Mathew, A. J.Lund, M. L.Pedersen, M. P.Rasmussen, S. H.Glintborg, B.Loft, A. G.Nissen, M. J.Möller, B.Rodrigues, A. M.Santos, F. P.Rotar, Z.Tomšič, M.Relas, H.Peltomaa, R.Guðbjörnsson, BjörnLöve, Þorvarður JónKocaer, S. B.Koken Avsar, A.Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, L.Østergaard, M.2025-11-202025-11-202024Mathew, A J, Lund, M L, Pedersen, M P, Rasmussen, S H, Glintborg, B, Loft, A G, Nissen, M J, Möller, B, Rodrigues, A M, Santos, F P, Rotar, Z, Tomšič, M, Relas, H, Peltomaa, R, Guðbjörnsson, B, Löve, Þ J, Kocaer, S B, Koken Avsar, A, Midtbøll Ørnbjerg, L & Østergaard, M 2024, 'Enthesitis in a European registry-based cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors : clinical burden, patient-reported outcomes, and treatment response', Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 237-247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009742.2024.23367430300-974222319593286c4d02b-47e8-473a-9b49-24fedcb0baa185193698223https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11815/7553Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.Objective: To explore the registration of enthesitis among biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment across 12 European registries, compare the disease burden and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients with and without enthesitis, and assess the enthesitis treatment response. Method: Demographics, clinical characteristics, and PROs at first TNFi (TNFi-1) initiation (baseline) were assessed in patients with PsA, diagnosed by a rheumatologist, with versus without assessment of entheses and between those with versus without enthesitis. Enthesitis scores and resolution frequency were identified at follow-up. Results: Of 10 547 patients in the European Spondyloarthritis (EuroSpA) Research Collaboration Network initiating TNFi, 1357 underwent evaluation for enthesitis. Eight registries included a validated scoring system for enthesitis. At baseline, 874 patients underwent entheses assessment [Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score (MASES) 485 patients, Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) 389 patients]. Enthesitis was detected by MASES in 170/485 (35%, mean score ± sd 3.1 ± 2.4) and by SPARCC in 236/389 (61%, 4 ± 3.4). Achilles enthesitis was most frequent, by both MASES (unilateral/bilateral 28%/9%) and SPARCC (48%/18%). MASES/SPARCC baseline and follow-up scores for TNFi-1 were available for 100/105 patients. Of these, 63 patients (63%) (MASES) and 46 (43.8%) (SPARCC) achieved resolution of enthesitis. The site-specific enthesitis resolution was overall lower at SPARCC sites (peripheral; 63–80%) than at MASES sites (mainly axial; 82–100%) following TNFi-1. Disease activity and PROs were worse in patients with versus without enthesitis. Conclusion: Entheseal assessments are only registered in a minority of patients with PsA in routine care. When assessed, enthesitis was common, and a substantial proportion demonstrated resolution following treatment with TNFi-1.111150748237-247eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRheumatologyImmunology and AllergyImmunology/dk/atira/pure/researchoutput/researchoutputtypes/contributiontojournal/article10.1080/03009742.2024.2336743