Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Cutaneous and systemic improvements in psoriasis patients after different biologic treatments in a real-world longitudinal prospective study

Many tools, such as the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), are commonly used to evaluate treatment efficacy in clinical settings, but an optimal measure of treatment response may overlook the systemic response in psoriasis patients receiving treatment. This study aimed to assess and compare the co-benefits of adalimumab (ADA), ustekinumab (USTE), ixekizumab (IXE), secukinumab (SECU), and guselkumab (GUSE) during a 24-week follow-up period for the treatment of psoriasis in the Chinese population. We performed a prospective, randomized cohort study including patients receiving systemic biologic treatment for moderate to severe psoriasis. We conducted a follow-up of psoriatic patients treated with five biologics from January 2023 to June 2024 at four time points: baseline, week 4, week 12, and week 24. From baseline through every time point, we used the PASI, BSA (Body Surface Area), DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index), and metabolic and inflammatory screening for assessment and comparison of the clinical and systemic efficacy of biologics.This study included 385 participants treated with 5 different biologics. There was a dramatic clinical improvement from baseline to week 24, with a statistically significant difference (p < .001). Overall, 35 patients (9.09%), 145 (37.14%) and 335 (86.75%) achieved PASI 100 at week 4, week 12, and week 24 of the follow-up. Compared with other biologics, IXE (PASI 100 = 12.12% at week 4 vs. 87.27% at week 24) and SECU (PASI 100 = 7.79% at week 4 vs. 89.92% at week 24) were superior. At week 12, a high percentage with PASI 100 was observed for GUSE (38.71%) and SECU (40.28%). ADA and USTE continuously maintained a low percentage of the PASI 100. We observed quicker systemic improvements due to GUSE at time point 2 (p = .041, with low values of total cholesterol (TC) and non-HDL-C, p = .046) and week 24 for TNF-α (p = .024) than other biologics did. SECU and ADA had greater metabolic efficacy for GLU (p = .037 at week 12) and UA (p = .033 at week 24), respectively. This study confirmed the clinical efficacy of biologics and their ability to achieve complete skin clearance and further demonstrated that all biologics can continuously reduce systemic inflammation. We found that biologics have different effects on metabolic dysfunctions, such as SECU on glucose and GUSE on non-HDL.

Unveiling the effectiveness and safety spectrum of biologic therapies in psoriasis: a three-year real-world analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis vulgaris is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory disease that significantly affects quality of life, particularly in severe cases and anatomically challenging areas. Biologic therapies targeting immune pathways have improved clinical outcomes; however, variability in effectiveness, safety, and drug survival necessitates further investigation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and drug survival of biologic therapies in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 400 psoriasis patients treated with IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors. Clinical outcomes were assessed using PASI, DLQI, PSSI, NAPSI, and ppPASI scores. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression were employed to identify predictors of drug survival.

RESULTS

Ixekizumab demonstrated superior effectiveness in achieving PASI 100 and improving scalp psoriasis, while Guselkumab provided the most sustained improvements in palmoplantar and nail involvement. Adverse events were most frequently associated with IL-17 inhibitors, particularly upper respiratory tract infections. Guselkumab and Secukinumab demonstrated the highest drug survival rates, whereas Ixekizumab had the lowest. Early improvements in PASI and DLQI scores were strong predictors of drug survival.

CONCLUSION

Personalized treatment approaches are crucial, given the varied effectiveness, safety profiles, and drug survival among biologic therapies.

[Russian Cross-disciplinary Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of spondyloarthritis associated with inflammatory bowel diseases]

The Russian Cross-disciplinary Consensus on the diagnositic and treatment of spondyloarthritis (SpA) in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) was prepared on the initiative of the Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, using the Delphic system. Its purpose was to consolidate the opinions of experts on the most actual issues of diagnosis and treatment of concomitant immuno-inflammatory diseases (SpA and IBD). An interdisciplinary approach is provided by the participation of leading gastroenterologists and rheumatologists. The working group analyzed domestic and foreign publications on the problem of curation of patients with SpA and IBD. There have been 17 statements and 2 treatment algorithms formulated. Statements 1-3 reflect the fundamental principles of management of patients with SpA and IBD. The principles of early diagnosis of SpA and IBD, including the diagnosis of complications of therapy, are described below. Eleven statements are devoted to current methods of treatment, on the basis of which 2 treatment algorithms have been developed. The statements of the Consensus were submitted to the Expert Council for consideration, edits were made, after which an online vote took place. This paper presents current recommendations for the management, diagnosis and treatment of patients with SpA and IBD.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To understand the relative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a selective inhibitor of IL-17F in addition to IL-17A, vs other biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) for PsA using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature review (most recent update conducted on 1 January 2023) identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of b/tsDMARDs in PsA. Bayesian NMAs were conducted for efficacy outcomes at Weeks 12-24 for b/tsDMARD-naïve and TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients. Safety at Weeks 12-24 was analysed in a mixed population. Odds ratios (ORs) and differences of mean change with the associated 95% credible interval (CrI) were calculated for the best-fitting models, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values were calculated to determine relative rank.

RESULTS

The NMA included 41 RCTs for 22 b/tsDMARDs. For minimal disease activity (MDA), bimekizumab ranked 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients. In b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, bimekizumab ranked 6th, 5th and 3rd for ACR response ACR20/50/70, respectively. In TNFi-experienced patients, bimekizumab ranked 1st, 2nd and 1st for ACR20/50/70, respectively. For Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 90/100, bimekizumab ranked 2nd and 1st in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients, respectively, and 1st and 2nd in TNFi-experienced patients, respectively. Bimekizumab was comparable to b/tsDMARDs for serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Bimekizumab ranked favourably among b/tsDMARDs for efficacy on joint, skin and MDA outcomes, and showed comparable safety, suggesting it may be a beneficial treatment option for patients with PsA.

The Efficacy and Safety of Apremilast in the Management of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory skin disease that is associated with other conditions, one of them being psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, displayed promising results in multiple trials for patients with PsA. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to showcase its efficacy and safety when compared to placebo. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was adopted after registration on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42023476245). Four databases were systematically searched from their inception until October 25, 2023. As a result, five randomized controlled trials were included with 1,849 participants, after thorough screening. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated in this meta-analysis was the American College of Rheumatology Response Criteria 20 (ACR20). The results significantly favored apremilast (risk ratio [RR] = 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66-2.21; P < 0.00001; I2= 0%) as opposed to placebo. Similarly, secondary efficacy endpoints, ACR50 (RR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.79-3.06; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), ACR70 (RR = 2.89, 95% CI 1.62-5.18; P = 0.0003; I2 = 0%), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Disability Index (HAQ-DI; standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.26, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.17; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) were also in significant favor of apremilast. However, apremilast had a higher occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse events than placebo (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.12-1.30; P < 0.00001; I2 = 19%). To conclude, apremilast shows promising efficaciousness with some nonserious side effects when compared to placebo, but further trials are needed for comparison with other management lines.

Therapeutic Antibodies in Medicine

Antibody engineering has developed into a wide-reaching field, impacting a multitude of industries, most notably healthcare and diagnostics. The seminal work on developing the first monoclonal antibody four decades ago has witnessed exponential growth in the last 10-15 years, where regulators have approved monoclonal antibodies as therapeutics and for several diagnostic applications, including the remarkable attention it garnered during the pandemic. In recent years, antibodies have become the fastest-growing class of biological drugs approved for the treatment of a wide range of diseases, from cancer to autoimmune conditions. This review discusses the field of therapeutic antibodies as it stands today. It summarizes and outlines the clinical relevance and application of therapeutic antibodies in treating a landscape of diseases in different disciplines of medicine. It discusses the nomenclature, various approaches to antibody therapies, and the evolution of antibody therapeutics. It also discusses the risk profile and adverse immune reactions associated with the antibodies and sheds light on future applications and perspectives in antibody drug discovery.

Real-world registry-based study on apremilast use in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in Finland

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the position of apremilast in the treatment pathway of psoriasis (PsO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Finnish clinical practice, compared the characteristics of apremilast and biologic therapy users, evaluated persistence with apremilast and identified factors influencing treatment discontinuation.

METHOD

This retrospective study used data from Finnish national health registries. The target group was identified based on L40* diagnosis and medication records between 2015 and 2018. Treatment persistence was analysed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression.

RESULTS

Of eligible patients (PsO 31 202; PsA 12 386), 1% (n = 471) used apremilast and 10% (n = 4214) biologics, apremilast users being older (mean age 55.9 vs 52.4 years, p < 0.001) with a higher Charlson comorbidity score (0.71 vs 0.54, p < 0.001). Most patients switched to apremilast from conventional synthetic therapy (PsO 75%; PsA 76%); 47% of patients remained on apremilast during the observation period (PsO 58%; PsA 42%). Most patients discontinuing apremilast switched to biologics (PsO 51%; PsA 51%). Apremilast persistence increased with age (p = 0.042) and was higher in PsO than in PsA (median 14 vs 11 months; p = 0.005). Compared to prior conventional synthetic therapy, prior biologic therapy decreased persistence (hazard ratio for discontinuation 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.42-3.25).

CONCLUSION

In Finnish clinical practice, apremilast is mainly used between conventional synthetic therapy and biologics, with at least as high treatment persistence as reported in previous studies. Apremilast users were older with higher comorbidity burden than biologics users.

Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more).

RESULTS

In total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naïve) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naïve) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.

What's new and what's next for biological and targeted synthetic treatments in psoriatic arthritis?

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic arthritis typically associated with cutaneous psoriasis (PsO). Its pathogenesis is connected to an innate and acquired immune response, as well as genetic risk alleles. The extent of immunopathogenic mechanisms and the heterogenicity of clinical manifestation make the identification of patient-targeted therapies a critical issue, and the treatment decision challenging in patients' management.

AREAS COVERED

This review includes a brief overview of biological and small-molecule therapies, focusing on evidence from clinical trials and real-world data that support their use in PsA. We summarize novel and future possible therapeutic strategies, the importance that comorbidities have on selection of therapy and discuss the adverse event of each drug. Relevant papers for up to 1 August 2022 (trials, real-life studies, and reviews) regarding biologics and/or small molecules were summarized.

EXPERT OPINION

In recent years, the treatment of PsA has been revolutionized by new targeted therapies, which offer the opportunity to perform a tailored-tail management, considering risk factors, comorbidities, and the different PsA phenotypes. Growing experience with these new agents allows novel treatment approaches that may improve clinical outcomes for PsA patients, in terms of remission/low disease activity and quality of life.

Synthesis of 2-(2-(4-thioxo-3H-1,2-dithiole-5-yl) phenoxy)ethyl)isoindole-1,3-thione, a novel hydrogen sulfide-releasing phthalimide hybrid, and evaluation of its activity in models of inflammatory pain

Hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) is a gaseous mediator that modulates several physiological and pathological processes. Phthalimide analogues, substances that have the phthalimide ring in the structure, belong to the group of thalidomide analogues. Both H₂S donors and phthalimide analogues exhibit activities in models of inflammation and pain. As molecular hybridization is an important strategy aiming to develop drugs with a better pharmacological profile, in the present study we synthesized a novel H₂S-releasing phthalimide hybrid, 2-(2-(4-thioxo-3H-1,2-dithiole-5-yl) phenoxy)ethyl)isoindole-1,3-thione (PTD-H₂S), and evaluated its activity in models of inflammatory pain in mice. Per os (p.o.) administration of PTD-H₂S (125 or 250 mg/kg) reduced mechanical allodynia induced by carrageenan and lipopolysaccharide. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) administration of PTD-H₂S (25 mg/kg), but not equimolar doses of its precursors 5-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-3H-1,2-dithiole-3-thione (14.2 mg/kg) and 2-phthalimidethanol (12 mg/kg), reduced mechanical allodynia induced by lipopolysaccharide. The antiallodynic effect induced by PTD-H₂S (25 mg/kg, i.p.) was more sustained than that induced by the H₂S donor NaHS (8 mg/kg, i.p.). Previous administration of hydroxocobalamin (300 mg/kg, i.p.) or glibenclamide (40 mg/kg, p.o.) attenuated PTD-H₂S antiallodynic activity. In conclusion, we synthesized a novel H₂S-releasing phthalimide hybrid and demonstrated its activity in models of inflammatory pain. PTD-H₂S activity may be due to H₂S release and activation of ATP-sensitive potassium channels. The demonstration of PTD-H₂S activity in models of pain stimulates further studies aiming to evaluate H₂S-releasing phthalimide hybrids as candidates for analgesic drugs.

Immunomodulatory role of T helper cells in rheumatoid arthritis : a comprehensive research review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease that involves T and B cells and their reciprocal immune interactions with proinflammatory cytokines. T cells, an essential part of the immune system, play an important role in RA. T helper 1 (Th1) cells induce interferon-γ (IFN-γ), tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin (IL)-2, which are proinflammatory cytokines, leading to cartilage destruction and bone erosion. Th2 cells primarily secrete IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13, which exert anti-inflammatory and anti-osteoclastogenic effects in inflammatory arthritis models. IL-22 secreted by Th17 cells promotes the proliferation of synovial fibroblasts through induction of the chemokine C-C chemokine ligand 2 (CCL2). T follicular helper (Tfh) cells produce IL-21, which is key for B cell stimulation by the C-X-C chemokine receptor 5 (CXCR5) and coexpression with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and/or inducible T cell costimulator (ICOS). PD-1 inhibits T cell proliferation and cytokine production. In addition, there are many immunomodulatory agents that promote or inhibit the immunomodulatory role of T helper cells in RA to alleviate disease progression. These findings help to elucidate the aetiology and treatment of RA and point us toward the next steps.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(7):426–438.

IL-23 in axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis: a good fit for biological treatment?

INTRODUCTION

Interleukin 23 (IL-23) is a pro-inflammatory cytokine that plays a protective role against bacterial and fungal infections. However, the dysregulation of the IL-23/IL-17 axis provides a solid substrate for the development of various inflammatory diseases, such as psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

AREAS COVERED

In different clinical trials, several drugs against IL-23 have shown efficacy and safety towards PsA, with excellent results on skin and joint scores. However, the same drugs did not show the same efficacy in AS, suggesting that IL-23 may not be a relevant driver of the pathobiology and clinical symptoms of active axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).

EXPERT OPINION

These drugs have shown an excellent efficacy and a good safety profile towards PsA, while in AS the efficacy of the IL-23 blockade is lacking for reasons not yet known. Several hypotheses have been reported, but further studies will be needed for a greater understanding. This suggests the involvement of pathways or mechanisms for the development of SpA that remain unknown. In order to allow a wide use of IL-23 inhibitors, further clinical trials and long-term prospective studies are necessary.

NETosis in Psoriatic Arthritis: Serum MPO–DNA Complex Level Correlates With Its Disease Activity

Background

Neutrophil extracellular trap formation (NETosis) has been rarely reported in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We aimed to explore the involvement of NETosis in the inflammation of PsA.

Methods

Serum myeloperoxidase–DNA (MPO-DNA) complex was detected by a modified enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and compared among 74 patients with PsA, 58 patients with psoriasis (PsO), and 20 healthy controls. The association of MPO–DNA level with disease activity index at baseline and follow-up was analyzed in patients with PsA. Receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the predictive value of MPO–DNA for treatment response.

Results

MPO–DNA complex level in serum was significantly increased in patients with PsA/PsO compared to healthy controls (p &lt; 0.001). The level of MPO–DNA was positively associated with DAPSA score and its components (including TJC, SJC, PGA, VAS-pain and CRP, r = 0.25–0.409, all p-values &lt; 0.05). Serum MPO–DNA level was downregualted at 12 weeks after treatment compared to baseline (p = 0.022). The decrease of MPO–DNA level was more dramatic in patients with PsA who achieved both ACR50 and PASI50 response than those achieving neither of them at 12 weeks (p = 0.023). ROC analysis revealed that the serum MPO–DNA level predicted both ACR50 and PASI50 achievement at week 12 (p = 0.04; 95% CIs, 0.56–0.94). Moreover, the baseline MPO–DNA level (p = 0.009; 95% CIs, 0.748–1) and change of MPO–DNA at week 12 from baseline (p = 0.004; 95% CIs, 0.802–1) were associated with the achievement of both ACR70 and PASI75 response at week 24.

Conclusions

NETosis plays an important role in psoriatic diseases. The level of MPO–DNA complex in serum reflects disease activity. Serum MPO–DNA complex may be a useful biomarker to predict the therapeutic response in PsA.

Network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of biologic treatments for achieving complete resolution of nail psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Nail psoriasis (NP) is common and of high importance in patients with psoriasis. Complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26 is an unambiguous nail outcome accessible for indirect treatment comparison of biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy of approved biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to indirectly compare the efficacy of six biologics in achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26 in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and concomitant NP. Complete resolution of NP was defined as a score of zero on the Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), modified NAPSI (mNAPSI) or Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernails (PGA-F).

RESULTS

The probability of achieving complete resolution of NP was highest for ixekizumab (46.5%; 95% credibility interval [CrI] 35.1‒58.0; Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking curve [SUCRA] 97%), followed by brodalumab (37.0%; 17.0‒61.0; 79%), adalimumab (28.3%; 24.4‒32.4; 62%), guselkumab (27.7%; 21.1‒35.1; 58%), ustekinumab (20.8%; 10.2‒35.2; 37%), and infliximab (0.8%; 0.0‒8.9; 17%).

CONCLUSION

In patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and concomitant NP, ixekizumab has the greatest likelihood among approved biologics of achieving complete resolution of NP at week 24‒26. Findings should be interpreted carefully because of inherent study limitations.

2021 clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis. Colombian Association of Rheumatology

BACKGROUND

Peripheral spondyloarthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which clinical presentation is related to the presence of arthritis, enthesitis and/or dactylitis. This term is used interchangeably with some of its subtypes such as psoriatic arthritis, reactive arthritis, and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and formulate a set of specific recommendations based on the best available evidence for the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of adult patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis.

METHODS

A working group was established, clinical questions were formulated, outcomes were graded, and a systematic search for evidence was conducted. The guideline panel was multidisciplinary (including patient representatives) and balanced. Following the formal expert consensus method, the GRADE methodology "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" was used to assess the quality of the evidence and generate the recommendations. The Clinical Practice Guideline includes ten recommendations; related to monitoring of disease activity (n = 1) and treatment (n = 9).

RESULTS

In patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis, the use of methotrexate or sulfasalazine as the first line of treatment is suggested, and local injections of glucocorticoids is recommended conditionally. In patients with failure to cDMARDs, an anti TNFα or an anti IL17A is recommended. In case of failure to bDMARDs, it is suggested to use another bDMARD or JAK inhibitor. In patients with peripheral spondyloarthritis associated to inflammatory bowel disease, it is recommended to start treatment with cDMARDs; in the absence of response, the use of an anti TNFα over an anti-IL-17 or an anti-IL-12-23 is recommended as a second line of treatment. In patients with psoriatic arthritis, the combined use of methotrexate with bDMARD is conditionally recommended for optimization of dosing. To assess disease activity in Psoriatic Arthritis, the use of DAPSA or MDA is suggested for patient monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

This set of recommendations provides an updated guide on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral spondyloarthritis.

Recommendations of the Mexican College of Rheumatology for the management of psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that affects the skin, musculoskeletal structures and other organs and systems compromising functionality, quality of life and reducing the life expectancy of patients. It is a complex disease that requires specialist and timely care and management. The alternatives for treating the manifestations of psoriatic arthritis have increased and the effect of the different agents on specific manifestations has been clarified in recent studies. Therefore, we should incorporate the available evidence to build a strategy for the treatment of these patients. The Mexican College of Rheumatology selected a committee to evaluate these different alternatives and make recommendations.

METHODS

The study group included 16 rheumatologists and 3 certified dermatologists, selected from different health institutions and regions of the country. An executive committee was formed to coordinate the meetings and a committee of experts selected the literature search criteria, prepared the research questions, rated the quality of the evidence, and produced the recommendations in the different disease domains based on the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

24 updated recommendations were generated for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations establish the role of the drugs currently available in our country. The importance of adequate disease control is emphasized, individualizing the level of involvement of each patient in each of the six domains potentially affected by the disease. In addition, the sequence in the choice of treatments available for each domain is established, based on their efficacy, safety profile and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

With this consensus document, it will be possible to improve the care of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations were generated based on the best available information and in consideration of the Mexican health system.

Comparative effectiveness of biologics and targeted therapies for psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To quantify comparative effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-12/23 antagonist (ustekinumab), IL-17A antagonists (secukinumab and ixekizumab), PDE4 inhibitor (apremilast) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) for psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

We adapted a deidentified claims-based algorithm validated for inflammatory arthritis treatments to compare treatments among a retrospective cohort of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with PsA from October 2013 to April 2019 in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse. Main outcomes include (1) treatment effectiveness, based on: adherence, adding or switching biologic or PDE4, addition of new non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, increase in biologic or PDE4 dose or frequency and glucocorticoid use and (2) percentage of each group fulfilling the effectiveness algorithm. We used Poisson regression with robust variance stratified by prior PsA biologic exposure and adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of 2730 individuals with PsA, 327 received IL-12/23, 138 IL-17A's, 624 PDE4 and 1641 TNF-α's. Effectiveness criteria were fulfilled among 63 (19.3%) IL-12/23 recipients, 40 (29.0%) IL-17A recipients, 160 (25.6%) PDE4 recipients and 530 (32.3%) TNF-α recipients. Among biologic-naïve individuals, IL-12/23 was less effective than TNF-α's with fully adjusted relative risk (aRR) compared with TNF-α's of 0.63 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.89). Among biologic-experienced individuals, PDE4 recipients were less effective than TNF-α's (aRR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

TNF-α's appeared more effective than IL-12/23's for biologic-naïve individuals, and PDE4's for biologic-experienced individuals. These results may help inform treatment choice for individuals with PsA.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

Objective

The efficacy of the novel interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitor guselkumab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has recently been demonstrated in two phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 & -2) but has not been evaluated vs other targeted therapies for PsA. The objective was to compare guselkumab to targeted therapies for PsA for safety and joint and skin efficacy through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted in January 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response, mean change from baseline in van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 response, adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Results

Twenty-six phase 3 studies evaluating 13 targeted therapies for PsA were included. For ACR 20 response, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) was comparable to IL-17A inhibitors and subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. Similar findings were observed for ACR 50 and 70. For vdH-S score, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other agents except intravenous TNF therapies. Results for PASI 75 and PASI 90 response suggested guselkumab Q8W was better than most other agents. For PASI 100, guselkumab Q8W was comparable to other active agents. For AEs and SAEs, guselkumab Q8W ranked highly but comparative conclusions were uncertain. Similar results were observed for all outcomes for guselkumab 100 mg every four weeks.

Conclusions

In this NMA, guselkumab demonstrated favorable arthritis efficacy comparable to IL-17A and subcutaneous TNF inhibitors while offering better PASI response relative to many other treatments.

Recommendations of the Mexican College of Rheumatology for the management of psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease that affects the skin, musculoskeletal structures and other organs and systems compromising functionality, quality of life and reducing the life expectancy of patients. It is a complex disease that requires specialist and timely care and management. The alternatives for treating the manifestations of psoriatic arthritis have increased and the effect of the different agents on specific manifestations has been clarified in recent studies. Therefore, we should incorporate the available evidence to build a strategy for the treatment of these patients. The Mexican College of Rheumatology selected a committee to evaluate these different alternatives and make recommendations.

METHODS

The study group included 16 rheumatologists and 3 certified dermatologists, selected from different health institutions and regions of the country. An executive committee was formed to coordinate the meetings and a committee of experts selected the literature search criteria, prepared the research questions, rated the quality of the evidence, and produced the recommendations in the different disease domains based on the GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

24 updated recommendations were generated for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations establish the role of the drugs currently available in our country. The importance of adequate disease control is emphasized, individualizing the level of involvement of each patient in each of the six domains potentially affected by the disease. In addition, the sequence in the choice of treatments available for each domain is established, based on their efficacy, safety profile and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

With this consensus document, it will be possible to improve the care of patients with psoriatic arthritis. The recommendations were generated based on the best available information and in consideration of the Mexican health system.

Recommendations for psoriatic arthritis management: A joint position paper of the Taiwan Rheumatology Association and the Taiwanese Association for Psoriasis and Skin Immunology

In Taiwan, the incidence and prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have risen significantly in recent years. Moreover, data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) show that more than 85% of PsA patients are treated with just non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Taiwanese clinicians have also expressed concerns regarding uncertainties in the diagnosis of PsA and the delayed, interrupted, and/or tapered use of biologics, as well as differences in therapeutic preferences between and within dermatologists and rheumatologists. To address these issues, the Taiwan Rheumatology Association and the Taiwanese Association for Psoriasis and Skin Immunology jointly convened a committee of 28 clinicians from the fields of rheumatology, dermatology, orthopedics, and rehabilitation, to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the practical management of PsA in Taiwan. A total of six overarching principles and 13 recommendations were developed and approved, as well as a treatment algorithm with four separate tracks for axial PsA, peripheral PsA, enthesitis, and dactylitis. Psoriasis (PsO) management was not discussed here, as the Taiwanese Dermatological Association has recently published a comprehensive consensus statement on the management of PsO. Together, these recommendations provide an up-to-date, evidence-based framework for PsA care in Taiwan.

A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains

Introduction: Several new treatments have been developed for psoriatic disease, an inflammatory condition that involves skin and joints. Notwithstanding, few studies have made direct comparisons between treatments and therefore it is difficult to select the ideal treatment for an individual patient. The aim of this systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) was to analyze available and approved biologic therapies for each domain of psoriatic disease: skin, peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail involvement. Methods: Data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE database (July 2020) using PICO criteria. Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of biological therapy in terms of the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR, 24 weeks) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI, 10-16 weeks). Results: Fifty-four RCTs were included in the systematic review. Due to the design of the RCTs, namely, outcomes and time points, network meta-analysis was performed for skin and peripheral arthritis domains. For the skin domain, 30 studies reporting PASI100 were included. The peripheral arthritis domain was analyzed through ACR70 in 12 studies. From the therapies approved for both domains, secukinumab and ixekizumab were the ones with the highest probability of reaching the proposed outcomes. There is a lack of outcome uniformization in the dactylitis, enthesitis, and nail domains, and therefore, an objective comparison of the studies was not feasible. Nevertheless, secukinumab was the treatment with the best compromise between the number of studies in each domain and the results obtained in the different outcomes. Conclusion: Secukinumab and ixekizumab were the treatments with the highest probability of reaching both PASI100 and ACR70 outcomes. Due to the lack of a standard evaluation of outcomes of the other psoriatic disease domains, a network meta-analysis for all the domains was not possible to perform.

Efficacy of Biologics Targeting Tumour Necrosis Factor-alpha, Interleukin-17 -12/23, -23 and Small Molecules Targeting JAK and PDE4 in the Treatment of Nail Psoriasis: A Network Meta-analysis

The comparative efficacy of registered anti-psoriatic biologics and small molecules in treating nail symptoms has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this study was to perform a network meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of biologics and small mole-cules in nail psoriasis. A Bayesian network meta- analysis of 17 randomized clinical trials (a total of 6,053 nail psoriatic patients) was performed, comparing the short-term (week 10-16) efficacy of biologics and small molecules in the treatment of nail psoriasis. All active treatments were found to be superior to place-bo. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI) % improvement, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA)=0.92) and etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (probability of achiev-ing NAPSI 50, SUCRA=0.82) proved the best short-term treatment options. However, efficacy end-points in psoriasis trials were not optimized for nail assessment, and outcome parameters were highly heterogeneous, limiting comparability. In conclusion, outcome parameters and efficacy endpoints of nail psoriasis trials should be standardized.

An Update for the Clinician on Biologics for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy typically associated with psoriasis (PsO). The pathogenesis is strictly related to the association among the presence of genetic risk alleles and innate and acquired immune response with dramatic consequences on bone remodeling. Clinically, PsA patients may present heterogenicity of articular and periarticular manifestations that may be associated with the presence of comorbidities making treatment decision challenging in patients management. The identification of patient-targeted therapies is still a critical issue. Actually, several biological and synthetic drugs are promising in terms of efficacy and safety profile. National and international treatment recommendations support clinicians in the decision of the best treatment, although they may have limits basically related to updates and different outcomes included in the clinical studies evaluated. The aim of this narrative review is therefore to give guidance for clinicians for PsA patients treatment. For this purpose, we evaluated evidence on biological therapies efficacy used for PsA treatment. Specifically, we reviewed data on biological therapies, Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors, and drugs with a new mechanism of action that are part of the treatment pipeline. The concept of "switching" and "swapping" is also described, as well as data concerning special populations such as pregnant women and elderly patients.

Secondary causes of inflammatory bowel diseases

Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), conventionally consist of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis. They occur in individuals with high risk genotype for the disease in the setting of appropriate environmental factors. The pathogenesis of IBD involves a dysregulated autoimmune response to gut dysbiosis, which in turn is triggered due to exposure to various inciting environmental factors. But there is no clearly defined etiology of IBD and this type of disease is termed as "idiopathic IBD", "classic IBD", or "primary IBD". We reviewed the current medical literature and found that certain etiological factors may be responsible for the development of IBD or IBD-like conditions, and we consider this form of de novo IBD as "secondary IBD". Currently known factors that are potentially responsible for giving rise to secondary IBD are medications; bowel altering surgeries and transplantation of organs, stem cells or fecal microbiome. Medications associated with the development of secondary IBD include; immunomodulators, anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents, anti-interleukin agents, interferons, immune stimulating agents and checkpoint inhibitors. Colectomy can in some cases give rise to de novo CD, pouchitis of the ileal pouch, or postcolectomy enteritis syndrome. After solid organ transplantation or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, the recipient may develop de novo IBD or IBD flare. Fecal microbiota transplantation has been widely used to treat patients suffering from recurrent Clostridium difficile infection but can also causes IBD flares.

Hypersensitivity reactions to biologics (part II): classifications and current diagnostic and treatment approaches

Purpose

Biotechnological substances (BS) have rapidly expanded their clinical use. In parallel, there is an increase in expected or unexpected immunological or non-immunological adverse effects. In this part of the review, the current nomenclature of BSs, the classification of hypersensitivity reactions (HSR), as well as diagnostic and treatment approaches are documented to provide the tools to understand the nomenclature used throughout the databases and the need to harmonize it where applicable.

Methods

Detailed searches were performed on Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to include all available publications. The search terms, such as specific BS, allergy, anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity, reactions, classification, diagnosis, grading, management, and desensitization, were determined for the search. Case reports, articles, and reviews on this subject were included.

Results

Today, a variety of non-standardized methods are used to support the clinical diagnosis. These include prick-to-prick tests and intradermal tests with the drug itself and its potentially allergenic ingredients. More rarely, anti-drug antibodies are detected and basophil activation tests are used by centers with research facilities. Although the treatment protocols for acute conditions vary, the overall approach is the same.

Conclusion

HSRs to BS are gradually increasing with the widening of their clinical use and indications. It is very important to prevent HSRs and to know the degree of severity as well as the emergency treatment algorithm. This review summarizes the diagnostic tests that should be applied: (a) immediately during/after a reaction, and (b) subsequently, and in the case that a switch of BS is not possible, desensitization is an option.

A dermatologist perspective in the pharmacological treatment of patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with psoriasis in 20-30% of patients. PsA presents as a heterogeneous disease involving different domains and burdened by an important impact on function and quality of life.

AREAS COVERED

Dermatologists play an important role in the early detection of PsA because in most patients PsA develop after cutaneous psoriasis. The ideal goal of treating patients with PsA is to optimize the controls of symptoms, improve quality of life, and prevent structural damage and disability. The choice of treatment in patients with PsA should take into account also the skin signs and symptoms. Treatment options include NSAIDs, synthetic DMARDSs, anti-TNF-α agents, anti-IL-12/IL-23 agents, anti-IL-17 agents, PDE4 inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and co-stimulatory blockers. A narrative review based on electronic searches on PubMed® database was performed. Original articles assessing either the role of the dermatologist in the management of PsA and the available treatments for PsA were included.

EXPERT OPINION

Among different treatments, some drugs show more efficacy in joint signs and symptoms, and poor response on the skin and vice versa. The perspective of the dermatologist in a multidisciplinary setting may provide a helpful tool in the management of patients with PsA.

Efficacy and Safety of Biologics for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis and Their Impact on Comorbidities: A Literature Review

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by scaly indurated erythema. It impairs patients’ quality of life enormously. It has been recognized not only as a skin disease but as a systemic disease, since it also causes arthritis (psoriatic arthritis) and mental disorders. Furthermore, an association with cardiovascular events is indicated. With the advent of biologics, treatment of psoriasis dramatically changed due to its high efficacy and tolerable safety. A variety of biologic agents are available for the treatment of psoriasis nowadays. However, characteristics such as rapidity of onset, long-term efficacy, safety profile, and effects on comorbidities are different. Better understanding of those characteristic leads to the right choice for individual patients, resulting in higher persistence, longer drug survival, higher patient satisfaction, and minimizing the disease impact of psoriasis. In this paper, we focus on the efficacy and safety profile of biologics in psoriasis patients, including plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. In addition, we discuss the impact of biologics on comorbidities caused by psoriasis.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA.

METHODS

Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients.

RESULTS

For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments.

CONCLUSION

Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.

Mini Review: New Treatments in Psoriatic Arthritis. Focus on the IL-23/17 Axis

Psoriasis, an inflammatory skin disease, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), an inflammatory arthritis, share clinical, genetic, and pathogenic factors and may be summed as one disease, the psoriatic disease. Interleukin (IL)-17 plays a major role in the development of both psoriasis and PsA. IL-23 is important in the proliferation and maintenance of IL-17, and therefore, cytokines of the IL-23/IL-17 axis attracted much interest as therapeutic targets in psoriasis and PsA. Therapeutic agents targeting the IL-23/IL-17 axis have been proven to be very effective in psoriasis and PsA, some are already in the therapeutic armamentarium and others are in the development. Some agents, target IL-23 and others IL-17 and include anti-IL-12/IL-23 p40 (ustekinumab, briankizumab), anti-IL-23p19 (guselkumab, tildrakizumab, risankizumab, brazikumab, mirikizumab), anti-IL-17A (secukinumab, ixekizumab), dual anti-IL-17A and anti-IL-17F (bimekizumab), or anti-IL-17 receptor (brodalumab) monoclonal antibodies. Janus tyrosine kinase(JAK) inhibitors also directly affect IL-23 and, thus, IL-17. After the first-generation pan-JAK inhibitors have been shown efficacy (tofacitinib, baricitinib), new-generation selective JAK inhibitors (filgotinib, upadacitinib) are under investigation in psoriasis and PsA.

Unmet need in rheumatology: reports from the Targeted Therapies meeting 2018

To develop a comprehensive listing of the greatest unmet scientific and clinical needs in rheumatology. The 20th annual international Targeted Therapies meeting brought more than 100 leading basic scientists and clinical researchers in rheumatology, immunology, epidemiology, molecular biology and other specialties. During the meeting, breakout sessions were convened, consisting of five disease-specific groups with 20-30 experts assigned to each group based on expertise. Specific groups included rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, connective tissue diseases and a basic science immunology group spanning all of these clinical domains. In each group, experts were asked to consider recent accomplishments within their clinical domain in the last year and update the unmet needs in three categorical areas: basic/translational science, clinical science and therapeutic development, and clinical care. While progress was noted among some of previously identified needs, both new needs were identified and themes from prior meetings were re-iterated: the need for better understanding the heterogeneity within each disease, and for identifying preclinical states of disease allowing treatment and prevention of disease in those at risk, and the elusive ability to cure disease. Within the clinical care realm, improved comorbidity management and patient-centred care continue to be unmet needs, and the need for new and affordable therapeutics was highlighted. Unmet needs for new and accessible targeted therapies, disease prevention and ultimately cure remain a priority in rheumatology.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted DMARDs for active psoriatic arthritis during induction therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy and safety of targeted synthetic DMARDs (tofacitinib, apremilast) as well as biological DMARDs (guselkumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, clazakizumab, abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab, and golimumab) were identified by systemic literature review. Traditional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis using a random effects model were performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI to compare and rank these treatments according to ACR20 response, 75% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI75), numbers of adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). Similar analyses were conducted among biologic-naïve population and biologic-experienced/failed population.

RESULTS

We deemed 29 RCTs eligible, including 10,204 participants and 17 treatments. During induction therapy (first 12-16 weeks), all treatments except clazakizumab were more efficacious than placebo in achieving ACR20 and PASI75. Although tofacitinib, apremilast, and ixekinumab 80 mg every 2 weeks had a higher rate of AE, no significant difference was revealed for SAE among all treatments. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, adalimumab, guselkumab, and secukinumab 300 mg outperformed other drugs in achieving both ACR20 and PASI75. Infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), and ustekinumab (45 mg and 90 mg) are characterized by both high efficacy and safety. Similar rankings were observed in the analysis among biologic-naïve patients. Moreover, ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), ixekizumab, abatacept, certolizumab pegol, tofacitinib, and apremilast were still associated with higher ACR20 compared to placebo while ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg), ixekizumab and tofacitinib with higher PASI75 among biologic-experienced/failed patients.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the overall risk-benefit profile, infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab may be safer and more efficacious treatments than the other targeted DMARDs for active PsA during induction therapy.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Tofacitinib and Apremilast in Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Tofacitinib and apremilast have shown considerable efficacy in placebo-controlled trials of active psoriatic arthritis, but the relative efficacy and safety remain unclear because of a lack of head-to-head comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and apremilast at different doses in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine evidence from randomized controlled trials for examination of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 30 mg, and apremilast 20 mg in psoriatic arthritis.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials including 3086 patients met the inclusion criteria. There were ten pairwise comparisons including six direct comparisons of five interventions. All the interventions achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20 response compared with placebo. Tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were among the most effective treatments for active psoriatic arthritis, followed by tofacitinib 5 mg, and apremilast 20 mg. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment in terms of the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate (SUCRA = 0.785). This was followed by apremilast 30 mg (SUCRA = 0.670), tofacitinib 5 mg (SUCRA = 0.596), apremilast 20 mg (SUCRA = 0.448), and placebo (SUCRA = 0.001). We observed no significant differences in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib 10 mg, apremilast 30 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, apremilast 20 mg, or placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with active psoriatic arthritis, tofacitinib 10 mg and apremilast 30 mg were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Systemic rheumatic diseases: From biological agents to small molecules

The development of biologics and small oral molecules has recently changed the scenario of pharmacologic treatment of systemic rheumatic diseases and it has become a real revolution. These drugs have innovative mechanisms of action, based on the inhibition of specific molecular or cellular targets directly involved in disease pathogenesis. This new scenario has lead to a regular update of the management recommendations of several institutions, such as those for Rheumatoid Arthritis treatment that address the use of conventional and biologic therapies including TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab), biosimilars and small oral molecules (the JAK inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (such as treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission or low disease activity are the final goal of the guidelines for rheumatic patients management. In another condition represented by Axial Spondyloarthritis guidelines suggest to start first with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to improve lifestyle and reduce spine inflammation, but if this is not achieved in 2-4 weeks it is important to consider the use of local therapies (i.e. glucocorticoid injections) or to start biologic therapy such as TNF inhibitors and then eventually switching to another TNF inhibitor or swapping to IL-17 inhibitor. In the case of active Psoriatic Arthritis, guidelines suggest to start with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and even local glucocorticoid injections especially for oligoarthritis, then to start conventional therapies if lack of efficacy, and finally start biologics or small oral molecules in the presence of drugs toxicity, unfavorable prognostic factors and still active arthritis. In several cases, active Psoriatic Arthritis patients develop a complex clinical condition with comorbidities such as diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease and high risk of infections, and for this reason the American College of Rheumatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation have developed specific guidelines for their management. Biologic and new small molecules therapies are very expensive, but the availability of biosimilars offers the opportunity of reducing the treatment cost and significantly decreasing the cost of originators as well. In fact, we live in a period characterized by the need to rationalize costs of these drugs, to allow treating a higher number of patients and to maintain a homogeneous possibility of treatment choice. For these reasons, we need to follow scientific guidelines and patients' clinical conditions to choose the correct treatment, also based on the economic burden of therapies.

TNF Inhibitor-Induced Psoriasis: Proposed Algorithm for Treatment and Management

Tumor necrosis factor a (TNF-α)-targeted therapies have expanded the therapeutic options for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and have significantly improved patients' quality of life. Paradoxically, anti-TNF-α agents may induce psoriatic eruptions or worsen preexisting psoriatic skin disease. Currently, there is no standard approach for the management of TNF inhibitor-induced psoriasis. Here, we conduct a literature review on TNF inhibitor-induced psoriasis and introduce a novel treatment algorithm for maintaining otherwise effective anti-TNF therapy versus switching to a different class as appropriate in the management of patients with IBD, RA, psoriasis, or PsA.

Abatacept for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous disease with several clinical subtypes including peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, nail disease, and axial arthritis. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids, and conventional disease-modifying agents are used as first line in the treatment of active PsA. For moderate-to-severe PsA failing conventional therapy, antitumor necrosis factor inhibitors have historically been the drugs of choice. In recent years, novel interleukin-23/interleukin-17 pathway targets such as ustekinumab and secukinumab, and phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor apremilast have been approved for use in the United States and Europe. Two sets of recommendations for the management of PsA were published in 2016 with consideration for these newer therapies. Since then, the results from a Phase III randomized controlled trial demonstrated that abatacept has efficacy in the treatment of PsA. Abatacept, a cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)–Ig human fusion protein, acts to prevent naïve T-cell activation through the inhibition of the critical CD28 co-stimulatory signal. In the 2017 Active Psoriatic Arthritis Randomized Trial (ASTRAEA), 424 participants were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly versus placebo. At week 24, 39.4% of those who received abatacept achieved a minimum of 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response compared to 22.3% in the placebo arm, a statistically significant finding (P<0.001). The 2011 Phase II study published by Mease et al demonstrated statistically significant improvements in the ACR20 response by week 169 in participants treated with intravenous abatacept 10 mg/kg (48%) and 30/10 mg/kg (42%) when compared with placebo (19%). This article reviews the data supporting the efficacy of abatacept in the management of PsA and attempts to place this agent in the context of other biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and targeted small molecules used in the treatment of patients with PsA.

Abatacept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: biological and clinical profiles of the responders

Abatacept (CTLA4Ig), a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, has been approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, but not for those with uncontrolled skin lesions, nor with axial involvement. In this review, we will try to interpret such a differential efficacy of abatacept on the psoriatic arthritis clinical domains, on the basis of its differential effectiveness on the diverse T-cell subsets at different sites. Clinical and biological profiles of possible responders to abatacept will be provided.