Abstract: In micro-densitometry of wood it is standard procedure to extract resin and other soluble compounds before X-ray analysis to eliminate the influence of these extractives on wood-density. Dendrochemical studies using X-ray fluorescence analysis on the other hand are commonly conducted without previous extraction. However, it is well known that translocation processes of elements during heartwood formation in trees or (temporal) differences in sap content of wood samples can influence dendrochemical element profiles. This might bias environmental signals stored in time series of element concentrations in wood proxies. We hypothesize that metals tightly bound to cell walls show a more robust proxy potential for environmental conditions than easily translocated ones. To eliminate the noise of these soluble substances in wood elemental time series, their extraction prior to analysis might be necessary. In our study we tested the effect of different solvents (water, alcohol, and acetone) and different extraction times on elemental time series of three tree species with differing wood structure ( Pinus sylvestris ; Quercus robur and Populus tremula ). Micro-XRF analysis was conducted on nine replicates per species using an ITRAX-Multiscanner. A set of elements commonly detected in wood (S, Cl, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, and Ni) was analysed at high resolution before and after several extraction runs. Besides lowering their levels, extraction did not significantly change the temporal trends for most elements. However, for some elements, e.g., Potassium, Chlorine or Manganese, especially the water extraction led to significant decreases in concentrations and altered temporal trends. Apparently the dipole effect of water produced the strongest extraction power of all three solvents. In addition we observed a dependency of extraction intensity from wood density which differed between wood types. Our results help in interpreting and evaluating element profiles and mark a step forward in establishing dendrochemistry as a robust proxy in dendro-environmental research.

Abstract: Approximately 30% of patients (pts) with plaque psoriasis (PsO) develop psoriatic arthritis (PsA) 1 , which is associated with high Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and nail involvement. The Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes (PSoHO) is a 3-year (yr), international, prospective, observational cohort study comparing the effectiveness of anti-IL-17A biologics to all other approved biologics in pts with moderate-to-severe PsO. Objectives This interim subset analysis describes the baseline characteristics and Week 12 (W12) effectiveness in pts with moderate-to-severe PsO and PsA in PSoHO. Methods Adults with moderate-to-severe PsO for ≥6 months who initiated/switched biologic treatment during routine medical care were enrolled. PsA diagnosis was recorded by the dermatologists based on the medical history and/or information provided by the patient. W12 effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of pts achieving almost clear or clear skin defined by ≥90% improvement in PASI, affected Body Surface Area (BSA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity (PatGA). Musculoskeletal endpoints were not collected. Data were analysed descriptively, using mean (standard deviation [SD]) or median ([Q1/Q3] ) for continuous variables and n, % and 95% confidence limits for categorical variables. Results Overall, 1981 pts were enrolled in this study, of whom 461 (23.3%) had a PsA diagnosis and received either anti-IL-17A (n=227; 49.2%) or other biologics (n=234; 50.8%). This subset of pts had a mean age of 48.7 yrs and a median disease duration of 18.9 yrs for PsO and 5.6 yrs for PsA (Table 1). Table 1. Baseline characteristics for PsO patients with PsA. Mean (SD) reported for all available data for that measure, unless stated otherwise. Overall (n=461 ) Anti-IL-17A (n=227 ) Other Biologics (n=234 ) Age, yrs 48.7 (12.9) 50.9 (12.9) 46.6 (12.6) Male, n (%) 232 (50.3) 112 (49.3) 120 (51.3) BMI (kg/m 2 ) 29.7 (6.2) 29.8 (5.9) 29.6 (6.4) Smoking status – Current, n (%) 100 (25.4) 41 (21.1) 59 (29.5) Disease duration (PsA), yrs, median (Q1/Q3) 5.6(2.2/13.1) 5.6(2.0 / 13.8) 5.5(2.3 / 12.8) Disease duration (PsO), yrs, median (Q1/Q3) 18.9(9.7 / 28.6) 18.9(9.2 / 30.3) 18.7(10.1 / 27.3) Any previous biologic therapy, n (%) 249 (54.0) 123 (54.2) 126 (53.8) PASI 14.3 (9.3) 13.6 (8.1) 15.0 (10.3) BSA, % 21.7 (19.4) 19.8 (17.3) 23.5 (21.1) mNAPSI 16.6 (22.8) 16.5 (25.5) 16.7 (20.1) Presence of nail PsO, n (%) 217 (47.2) 103 (45.4) 114 (48.9) PatGA 3.5 (1.2) 3.5 (1.3) 3.6 (1.2) DLQI 13.6 (7.9) 13.4 (7.8) 13.7 (8.0) HADS Depression score 〉 10, n (%) 73 (19.3) 38 (20.5) 35 (18.1) HADS Anxiety score 〉 10, n (%) 124 (32.8) 62 (33.5) 62 (32.1) BMI = Body Mass Index; BSA = Body Surface Area; DLQI = Dermatology Life Quality Index; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS 〉 10 indicates significant symptoms of depression/anxiety; mNAPSI = Modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index; PASI = Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PatGA = Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity; Q1/Q3 = Quartile 1/3. At W12, 62.4% and 42.6% of anti-IL-17A-treated pts achieved PASI90 and PASI100, respectively, compared with 34.2% and 16.8% in the other biologics cohort, respectively (Figure 1). BSA 〈 3% was reached by 70.9% of anti-IL-17A-treated pts and 49.5% in the other biologics cohort, while 71.2% and 44.8%, respectively, reached PatGA 0/1. Among pts with baseline DLQI ≥2, 38.0% and 27.1% of the anti-IL-17A and other biologics cohorts, respectively, reached DLQI 0/1. Figure 1. Percentage of patients receiving anti-IL-17A or other biologics who achieved PASI75/90/100, absolute PASI ≤1, BSA 〈 3%, PatGA 0/1 and DLQI 0/1 (baseline DLQI ≥2) at Week 12. Bars represent upper 95% confidence limits. Conclusion The effectiveness of blocking IL-17A on skin manifestations and on quality-of-life improvements in pts with PsO and PsA in the real-world study was consistent with observations from clinical trials. References [1]Zabotti A, et al. RMD Open 2019;5: e001067 Disclosure of Interests Lars Erik Kristensen Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals., Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals., Grant/research support from: IIT research grants from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Biogen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, and Janssen pharmaceuticals., Frank Behrens Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, UCB, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Biotest, Janssen, Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Boehringer and Sandoz, Consultant of: Amgen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, UCB, BMS, Celgene, MSD, Novartis, Biotest, Janssen, Genzyme, Eli Lilly, Boehringer and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Pfizer, Roche, Chugai, GSK and Janssen, Luis Puig Speakers bureau: Celgene, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, Baxalta, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Fresenius-Kabi, Janssen, JS BIOCAD, Leo-Pharma, Eli Lilly, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung-Bioepis, Sanofi, UCB, Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Leo-Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Adam Reich Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Galderma, Eli Lilly, Consultant of: Abbvie, Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Galderma, Eli Lilly, Thorsten Holzkaemper Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Alan Brnabic Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Khai Ng Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Soyi Liu Leage Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Christopher Schuster Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Andreas Pinter Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Biontec, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, GSK, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hexal, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, MC2, Medac, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, MSD, Novartis, Pascoe, Pfizer, Tigercat Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Schering-Plough and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Almirall-Hermal, Amgen, Biogen Idec, Biontec, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, GSK, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hexal, Janssen, LEO-Pharma, MC2, Medac, Merck Serono, Mitsubishi, MSD, Novartis, Pascoe, Pfizer, Tigercat Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz Biopharmaceuticals, Sanofi-Genzyme, Schering-Plough and UCB Pharma