Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for Psoriatic Arthritis: Comparative Effectiveness up to 48 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors for psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic arthritis affecting people with psoriasis. If untreated, it may lead to disability. Recommended drugs are non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are the first choice bDMARDs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of TNFi in adults with psoriatic arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization trials portal up to 28 March 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with PsA, comparing TNFi to placebo, physiotherapy, NSAIDs, corticosteroids, and cs/b/tsDMARDs. Major outcomes included clinical improvement, minimal disease activity, physical function, health-related quality of life, radiographic progression, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary comparison was TNFi versus placebo. The primary time point was 12 weeks for clinical improvement; 24 weeks for minimal disease activity, function, quality of life, and radiographic progression; and the end of the trial period for serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs randomizing 7857 participants. Four studies compared TNFi to methotrexate and one to ustekinumab in DMARD-naïve participants. In csDMARD-inadequate responders, 11 studies compared TNFi to placebo; four studies compared TNFi to placebo and ixekizumab, bimekizumab, tofacitinib, or upadacitinib; and three studies compared TNFi to ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab. Two studies compared different TNFi. We found no studies with b/tsDMARD-inadequate responders (b/tsDMARD-IR). No studies compared TNFi to NSAIDs, corticosteroids, or physiotherapy. Performance (32%), detection (56%) and reporting (80%) biases were at high or unclear risk across studies. Only one study had a low risk of bias in all domains. We limit reporting to the primary comparison, TNFi versus placebo. DMARD-naïve We found no studies comparing TNFi with placebo in DMARD-naïve participants. csDMARD-inadequate responders TNFi probably result in a large clinical improvement compared to placebo. At 12 weeks, 149/1926 (8%) participants in the placebo group showed a clinical improvement (ACR50) compared to 784/2141 (37%) participants in the TNFi group (risk ratio (RR) 5.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.98 to 7.96; I2 = 65%; 14 studies, 4067 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TNFi probably result in a higher proportion of participants in minimal disease activity. At 24 weeks, 95/1017 (9%) participants in the placebo group were in minimal disease activity compared to 428/1336 (32%) participants in the TNFi group (RR 3.76, 95% CI 2.39 to 5.92; I2 = 72%; 5 studies, 2353 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 weeks, TNFi may improve function compared to placebo. The mean change in function from baseline (assessed with the Health Assessment Questionnaire; score from 0 to 3, 0 = no disability; minimal clinically important difference (MCID) = 0.35) was -0.14 points with placebo and 0.33 points lower (0.41 lower to 0.25 lower) with TNFi (I2 = 72%; 8 studies, 2949 participants; low-certainty evidence). TNFi probably result in a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life. The mean change in quality of life from baseline (assessed with the Short Form 36-item Mental Component Summary questionnaire; score from 0 to 100, 100 = best score; MCID = 1.7) was 2.4 points with placebo and 3.29 points higher (2.18 points higher to 4.40 points higher) with TNFi (I2 = 52%; 8 studies, 2928 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). TNFi probably slightly reduce radiographic progression. The mean change in radiographic progression (assessed with the Sharp/Van der Heijde-PsA score; scale from 0 to 528, 0 = no damage) was 0.25 points with placebo and 0.37 points lower with TNFi (0.48 lower to 0.25 lower) (I2 = 32%; 7 studies, 2478 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) at 24 weeks. We downgraded the evidence to moderate certainty for clinical improvement, minimal disease activity, quality of life, and radiographic progression due to risk of bias. For function, we downgraded the evidence to low certainty for risk of bias and imprecision. TNFi may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events, but may slightly increase withdrawals due to adverse events, compared to placebo. At the end of follow-up: 56/1826 participants (3%) given placebo and 69/1900 (4%) participants given TNFi experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; 13 studies, 3866 participants; low-certainty evidence); and 35/1926 (2%) participants given placebo and 65/2140 (3%) given TNFi withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.33; I2 = 0%; 14 studies, 4066 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the evidence to low certainty for risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In csDMARD-inadequate responders, moderate-certainty evidence showed that TNFi probably result in a large clinical improvement, lower disease activity, small decrease in radiographic progression, and better quality of life compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence showed that TNFi may lead to a slight improvement in physical function compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that TNFi may lead to a slight increase in withdrawals due to adverse events, whereas they may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to placebo. No trials assessed TNFi compared to placebo in DMARD-naïve participants or in b/tsDMARD-IR.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Risankizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

The relative efficacy of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with PsA who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) was assessed at 52 weeks (Wk52) using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. For patients who were bDMARD naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) were matched with summary data from KEEPsAKE-1 (NCT03675308; N = 483). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data from the TNFi-IR patient subgroup in KEEPsAKE-2 (NCT03671148; N = 106). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the risankizumab trials. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Recalculated bimekizumab Wk52 outcomes for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) index (non-responder imputation) were compared with risankizumab outcomes via non-placebo-adjusted comparisons.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.11, 2.09]) and ACR70 (1.80 [1.29, 2.51]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a significantly greater likelihood of response than risankizumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (1.78 [1.08, 2.96]), ACR50 (3.05 [1.74, 5.32]), ACR70 (3.69 [1.82, 7.46]), and MDA (2.43 [1.37, 4.32]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab demonstrated a greater likelihood of efficacy in most ACR and MDA outcomes than risankizumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT03675308, NCT03671148.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess the relative efficacy at 52 weeks (Wk52) of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) and ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve (bDMARD naïve) or who had a previous inadequate response or an intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from the bimekizumab trials BE OPTIMAL (NCT03895203; N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581; N = 267) were matched with summary data on patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 1 trial (NCT01009086; 45 mg, N = 205; 90 mg; N = 204) and a subgroup of TNFi-IR patients receiving ustekinumab in the PSUMMIT 2 trial (NCT01077362; 45 mg, N = 60; 90 mg, N = 58), respectively. Patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of the ustekinumab trial patients. Adjustment variables were selected based on expert consensus (n = 5) and adherence to established MAIC guidelines. Non-placebo-adjusted comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and ustekinumab outcomes for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria (non-responder imputation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 45 mg: 2.14 [1.35, 3.40]; 90 mg: 1.98 [1.24, 3.16]), ACR50 (45 mg: 2.74 [1.75, 4.29]; 90 mg: 2.29 [1.48, 3.55]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 3.33 [2.04, 5.46]; 90 mg: 3.05 [1.89, 4.91]). In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response than ustekinumab at Wk52 for ACR20 (45 mg: 4.17 [2.13, 8.16]; 90 mg: 4.19 [2.07, 8.49]), ACR50 (45 mg: 5.00 [2.26, 11.05]; 90 mg: 3.86 [1.70, 8.79]), and ACR70 (45 mg: 9.85 [2.79, 34.79]; 90 mg: 6.29 [1.98, 20.04]).

CONCLUSIONS

Using MAIC, bimekizumab showed greater efficacy than ustekinumab in achieving all ACR responses in patients with PsA who were bDMARD naïve and TNFi-IR at Wk52.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT01009086, NCT01077362.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

INTRODUCTION

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

METHODS

Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed.

RESULTS

In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of therapies for psoriatic arthritis on patient-reported outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Head-to-head clinical trials are common in psoriasis, but scarce in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), making treatment comparisons between therapeutic classes difficult. This study describes the relative effectiveness of targeted synthetic (ts) and biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through network meta-analysis (NMA).

DESIGN

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in January 2020. Bayesian NMAs were conducted to compare treatments on Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 36-item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey including Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE (including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily),Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patients with PsA receiving tsDMARDS, bDMARDs or placebo were included in the SLR; there was no restriction on outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent researchers reviewed all citations. Data for studies meeting all inclusion criteria were extracted into a standardised Excel-based form by one reviewer and validated by a second reviewer. A third reviewer was consulted to resolve any discrepancies, as necessary. Risk of bias was assessed using the The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical effectiveness quality assessment checklist.

RESULTS

In total, 26 RCTs were included. For HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS scores, intravenous tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors generally ranked higher than most other classes of therapies available to treat patients with PsA. For almost all outcomes, several interleukin (IL)-23, IL-17A, subcutaneous TNF and IL-12/23 agents offered comparable improvement, while cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4, phosphodiesterase-4 and Janus kinase inhibitors often had the lowest efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

While intravenous TNFs may provide some improvements in PROs relative to several other tsDMARDs and bDMARDs for the treatment of patients with PsA, differences between classes of therapies across outcomes were small.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: updates to a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on ACR response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favourably in the network for SAEs.

A cost-consequence analysis of the preferential use of secukinumab versus adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective.

METHODS

A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged.

RESULTS

Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Secukinumab and ustekinumab treatment in psoriatic arthritis: results of a direct comparison

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the characteristics of patients (pts) with PsA treated by ustekinumab (UST) or secukinumab (SEK) and to compare real-world persistence of UST and SEK in PsA.

METHODS

In this retrospective, national, multicentre cohort study, pts with PsA (CASPAR criteria or diagnosis confirmed by the rheumatologist) initiating UST or SEK with a follow-up ≥6 months were included from January 2011 to April 2019. The persistence between SEK and UST was assessed after considering the potential confounding factors by using pre-specified propensity-score methods. Causes of discontinuation and tolerance were also collected.

RESULTS

A total of 406 pts were included: 245 with UST and 161 with SEK. The persistence rate was lower in the UST group compared with the SEK group [median persistence 9.4 vs 14.7 months; 26.4% vs 38.0% at 2 years; weighted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.92; P =0.015]. In subgroup analysis, the persistence rate of SEK associated with MTX was significantly higher than that of UST associated with MTX: HR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.30, 3.51; P =0.001, in contrast to SEK vs UST monotherapy: HR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.74, 1.53; P =0.75. Discontinuation due to inefficacy was reported in 91.7% (SEK) and 82.4% (UST) of pts. Discontinuation due to an adverse event was reported in 12.2% (SEK) and 7.7% (UST) of pts.

CONCLUSION

In this first study comparing UST and SEK, the persistence of SEK was higher than that of UST in PsA. In subgroup analysis, this difference was only found in association with MTX.

Effect of interleukin-17A inhibitor in Japanese patients with psoriatic arthritis compared with tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor

OBJECTIVES

The patient of severe psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is mainly treated with oral methotrexate, ciclosporin, and anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi). Recently, anti-interleukin-17A inhibitors (IL-17Ai) have been used in the treatment of PsA. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-17Ai in Japanese patients with PsA compared with those of TNFi.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal and retrospective study. The study population included 31 Japanese patients with PsA. All enrolled patients fulfilled the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis. All patients were treated with TNFi or IL-17Ai. The assessed clinical manifestations were C-reactive protein (CRP)-based Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints (DAS28-CRP), disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (DAPSA), 20% achievement of American College of Rheumatology core set, swollen joint count (SJC), tender joint count (TJC), and visual analog scale (VAS). Functional ability of patients with PsA was analyzed using the modified health assessment questionnaire (mHAQ) score. We evaluated the parameters at baseline and weeks 12, 24, and 52.

RESULTS

The change in SJC, TJC, VAS, mHAQ, and DAPSA had no significant difference at weeks 12, 24, and 52. The improvements of CRP and DAS28-CRP were significantly higher in TNFi group only at week 12. The biologics retention rate was significantly higher in TNFi group by the log-rank test. No critical adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study presented that IL-17Ai had treatment effects comparable to TNFi. IL-17Ai might have the potential to become an alternative to the previous drug, but more large-scale studies are expected.

Comparison of treatment retention and response to secukinumab versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To compare treatment retention and response to secukinumab vs adalimumab, including the other four TNF inhibitors (TNFi) as comparators, in PsA.

METHODS

All patients with PsA starting secukinumab or a TNFi in 2015-2018 were identified in the biologic registers of the Nordic countries. Data on comorbidities were linked from national registers. One-year treatment retention and hazard ratios (HRs) for treatment discontinuation were calculated. The proportion achieving a 6 month 28-joint Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA28) remission was determined together with odds ratios (ORs) for remission (logistic regression). Both HRs and ORs were calculated with adalimumab as the reference and adjusted for baseline characteristics and concurrent comorbidities. All analyses were stratified by the line of biologic treatment (first, second, third+).

RESULTS

We identified 6143 patients contributing 8307 treatment courses (secukinumab, 1227; adalimumab, 1367). Secukinumab was rarely used as the first biologic, otherwise baseline characteristics were similar. No clinically significant differences in treatment retention or response rates were observed for secukinumab vs adalimumab. The adjusted HRs for discontinuation per the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.98 (95% CI 0.68, 1.41), 0.94 (0.70, 1.26) and 1.07 (0.84, 1.36), respectively. The ORs for DAPSA28 remission in the first, second and third line of treatment were 0.62 (95% CI 0.30, 1.28), 0.85 (0.41, 1.78) and 0.74 (0.36, 1.51), respectively. In the subset of patients previously failing a TNFi due to ineffectiveness, the results were similar.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences in treatment retention or response were observed between secukinumab and adalimumab, regardless of the line of treatment. This suggests that even in patients who have failed a TNFi, choosing either another TNFi or secukinumab may be equally effective.

Secukinumab Efficacy on Psoriatic Arthritis GRAPPA-OMERACT Core Domains in Patients with or Without Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Use: Pooled Analysis of Four Phase 3 Studies

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, heterogeneous, immune-mediated disease manifesting as a spectrum of possible inflammatory signs and symptoms. Clinicians need therapeutic choices that work across all active PsA disease domains, as well as practical information about efficacy of available treatments for individual domains in specific groups of patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of prior tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure on the efficacy of secukinumab across PsA core domains.

Methods

Data were pooled from 2049 participants with PsA in four phase 3 studies (FUTURE 2–5). Efficacy at week 16 was evaluated for each GRAPPA-OMERACT PsA core domain using nonresponder imputation for musculoskeletal disease activity and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores or as-observed data for other outcomes. For each measure, comparisons with placebo were made separately in the TNFi-naive and TNFi-inadequate responder/intolerant (TNF-IR) cohorts.

Results

Treatment with secukinumab improved PsA disease activity across all disease domains regardless of previous TNFi use, although TNFi-naive patients experienced numerically greater benefits in most outcomes. Among patients treated with secukinumab 300 mg, 41.5% and 24.4% of TNFi-naive patients (P < 0.05 vs placebo) and 18.6% and 9.0% of TNF-IR patients (nonsignificant vs placebo) experienced resolution in 66 swollen and 68 tender joint counts, respectively; additionally, 37.2% of TNFi-naive patients and 24.2% of TNF-IR patients achieved complete resolution of psoriasis at week 16 (all P < 0.05 vs placebo). Secukinumab effect sizes were generally larger in TNFi-naive vs TNF-IR patients for musculoskeletal and patient-reported domains.

Conclusions

Secukinumab demonstrated efficacy vs placebo across GRAPPA-OMERACT PsA core domains. Higher responses among TNFi-naive vs TNF-IR patients suggest that secukinumab should be considered for first-line use in PsA.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00337-5.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a long-term disease that can affect a patient’s joints, skin, lower back, physical function, mental health, productivity, and other areas. Drugs called tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) can be used to treat PsA, although not all patients benefit from TNFis and many seek other treatment options. These patients, known as TNFi-inadequate responders (TNF-IR), have PsA that is difficult to treat. Another treatment option is secukinumab, a drug that blocks a molecule called interleukin-17 that is involved in PsA. Doctors need to know how different drugs work for treating PsA signs and symptoms in different groups of patients, including TNF-IR patients and those who have never received TNFis (TNFi-naive patients). This study used data from 2049 patients in four different PsA clinical trials (FUTURE 2–5) to see how well secukinumab worked at treating different signs and symptoms of PsA in TNFi-naive and TNF-IR patients. After 16 weeks of treatment, patients who took secukinumab saw greater improvements across all measured PsA signs and symptoms than those who took placebo. This was true for both TNFi-naive and TNF-IR patients. TNFi-naive patients seemed to benefit slightly more than TNF-IR patients—especially in their joint symptoms—although this study was not designed to judge the significance of these differences. These results suggest that secukinumab would be an effective first treatment option for patients with PsA. Since secukinumab improves the skin, joints, and other affected areas, it can be useful in treating the whole patient who has psoriatic disease.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of improvement in pain and physical function for baricitinib versus adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapies in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are naïve to treatment with biologic or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Objective

To compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).

Methods

Data were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0–100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher’s method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.

Results

With all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (p<0.05). Differences in treatment effects (TEs) favouring baricitinib for pain VAS for treatment-arm matching, study-level matching and Bucher’s method, respectively, were −12, −12 and −12 for baricitinib versus adalimumab and −7, −7 and −9 for baricitinib versus tocilizumab; the difference in TEs for HAQ-DI was −0.28, −0.28 and −0.30 for adalimumab and −0.23, −0.23 and −0.26 for tocilizumab. For baricitinib versus tofacitinib, no statistically significant differences for pain improvement were observed except with one of the three methods (Bucher method) and none for HAQ-DI.

Conclusions

Results suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.

Treatment persistence of biologics among patients with psoriatic arthritis

BACKGROUND

Persistence of biologic therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients is an important factor in individualized patient treatment planning and healthcare policy and guideline development.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the persistence of biologic agents prescribed to PsA patients in a real-life setting as well as factors associated with improved biologic drug survival in these patients.

METHODS

Patients with PsA from a large healthcare provider database with at least two consecutive dispensed prescriptions of a biologic agent indicated for PsA from January 1, 2002, until December 31, 2018, were identified and followed until medication stop date or the end of observation period. Patients were considered non-persistent whenever a permissible lag time of 6 months from the time of prescription issuance until medication filling date was exceeded. Treatment changes were based on physician decisions and patient preferences. Demographic data including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, smoking history, and socioeconomic status as well as Charlson comorbidity index were retrieved. Data regarding use of steroids and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cDMARDs) were also extracted. Descriptive statistics, including means (standard deviations) for continuous variables and frequencies (%) for categorical variables, were used. Persistence estimates were derived using non-parametric survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier functions, with treatment discontinuations as failure events. Cox regression hazard ratio models were conducted to investigate factors associated with drug persistence.

RESULTS

A total of 2301 PsA patients with 2958 treatment periods were identified and included in the analyses. Mean age of the study population was 50.9 ± 14 years, 54% were females, 70.4% were with BMI > 25, 40% were current smokers, and 76% were with a Charlson comorbidity index > 1. The most commonly prescribed drug was etanercept (33%), followed by adalimumab (29%), golimumab (12%), secukinumab (10%), ustekinumab (8%), and infliximab (8%). While approximately 40% of patients persisted on therapy following 20 months of treatment, only about 20% of patients remained on any particular biologic agent after 5 years. Analyzing the data for all treatment periods while taking into account all lines of therapy revealed that secukinumab had a higher persistency than adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab, with a log rank of 0.022, 0.047, and 0.001, respectively. Female sex and smoking were associated with lower drug persistence (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.13-1.38 and HR = 1.109, 95% CI = 1.01-1.21, respectively). On analyzing the data using only the first indicated biologic line, no superiority of any single anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNFα) agent was observed, while secukinumab was found to be superior as second line therapy to adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab but not to golimumab with a log rank P value of 0.001, 0.004, 0.025, and 0.002, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large observational cohort studied in the era of biologic therapy, a relatively low drug persistence was observed, with female sex and smoking having a negative impact on persistency. None of the anti-TNFα agents was found to be more persistent than others as first line therapy, while secukinumab was found to be superior to other biologics when indicated as second line of therapy.

TYK2 inhibition reduces type 3 immunity and modifies disease progression in murine spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) represents a family of inflammatory diseases of the spine and peripheral joints. Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is the prototypic form of SpA in which progressive disease can lead to fusion of the spine. Therapeutically, knowledge of type 3 immunity has translated into the development of IL-23– and IL-17A–blocking antibodies for the treatment of SpA. Despite being able to provide symptomatic control, the current biologics do not prevent the fusion of joints in AS patients. Thus, there is an unmet need for disease-modifying drugs. Genetic studies have linked the Janus kinase TYK2 to AS. TYK2 is a mediator of type 3 immunity through intracellular signaling of IL-23. Here, we describe and characterize a potentially novel small-molecule inhibitor of TYK2 that blocked IL-23 signaling in vitro and inhibited disease progression in animal models of SpA. The effect of the inhibitor appears to be TYK2 specific, using TYK2-inactive mice, which further revealed a duality in the induction of IL-17A and IL-22 by IL-23. Specifically, IL-22 production was TYK2/JAK2/STAT3 dependent, while IL-17A was mostly JAK2 dependent. Finally, we examined the effects of AS-associated TYK2 SNPs on TYK2 expression and function and correlated them with AS disease progression. This work provides evidence that TYK2 inhibitors have great potential as an orally delivered therapeutic for SpA.

Applying precision medicine to unmet clinical needs in psoriatic disease

Psoriatic disease (PsD) is a heterogeneous condition that can affect peripheral and axial joints (arthritis), entheses, skin (psoriasis) and other structures. Over the past decade, considerable advances have been made both in our understanding of the pathogenesis of PsD and in the treatment of its diverse manifestations. However, several major areas of continued unmet need in the care of patients with PsD have been identified. One of these areas is the prediction of poor outcome, notably radiographic outcome in patients with psoriatic arthritis, so that stratified medicine approaches can be taken; another is predicting response to the numerous current and emerging therapies for PsD, so that precision medicine can be applied to rapidly improve clinical outcome and reduce the risk of toxicity. In order to address these needs, novel approaches, including imaging, tissue analysis and the application of proteogenomic technologies, are proposed as methodological solutions that will assist the dissection of the critical immune-metabolic pathways in this complex disease. Learning from advances made in other inflammatory diseases, it is time to address these unmet needs in a multi-centre partnership aimed at improving short-term and long-term outcomes for patients with PsD.

A Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Preferential Use of Secukinumab Versus Adalimumab for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficiency of secukinumab compared to adalimumab as first biologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from the Spanish National Health System (SNHS) perspective.

METHODS

A cost-consequence analysis of the cost and clinical response of two treatment strategies was conducted over a 2-year time horizon. A hypothetical cohort of 10 patients with PsA initiated treatment with secukinumab 150mg (cohort A) or adalimumab 40mg (cohort B), respectively. Patients achieving clinical response (ACR20/50/70) at week 24 continued the initial treatment, while patients with inadequate response switched to secukinumab 300mg. Pharmacological costs were calculated based on SmPC (notified ex-factory price). The lowest cost of adalimumab biosimilar was considered. Data on clinical response were extracted from the two matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) published comparing secukinumab vs adalimumab. Results were expressed as the cost difference between the two cohorts (€, 2019) and were calculated for each clinical response criteria (ACR20/50/70) and for each MAIC. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of potential discounts on the cost of adalimumab while maintaining the cost of secukinumab unchanged.

RESULTS

Depending on the MAIC used, the cost of initiating biologic treatment for PsA with secukinumab 150mg was 18-33% lower than the one estimated for adalimumab 40mg, for ACR20, 18-28% for ACR50, and 16-23% for ACR70 response rate. Sensitivity analysis showed that it would be necessary a discount of 40-60%, 40-65% and 50-75% over the adalimumab cost to compensate for the differences in efficacy observed for ACR20/50/70, respectively, depending on the MAIC used.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PsA, secukinumab could be considered a more efficient first-line biologic treatment compared to adalimumab, from the SNHS perspective.

Comparison of Methods for Estimating Therapy Effects by Indirect Comparisons: A Simulation Study

Objective. In evidence synthesis, therapeutic options have to be compared despite the lack of head-to-head trials. Indirect comparisons are then widely used, although little is known about their performance in situations where cross-trial differences or effect modification are present. Methods. We contrast the matching adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and the method of Bucher using a simulation study. The different methods are evaluated according to their power and type I error rate as well as with respect to the coverage, bias, and the root mean squared error (RMSE) of the effect estimate for practically relevant scenarios using binary and time-to-event endpoints. In addition, we investigate how the power planned for the head-to-head trials influences the actual power of the indirect comparison. Results. Indirect comparisons are considerably underpowered. None of the methods had substantially superior performance. In situations without cross-trial differences and effect modification, MAIC and Bucher led to similar results, while Bucher has the advantage of preserving the within-study randomization. MAIC and STC could enhance power in some scenarios but at the cost of a potential type I error inflation. Adjusting MAIC and STC for confounders that did not modify the effect led to higher bias and RMSE. Conclusion. The choice of effect modifiers in MAIC and STC influences the precision of the indirect comparison. Therefore, a careful selection of effect modifiers is warranted. In addition, missed differences between trials may lead to low power and partly high bias for all considered methods, and thus, results of indirect comparisons should be interpreted with caution.

One-year effectiveness, retention rate, and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: a real-life multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Secukinumab (SEC) is effective for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in randomized trials, but real-life data are lacking.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Real-life, prospective observational study on 169 consecutive outpatients at baseline (T0) and at 6 (T6) and 12 months (T12) after starting SEC (39 AS, 23%; 130 PsA, 77%).

RESULTS

Significant improvement was seen at T6 and T12 for all clinical variables, including TJC, SJC, ESR, CRP, DAPSA, ASDAS-CRP, and BASDAI, as well as in patient-reported outcomes like VAS-pain. By multivariable regression analysis, in AS patients high BASDAI at T0 correlated with diagnostic delay (R² = 0.4; p = 0.009) and peripheral joint involvement (R² = 0.4; p = 0.04). During follow-up, reduction of BASDAI positively correlated with high ESR (R² = 0.65; p = 0.04). ASDAS-CRP at T0 positively correlated with high ESR (R² = 0.34; p = 0.004). Reduction of ASDAS-CRP from T0 to T6 correlated with current smoking status (R² = 0.42; p = 0.003). In PsA patients, reduction of DAPSA score from T0 to T12 is negatively correlated with the presence of metabolic syndrome (R² = 0.41; p = 0.0025). SEC was well tolerated; 10 patients discontinued treatment for non-severe adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab is effective and safe in patients with AS and PsA in a real-life setting.

Secukinumab versus adalimumab for treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (EXCEED): a double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head trials in psoriatic arthritis are helpful in guiding clinical decision making. The EXCEED study evaluated the efficacy and safety of secukinumab versus adalimumab as first-line biological monotherapy for 52 weeks in patients with active psoriatic arthritis, with a musculoskeletal primary endpoint of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response.

METHODS

This parallel-group, double-blind, active-controlled, phase-3b, multicentre (168 sites in 26 countries) trial enrolled patients aged at least 18 years with active psoriatic arthritis. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of interactive response technology to receive secukinumab or adalimumab. Patients, investigators, site personnel, and those doing the assessments (except independent study drug administrators) were masked to study assignment. 300 mg secukinumab was administered subcutaneously at baseline, weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then every 4 weeks until week 48 as a pre-filled syringe. Adalimumab was administered every 2 weeks from baseline until week 50 as 40 mg per 0·4 mL citrate free subcutaneous injection. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least 20% improvement in the ACR response criteria (ACR20) at week 52. Patients were analysed according to the treatment to which they were randomly assigned. Safety analyses included all safety data reported up to and including the week 52 visit for each patient who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02745080.

FINDINGS

Between April 3, 2017 and Aug 23, 2018, we randomly assigned 853 patients to receive secukinumab (n=426) or adalimumab (n=427). 709 (83%) of 853 patients completed week 52 of the study, of whom 691 (81%) received the last study treatment at week 50. 61 (14%) of 426 patients in the secukinumab group discontinued treatment by week 52 versus 101 (24%) of 427 patients in the adalimumab group. The primary endpoint of superiority of secukinumab versus adalimumab for ACR20 response at week 52 was not met. 67% of patients in the secukinumab group achieved an ACR20 response at week 52 versus 62% of patients in the adalimumab group (OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·98-1·72; p=0·0719). The safety profiles of secukinumab and adalimumab were consistent with previous reports. Seven (2%) of 426 patients in the secukinumab group and six (1%) of 427 patients in the adalimumab group had serious infections. One death was reported in the secukinumab group due to colon cancer and was assessed as not related to the study drug by the investigator.

INTERPRETATION

Secukinumab did not meet statistical significance for superiority versus adalimumab in the primary endpoint of ACR20 response at week 52. However, secukinumab was associated with a higher treatment retention rate than adalimumab. This study provides comparative data on two biological agents with different mechanisms of action, which could help guide clinical decision making in the management of patients with psoriatic arthritis.

FUNDING

Novartis Pharma.

A head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and adalimumab in biological-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a randomised, open-label, blinded-assessor trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) to adalimumab (ADA) in biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with both active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and skin disease and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARDs).

METHODS

Patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to approved dosing of IXE or ADA in an open-label, head-to-head, blinded assessor clinical trial. The primary objective was to evaluate whether IXE was superior to ADA at week 24 for simultaneous achievement of a ≥50% improvement from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and a 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI100). Major secondary objectives, also at week 24, were to evaluate whether IXE was: (1) non-inferior to ADA for achievement of ACR50 and (2) superior to ADA for PASI100 response. Additional PsA, skin, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcome measures were assessed at week 24.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met (IXE: 36%, ADA: 28%; p=0.036). IXE was non-inferior for ACR50 response (IXE: 51%, ADA: 47%; treatment difference: 3.9%) and superior for PASI100 response (IXE: 60%, ADA: 47%; p=0.001). IXE had greater response versus ADA in additional PsA, skin, nail, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 8.5% (ADA) and 3.5% (IXE) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

IXE was superior to ADA in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (ACR50 and PASI100) in patients with PsA and inadequate response to csDMARDs. Safety and tolerability for both biologicals were aligned with established safety profiles.

Treatment of Dactylitis and Enthesitis in Psoriatic Arthritis with Biologic Agents: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

Biologic agents with different mechanisms of action [inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-12/23, and IL-17] showed efficacy in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. We conducted a pooled metaanalysis of these agents for treatment of dactylitis and enthesitis and compared results with the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed and a pooled metaanalysis of RCT with anti-TNF-α (infliximab, golimumab, adalimumab), anti-IL-12/23 (ustekinumab), and anti-IL-17 (secu kinumab, ixekizumab) was conducted using the random-effects model. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCT were included in the pooled analysis (n = 6981). Both TNF-α inhibitors and novel biologics (ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab) demonstrated significant resolution of dactylitis at Week 24 with pooled risk ratios (RR) versus placebo of 2.57 (95% CI 1.36-4.84) and 1.88 (95% CI 1.33-2.65), respectively. For resolution of enthesitis at Week 24, RR for TNF-α inhibitors was 1.93 (95% CI 1.33-2.79) versus 1.95 (95% CI 1.60-2.38) for novel biologics. Both biologic categories showed overlapping ranges of ACR20 responses (TNF-α inhibitors: RR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.60-3.11; pooled IL-12/23 and -17: RR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.94-2.72) and similar quality of life improvement scores with mean HAQ-DI score changes of -0.29 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.19) and -0.26 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.22), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The pooled analysis demonstrated that anti-TNF-α agents have the same efficacy as novel agents (ustekinumab, secukinumab, and ixekizumab) in dactylitis and enthesitis.

Biological and synthetic target DMARDs in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic multi-faceted immune-mediated systemic disorder, characterized by articular, cutaneous, enthesis, nail and spine involvement. Articular manifestations of PsA are particularly common and highly disabling for patients, while the heterogeneous clinical subsets of the disease are challenging for clinicians. In recent years, research has made many advances in understanding the pathogenesis of the disease from genetic, epigenetic and molecular points of view. New drugs are now available for the treatment of this condition, and, in particular, TNF-alfa inhibitors, historically the first biologicals approved in PsA, are now juxtaposed by new biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different modes of action. Targeting IL-12/IL-23 p40 common subunit with ustekinumab, IL-17A with secukinumab and ixekizumab, T cells co-stimulation with abatacept, is now possible, safe and effective. Moreover, targeted synthetic molecules with oral administration are available, with the possibility to interfere with phosphodiesterase-4 and JAK/STAT pathways. Indeed, new drugs are under development, with the possibility to target selectively IL-17 receptor, IL-23, and other key molecular targets in the pathogenesis of this condition. In this narrative review, we provide an up-to-date overview of the current application of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs in the field of PsA, with particular regard to the clinical significance of this possibility to target a higher number of distinct immune-pathways.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of secukinumab and etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis assessed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison

OBJECTIVE

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Individual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted).

RESULTS

At week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics in the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: An Argentinean Perspective

OBJECTIVE

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, an interleukin-17A inhibitor, versus other biologics in PsA from the Argentinean social security perspective.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model evaluated subcutaneous (sc) treatment with secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg against other sc treatments such as adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, ustekinumab, and intravenous treatment infliximab in biologic-naïve (with or without moderate to severe psoriasis) and biologic-experienced PsA patients over a lifetime horizon. Response to treatments was determined using the PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) at 12 weeks. Model inputs were derived from randomized controlled trials, network meta-analyses, published literature, and other Argentinean sources. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Sensitivity analyses and alternative scenarios with a higher cost option were also conducted.

RESULTS

Among biologic-naïve PsA patients without psoriasis, secukinumab 150 mg provided the highest QALYs (7.18) versus all sc biologics at the lowest cost ($3 755 678 Argentine peso), thus dominating them. Among biologic-naïve PsA patients with psoriasis and biologic-experienced PsA patients, secukinumab 300 mg provided highest QALYs (6.99 and 7.53, respectively), dominated infliximab, and was cost-effective versus other sc biologics. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated sensitivity of results to variation in PsARC rates, drug acquisition costs, Health Assessment Questionnaire change, and utilities. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed maximum net monetary benefits with both secukinumab doses. Results from an alternative scenario analysis were similar to base-case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For both biologic-naïve and experienced PsA patients, secukinumab is either a dominant or cost-effective treatment option compared with other biologics in Argentina.

Optimal Biologic Selection for Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: the Approach to Precision Medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes previously reported findings on optimal biologic agent selection for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment and outlines our approach to developing precision medicine techniques for targeted treatment of this disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Clinical trials have reported the effectiveness of numerous biologics with different targets, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-17 receptor, IL-12/23(p40), and IL-23(p19) for the treatment of PsA. Although several studies have suggested specific predictors of treatment responses to each biologic, how biologics are differentially chosen in each patient remains unclear. Recent reports indicate the possibility of treating PsA using precision medicine based on individual immunological phenotypes. Because PsA exhibits numerous symptoms, selecting an optimal biologic for each patient may be important. The establishment of appropriate selection guidelines will require further clinical trials.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison: secukinumab versus infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

Aim: To compare secukinumab with infliximab in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis using matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Patients & methods: Individual patient baseline data for secukinumab were matched to published aggregate data for infliximab by key baseline characteristics, with matching weights determined by logistic regression, and used to recalculate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses for secukinumab, for comparison with infliximab. Results: There were no differences in outcomes between secukinumab and infliximab at weeks 6/8 and 14/16. At weeks 24 and 54/52, ACR 20 responses were higher with secukinumab 150 mg than infliximab. At week 54/52, ACR 20/50 responses were higher for secukinumab 300 mg than infliximab. Conclusion: In the mid to long term, patients receiving secukinumab were more likely to achieve ACR 20/50 responses than those receiving infliximab.

Comparative effectiveness of secukinumab and adalimumab in ankylosing spondylitis as assessed by matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Objective

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was used to assess the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab 150 mg and adalimumab 40 mg in biologic-naïve patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) for up to 1 year.

Methods

Pooled individual patient data from the secukinumab arms of MEASURE 1 (NCT01358175) and MEASURE 2 (NCT01649375) trials (n=197) were matched against the ATLAS (NCT00085644) adalimumab population (n=208). Logistic regression analysis was used to determined weights to match for age, sex, Bath AS Functional Index, C-reactive protein levels, and previous tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. Recalculated Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) 20 and 40 responses at weeks 8, 12, 16, 24, and 52 from MEASURE 1/2 (effective sample size=120) were compared with those of ATLAS. Anchored (placebo-adjusted) comparisons were possible until week 12, and unanchored (non-placebo-adjusted) comparisons were necessary thereafter.

Results

For placebo-anchored ASAS 20 and 40 comparisons up to week 12, there were no differences between secukinumab and adalimumab. For unanchored comparisons at week 16, ASAS 20 was higher for secukinumab [odds ratio 1.60 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–2.54); p=0.047]; at week 24, ASAS 20 and 40 were higher for secukinumab [1.76 (1.11–2.79); p=0.017 and 1.79 (1.14–2.82); p=0.012, respectively]; and at week 52, ASAS 40 was higher for secukinumab [1.54 (1.06–2.23); p=0.023] than for adalimumab.

Conclusion

There were no differences observed in placebo-adjusted ASAS 20 and 40 responses up to 12 weeks between secukinumab- and adalimumab-treated patients with ankylosing spondylitis. After week 12, secukinumab demonstrated signs of greater improvement in non-placebo-adjusted ASAS 20 and 40 responses than adalimumab.

Secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis: comparative effectiveness versus licensed biologics/apremilast: a network meta-analysis

AIM

A network meta-analysis using randomized controlled trial data compared psoriatic arthritis (PsA) outcomes (American College of Rheumatology [ACR], Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI] and Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria [PsARC] response rates) at 12-16 weeks for secukinumab, adalimumab, apremilast, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab and ustekinumab.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Trials were identified by systematic review. Separate networks were developed for the full-study populations, biologic-naive patients and biologic-experienced patients.

RESULTS

In the full populations, secukinumab, adalimumab, golimumab and infliximab demonstrated the highest ACR response rates. Secukinumab and infliximab demonstrated the highest PASI response rates, and infliximab and etanercept demonstrated the highest PsARC response rates.

CONCLUSION

In the full populations, secukinumab demonstrated good efficacy across all outcomes. All treatments for active PsA included in this comprehensive network meta-analysis demonstrated superiority to placebo.