied a cross-section from the baseline visit of the CARMA project (CARdiovascular in rheuMAtology), a 10-year prospective study evaluating the risk of cardiovascular events in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients, and non-CIRD patients who attended rheumatology outpatient clinics from 67 hospitals in Spain. Non-CIRD group was frequency matched by age with the joint distribution of the three CIRD groups included in the study. 25(OH)D deficiency was defined if 25(OH)D vitamin levels were < 20 ng/ml. Results: 2.234 patients (775 RA, 738 AS and 721 PsA) and 677 non-CIRD subjects were assessed. The median (p25-p75) 25(OH)D levels were: 20.4 (14.4-29.2) ng/ml in RA, 20.9 (13.1-29.0) in AS, 20.0 (14.0-28.8) in PsA, and 24.8 (18.4-32.6) ng/ml in non-CIRD patients. We detected 25(OH)D deficiency in 40.5 % RA, 39.7 % AS, 40.9 % PsA and 26.7 % non-CIRD controls (p < 0.001). A statistically significant positive association between RA and 25(OH)D deficiency was found (adjusted (adj.) OR = 1.46; 95 % CI = 1.09-1.96); p = 0.012. This positive association did not reach statistical significance for AS (adj. OR 1.23; 95 % CI = 0.85-1.80) and PsA (adj. OR 1.32; 95 % CI = 0.94-1.84). When the parameters of disease activity, severity or functional impairment were assessed, a marginally significant association between 25(OH)D deficiency and ACPA positivity in RA patients (adj. OR = 1.45; 95 % CI = 0.99-2.12; p = 0.056), and between 25(OH)D deficiency and BASFI in AS patients (adj. OR = 1.08; 95 % CI = 0.99-1.17); p = 0.07) was also found. Conclusions: Patients with RA show an increased risk of having 25(OH)D deficiency compared to non-CIRD controls.

Objective: To analyze the performance of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) screening tools, examine their implementation in daily practice, and reach a consensus about the best screening tool for implementation in daily practice in different medical settings.Methods: A systematic literature review (SLR), structured telephone interviews to hospitals, and a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting were all conducted. The SLR employed sensitive search strategies using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020. Two reviewers independently selected articles that reported data on PsA screening tools and that included sufficient data to at least calculate the sensitivity and specificity of those tools (e.g., questionnaires, algorithms, specific questions, and biomarkers). The hospital interviews collected data regarding the process of suspected PsA diagnosis and referral to rheumatology, the implementation of PsA screening tools, and barriers and facilitators to implementation of those tools. In the nominal group meeting, a multidisciplinary team of experts discussed all these data and subsequently recommended a screening tool for implementation.Results: The SLR included 41 moderate-quality studies that analyzed 14 PsA screening tools, most of which were questionnaire-based tools. All of these studies reported a moderate-good performance but presented different characteristics regarding the time to completion or the number and type of items or questions. The implementation of screening tools was low (30.5%). The experts ultimately recommended regular use of a PsA screening tool, preferably the PURE-4 questionnaire.Conclusions: The implementation of PsA screening tools like the PURE-4 questionnaire in daily practice likely improves the prognosis of PsA patients.