Search

Objectives: To assess 52-week safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and prior inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors., Methods: Patients completing the 16-week phase III double-blind, placebo-controlled BE COMPLETE (NCT03896581) study entered the open-label extension, BE VITAL (NCT04009499). All patients in BE VITAL received 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks. Safety and efficacy are reported to week 52., Results: A total of 347/400 (86.8%) patients completed week 52. To week 52, the exposure-adjusted incidence rate/100 patient-years for ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was 126.0, and was 7.0 for serious TEAEs. The most frequent TEAEs were SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), oral candidiasis, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection. All fungal infections were mild or moderate in severity and localised; two patients discontinued the study due to oral candidiasis. No cases of active tuberculosis, uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease were reported. One sudden death occurred. Sustained efficacy was observed with bimekizumab from week 16 to ‍52 across clinical and patient-reported outcomes. At week 52, 51.7% bimekizumab-randomised and 40.6% placebo/bimekizumab patients (receiving bimekizumab from week 16 to 52) had ≥50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria. Complete skin clearance (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100) was achieved by 65.9% bimekizumab and 60.2% placebo/bimekizumab patients at week 52. Minimal disease activity was achieved by 47.2% bimekizumab and 33.1% placebo/bimekizumab patients at week 52., Conclusions: Bimekizumab demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous reports; no new safety signals were identified. Sustained efficacy was observed from week 16 to 52., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LCC: Grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; speaking fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. Associate Editor of RMD Open. RL: Consultancy fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; owner of Rheumatology Consultancy BV, an AMS company under Dutch law. On the Editorial Board of RMD Open. IBM: Consulting fees and honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cabaletta, Causeway Therapeutics, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Evelo, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis and UCB Pharma; research support from BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis and UCB Pharma. On the Editorial Board of RMD Open. PJM: Research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma; speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. CTR: Research for AbbVie; consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. YT: Speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer, Taiho and Taisho; received grants from Chugai, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe and Taisho. On the Editorial Board of RMD Open. AA: Honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical Co. and UCB Pharma. FB: Consultant and/or speaker and/or investigator for AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, GSK, Janssen, MoonLake Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Sanofi. DDG: Consultant and/or received grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma. LG: Grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Sandoz and UCB Pharma; personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma. AMO: Research grants to Johns Hopkins University from AbbVie, Amgen, and Janssen; consulting fees from BMS, Janssen, Sanofi and UCB Pharma. ABG: Received research/educational grants from AnaptypsBio, BMS, Highlights Therapeutics, Janssen, Moonlake Immunotherapeutics AG, Novartis and UCB Pharma, (all paid to Mount Sinai School of Medicine); Received honoraria as an advisory board member and consultant for Amgen, AnaptypsBio, Avotres Therapeutics, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dice Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Highlights Therapeutics, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB and Xbiotech. RBW: Consulting fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB Pharma; research grants to his institution from AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis and UCB Pharma; honoraria from Astellas, DICE Therapeutics, GSK and Union Therapeutics. BI: Shareholder of AbbVie, GSK and UCB Pharma; employee of UCB Pharma. RB and JC: Employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. VS: Employee of UCB Pharma. JFM: Consultant and/or investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Novartis, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma and UCB Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To evaluate enthesitis treatment response, including time to resolution and data from multiple enthesitis instruments, in patients with PsA treated with secukinumab or adalimumab for 52 weeks., Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the EXCEED study, patients receiving secukinumab 300 mg or adalimumab 40 mg per the label were grouped by presence or absence of baseline enthesitis based on the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) and the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index (SPARCC). Efficacy was assessed according to several enthesitis-related instruments using non-responder imputation for the achievement of enthesitis resolution (LEI/SPARCC = 0), Kaplan-Meier analysis for time to resolution, and as-observed data for other outcomes., Results: Enthesitis was present at baseline in 498 of 851 patients (58.5%) as assessed by LEI and in 632 of 853 patients (74.1%) as assessed by SPARCC. Patients with baseline enthesitis generally presented with greater disease activity. Similar proportions of patients receiving secukinumab or adalimumab achieved resolution of LEI and SPARCC at weeks 24 (secukinumab: LEI/SPARCC, 49.6%/45.8%; adalimumab: LEI/SPARCC, 43.6%/43.5%) and 52 (secukinumab: LEI/SPARCC, 60.7%/53.2%; adalimumab: LEI/SPARCC, 55.3%/51.4%), with comparable mean time to enthesitis resolution. Improvements were similar for both drugs at individual enthesitis sites. Resolution of enthesitis with secukinumab or adalimumab was associated with improvements in quality of life at week 52., Conclusion: Secukinumab and adalimumab showed similar efficacy, including time to resolution, with respect to resolution of enthesitis. Inhibition of IL-17 with secukinumab reduced clinical enthesitis similarly to TNF-α inhibition., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02745080., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: The influence of sex on treatment outcomes during interleukin-12/23 therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has not been explored., Objective: To conduct exploratory post hoc analyses of sex-stratified data from the MUST trial, an investigator-initiated, multicentre, phase 3b study in which patients with active PsA initiating treatment with open-label ustekinumab were randomised to treatment with placebo or methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: We evaluated baseline characteristics, key treatment outcomes and adverse events stratified by sex, with a focus on outcomes that did not include erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) as a component due to the known elevation of ESR in females., Results: A total of 166 patients were treated with ustekinumab+MTX (37 female, 50 male) or ustekinumab+placebo (32 female, 47 male). At baseline, females had a significantly longer time since PsA diagnosis and greater impairment in physical function, but similar joint counts. At week 24, both females and males showed marked improvements to ustekinumab with or without MTX. Females generally had numerically reduced treatment responses compared with males, although differences did not achieve statistical significance. MTX did not show an overall effect on treatment outcomes, but was associated with faster enthesitis responses in males only. Adverse events were generally comparable, but females in the ustekinumab+MTX group had higher levels of gastrointestinal disorders., Conclusion: Females and males with PsA had differences in baseline characteristics, treatment responses and adverse events during therapy. A better understanding of sex-based differences in PsA may help optimise treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MK received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis and UCB and received travel support from UCB. UK received grant and research support and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biocad, Biogen, BMS, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Gilead, Grünenthal, GSK, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, onkowissen.de, Pfizer, Roche, UCB and Viatris and participated on a data safety monitoring or advisory board for the COPAGO trial, conducted by the German Ministry of Health. GRB received fees or honoraria for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and UCB, meeting or travel support from Abbvie and Lilly and is the editor-in-chief of RMD Open. DMK received honoraria for serving as a speaker for Sanofi-Aventis. SF received scientific grants from Novartis, honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Chugai, Galapagos, Novartis, NovoNordisc and UCB, and travel or meeting support from Abbvie, Galapagos, Janssen Cilag, Novartis, SOBI and UCB. RB received honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Galapagos, Novartis, Roche and Vifor and meeting or travel support from Chugai and Galapagos. MS received research support from Charité. FB received research support for this study from Janssen Cilag, consulting fees or honoraria from Abbvie, Acelyrin, Amgen, Janssen Cilag, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and meeting or travel support from Abbvie and UCB. ACF, TR, HK and JB have no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory systemic disease whose activity is often assessed using the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-CRP). The present study was designed to investigate the significance of individual components within the score for PsA activity. A cohort of 80 PsA patients (44 women and 36 men, aged 56.3 ± 12 years) with a range of disease activity from remission to moderate was analyzed using unsupervised and supervised methods applied to the DAS28-CRP components. Machine learning-based permutation importance identified tenderness in the metacarpophalangeal joint of the right index finger as the most informative item of the DAS28-CRP for PsA activity staging. This symptom alone allowed a machine learned (random forests) classifier to identify PsA remission with 67% balanced accuracy in new cases. Projection of the DAS28-CRP data onto an emergent self-organizing map of artificial neurons identified outliers, which following augmentation of group sizes by emergent self-organizing maps based generative artificial intelligence (AI) could be defined as subgroups particularly characterized by either tenderness or swelling of specific joints. AI-assisted re-evaluation of the DAS28-CRP for PsA has narrowed the score items to a most relevant symptom, and generative AI has been useful for identifying and characterizing small subgroups of patients whose symptom patterns differ from the majority. These findings represent an important step toward precision medicine that can address outliers., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: We investigated the impact of concomitant MTX on ustekinumab (UST) levels and antidrug antibody (ADA) formation in PsA and evaluated consequences in pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics., Methods: We conducted a post-hoc analysis on 112 PsA serum samples of subjects treated with open-label UST and either concomitant MTX (UST/MTX, n = 58) or placebo (UST/pbo, n = 54) obtained in a randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicentre trial. A validated antibody-binding-based multitiered testing was used to detect ADA and ADA with neutralizing capacity (nADA). The impact of MTX on UST immunogenicity was analysed by comparison of UST/pbo with UST/MTX cohorts at different time points. Patient- and disease-related predispositions for ADA formation were investigated with multiple linear regression analysis. Immunogenicity impact on pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy was determined by cohort comparison between patients with and without ADA formation., Results: Over 52 weeks, 11 UST/pbo- and 19 UST/MTX-treated patients developed ADA (P > 0.05). In the UST/pbo cohort, the visit-dependent UST levels were in the range of 0.047 (0.05) -0.110 (0.07) µg/ml overall, and 0.037 (0.04)-0.091 (0.08) µg/ml in ADA-confirmed subjects. In UST/MTX-treated patients, the UST levels exhibited an intervisit variation in the range of 0.0502 (0.04)-0.106 (0.07) µg/ml overall and 0.029 (0.03)-0.097 (0.07) µg/ml in ADA positive subjects (P > 0.05). At week 52, ADA-confirmed patients did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) in safety or clinical outcomes from ADA-negative patients., Conclusion: Concomitant MTX had no significant impact on UST immunogenicity. Furthermore, ADA formation was not associated with impairments in UST safety, efficacy or trough levels., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03148860., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

At the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) 2022 annual meeting, the Collaborative Research Network (CRN) met to present updates on several projects. These included the GRAPPA-Industry biomarker projects, Axial Psoriatic Arthritis Molecular and Clinical Characterisation Study, Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis Cohort (AXIS) study, and the Health Initiatives in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium European States (HIPPOCRATES). The meeting concluded with a discussion on pathways to further academia-industry collaboration., (Copyright © 2023 by the Journal of Rheumatology.)

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disease that affects approximately 30% of psoriasis patients. In most cases, skin disease clearly precedes the musculoskeletal disease. Some studies suggest that targeted treatment may intercept the disease course and prevent psoriasis patients from developing PsA. A recent population-based retrospective analysis in 15 501 psoriasis patients evaluated the association between different biological treatment strategies and time to incident inflammatory arthritis based on data in a US electronic health records database. A cumulative incidence of 2.6 PsA cases per 100 person-years was determined. The multivariable regression analysis revealed a significantly lower risk of developing inflammatory arthritis in patients who had been prescribed interleukin (IL)-12/23 or IL-23 inhibitors compared with tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor-treated patients, whereas there was no significant difference in risk for patients prescribed inhibitors of IL-17 versus TNF. Although the analysis was based on a large set of clinical data and the findings were rigorously evaluated, there are some limitations in interpretation due to the study design. Prospective clinical trials are missing, and retrospective data analyses from clinical trials or population-based studies show conflicting results. Overall, the recent data on prevention of PsA in patients with psoriasis support the high need to characterise biomarkers of increased risk and perform prospective clinical trials to give a clear guidance on possibilities for disease interception in psoriatic disease., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MK received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis and UCB, and received travel support from UCB, AbbVie and Janssen-Cilag. FB received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbvie, Acelyrin, Amgen, Janssen Cilag, Lily, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and meeting or travel support from Abbvie and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: PsA is a chronic disease with heterogeneous clinical manifestations requiring treatment options with long-term efficacy and safety. In this follow-up analysis, the 52-week efficacy and safety of risankizumab 150 mg in patients with active PsA who had previous inadequate response/intolerance to one or more conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD-IR) were evaluated., Methods: KEEPsAKE 1 is an ongoing, global, phase 3 study with a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period (period 1) and an open-label extension period (period 2). In period 1, eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16. At week 24 (period 2), all continuing patients received open-label risankizumab 150 mg every 12 weeks through week 208., Results: At week 24, 57.3% of risankizumab-treated patients (n = 483) achieved ≥20% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR20) vs 33.5% of placebo-treated patients (n = 481; P < 0.001). At week 52, 70.0% of patients who were randomized to receive continuous risankizumab therapy and 63.0% of patients who were randomized to receive placebo in period 1 and then receive risankizumab at week 24 achieved ACR20. Similar result trends were observed for other efficacy measures. Risankizumab was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment with a consistent safety profile from week 24 through week 52., Conclusion: In patients with active PsA who were csDMARD-IR, continuous risankizumab treatment demonstrated robust long-term efficacy and was well tolerated through 52 weeks of treatment., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, KEEPsAKE1, NCT03675308., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) show certain overlaps: A subset of patients with PsA can develop axial involvement (axial PsA, axPsA), while a subset of patients with axSpA presents with psoriasis (axSpA+pso). Treatment strategy for axPsA is mostly based on axSpA evidence., Objectives: To compare demographic and disease-specific parameters of axPsA and axSpA+pso., Methods: RABBIT-SpA is a prospective longitudinal cohort study. AxPsA was defined based on (1) clinical judgement by rheumatologists; (2) imaging (sacroiliitis according to modified New York criteria in radiographs or signs of active inflammation in MRI or syndesmophytes/ankylosis in radiographs or signs of active inflammation in spine MRI). axSpA was stratified into axSpA+pso and axSpA without pso., Results: Psoriasis was documented in 181/1428 axSpA patients (13%). Of 1395 PsA patients, 359 (26%) showed axial involvement. 297 patients (21%) fulfilled the clinical definition and 196 (14%) the imaging definition of axial manifestation of PsA. AxSpA+pso differed from axPsA regardless whether clinical or imaging definition was used. axPsA patients were older, more often female and less often HLA-B27+. Peripheral manifestations were more often present in axPsA than in axSpA+pso, whereas uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease were more common in axSpA+pso. Burden of disease (patient global, pain, physician global) was similar among axPsA and axSpA+pso patients., Conclusions: AxPsA differs from axSpA+pso in its clinical manifestations, irrespective of whether axPsA is defined clinically or by imaging. These findings support the hypothesis that axSpA and PsA with axial involvement are distinct entities, so extrapolation of treatment data from randomised controlled trials in axSpA should be performed with caution., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: PsA is a heterogeneous disease that impacts many aspects of social and mental life, including quality of life. Risankizumab, an antagonist specific for IL-23, is currently under investigation for the treatment of adults with active PsA. This study evaluated the impact of risankizumab vs placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with active PsA and inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD-IR) in the KEEPsAKE 1 trial., Methods: Adult patients with active PsA (n = 964) were randomized (1:1) to receive risankizumab 150 mg or placebo. PROs assessed included the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36, v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQoL-5 Dimension-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L), Patient's Assessment of Pain, Patient's Global Assessment (PtGA) of Disease Activity, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-PsA (WPAI-PsA) questionnaire. Least squares (LS) mean change from baseline at week 24 was compared between risankizumab and placebo., Results: At week 24, differences between groups were observed using LS mean changes from baseline in SF-36 physical component summary and mental component summary; FACIT-Fatigue; EQ-5D-5L; Patient's Assessment of Pain; PtGA; all eight SF-36 domains (all nominal P < 0.001); and the WPAI-PsA domains of impairment while working (presenteeism), overall work impairment and activity impairment (all nominal P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Risankizumab treatment resulted in greater improvements in HRQoL, fatigue, pain and work productivity in patients with active PsA who have csDMARD-IR, when compared with placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03675308., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Bimekizumab is a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A. This study compared the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab with placebo over 16 weeks in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor-α (TNFα) inhibitors., Methods: BE COMPLETE was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted across 92 sites (including hospitals, clinics, and research centres) in 11 countries (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, the UK, and the USA). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with adult-onset psoriatic arthritis (meeting the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis for at least 6 months before screening) with a history of inadequate response or intolerance to treatment with one or two TNFα inhibitors for either psoriatic arthritis or psoriasis. We stratified patients with active psoriatic arthritis by region and previous TNFα inhibitor use. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive subcutaneous bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks or placebo by an interactive-voice and web-response system on the basis of a predetermined randomisation schedule. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with 50% or greater improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) at week 16 (non-responder imputation). Efficacy analyses were done in the randomised population. The safety analysis set comprised patients who received one or more doses of study treatment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03896581, and is completed., Findings: Between March 28, 2019, and Feb 14, 2022, 556 patients were screened and 400 patients were randomly assigned to bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n=267) or placebo (n=133). The primary and all hierarchical secondary endpoints were met at week 16. 116 (43%) of 267 patients receiving bimekizumab reached ACR50, compared with nine (7%) of 133 patients receiving placebo (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 11·1 [95% CI 5·4-23·0], p<0·0001). 121 (69%) of 176 patients with psoriasis affecting at least 3% body surface area at baseline who received bimekizumab reached 90% or greater improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), compared with six (7%) of 88 patients who received placebo (adjusted OR 30·2 [12·4-73·9], p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events up to week 16 were reported in 108 (40%) of 267 patients receiving bimekizumab and 44 (33%) of 132 patients receiving placebo. There were no new safety signals and no deaths., Interpretation: Bimekizumab treatment led to superior improvements in joint and skin efficacy outcomes at week 16 compared with placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to TNFα inhibitors. The safety profile of bimekizumab was consistent with previous phase 3 studies in patients with plaque psoriasis, and studies of IL-17A inhibitors., Funding: UCB Pharma., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JFM reports work as a consultant or investigator for AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma. RL reports consultancy fees from Abbott, Ablynx, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Centocor, GSK, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth; research grants from Abbott, Amgen, Centocor, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth; and speaker's bureau fees from Abbott, Amgen, BMS, Centocor, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Schering-Plough, UCB Pharma, and Wyeth. IBM reports consulting fees and honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and research support from BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Janssen, and UCB Pharma. PJM reports research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma; consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acelyrin, Aclaris, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Inmagene, Janssen, Moonlake Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma; and speakers' bureau fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. CTR reports research for AbbVie, Amgen, and UCB Pharma; and consultancy for Amgen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. YT reports speaking fees or honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Pfizer; and research grants from Asahi-Kasei, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, and Takeda. AA reports honoraria or research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Maruho, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Taiho Pharma, Torii Pharmaceutical, and UCB Pharma. FB reports work as a consultant, speaker, or investigator for AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, GSK, Janssen, MSD, MoonLake, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, and Sanofi. DDG received grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma; and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma. LG reports non-financial support from UCB Pharma during the conduct of the study; grants from Amgen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB Pharma; personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB Pharma; and non-financial support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma outside the submitted work. ABG reports honoraria as an advisory board member, non-promotional speaker, or consultant for Amgen, AnaptysBio, Avotres Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, and Xbiotech (stock options); and research or educational grants from AnaptysBio, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma (all funds go to the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai). DT reports honoraria for participation on advisory boards as a speaker and for consultancy from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma; and research grants from LEO Pharma and Novartis. RBW reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma; research grants to his institution from AbbVie, Almirall, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, and UCB Pharma; and honoraria from Astellas, DiCE, GSK, and Union. BI is an employee of UCB Pharma, and stockholder of AbbVie, GSK, and UCB Pharma. DA, RB, VS, and JC are all employees and stockholders of UCB Pharma. LCC reports grants and research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; paid consultancy for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Domain, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Galapagos, Janssen, Moonlake, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of methotrexate in combination with biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis remains unclear. The MUST phase 3b trial aimed to compare the efficacy of ustekinumab plus placebo with ustekinumab plus methotrexate in patients with active psoriatic arthritis., Methods: In this investigator-initiated, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3b non-inferiority trial done in 22 centres in Germany, patients with active psoriatic arthritis received open-label ustekinumab and were randomly assigned (1:1) to masked concomitant therapy with placebo or methotrexate (ongoing or new). The primary outcome was non-inferiority of mean Disease Activity Score-28 joints (DAS28) at week 24 for ustekinumab monotherapy (ustekinumab plus placebo) versus ustekinumab combination therapy (ustekinumab plus methotrexate), stratified by previous methotrexate treatment. The key secondary analysis was non-inferiority of DAS28 at week 52. The primary analysis was based on a stratified van Elteren test with an α of 2·5% and a non-inferiority margin of 12·5% by Mann-Whitney estimator. Adverse events and serious adverse events were assessed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03148860., Findings: Between Jan 24, 2017, and April 12, 2021, 186 patients with active psoriatic arthritis were screened, of whom 173 (93%) patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant methotrexate therapy (n=88) or placebo (n=85). 84 patients were receiving methotrexate at baseline, and 89 patients had no previous methotrexate treatment. 166 (96%) patients (87 in the ustekinumab plus methotrexate group and 79 in the ustekinumab plus placebo group) were included in the safety and efficacy analyses at week 24 (69 [42%] female; 97 [58%] male; mean age 48·2 years [SE 1·1]). Ustekinumab plus placebo was non-inferior to ustekinumab plus methotrexate in DAS28 at week 24 (2·9 [SD 1·31] vs 3·1 [1·42]); the stratified Mann-Whitney estimator for treatment comparison was 0·5426 (95% CI 0·4545-0·6307). Non-inferiority for ustekinumab plus placebo was also observed in DAS28 at week 52. Serious adverse events occurred in seven (9%) patients in the ustekinumab plus placebo group and eight (9%) patients in the ustekinumab plus methotrexate group. No specific serious adverse events affected more than one patient, and there were no deaths., Interpretation: Interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 inhibition with ustekinumab is an effective treatment for psoriatic arthritis independent of methotrexate use; concomitant methotrexate did not increase efficacy of ustekinumab (based on DAS28). On the basis of these data, there is no evidence to support the addition or maintainance of methotrexate when initiating ustekinumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis., Funding: Janssen Cilag., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MK received grants or contracts from BMS, Bionorica, Iron4u, Janssen-Cilag, LEO, Novartis, and Pfizer and received travel support or honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker, consultant and/or advisory board member from Abbvie, Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. GRB received honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Galapagos, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. UK received scientific grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Fresenius, GSK, Hexal, Novartis, Pfizer and honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, Biocad, Biogen, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Hexal, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. JR received scientific grants from Novartis and Sobi, and honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Chugai, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. SM-P received honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker and/or consultant from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, and Novartis. HB received travel support or honoraria or fees for speaking from Janssen Cilag and research support from the Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-mediated diseases (CIMD). FB received research support from Janssen Cilag, the Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-mediated diseases (CIMD), and LOEWE Zentrum Translational Medicine and Pharmacology, grants or contracts from BMS, Bionorica, Iron4u, Janssen-Cilag, LEO, Novartis, and Pfizer, and meeting support or honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker, consultant, and/or advisory board member from Abbvie, Affibody, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, MoonLake, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the ability of fluorescence-optical imaging (FOI) to detect preclinical musculoskeletal inflammatory signs in patients with skin psoriasis at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: This investigator-initiated prospective exploratory study evaluated adult patients with psoriasis with musculoskeletal complaints and/or nail psoriasis within the last 6 months. Patients underwent a comprehensive rheumatological clinical examination (CE) along with musculoskeletal ultrasound (MSUS) and FOI of both hands at a single visit. Patients with CE-/MSUS-/FOI+ findings had MRI performed on the symptomatic or dominant hand within 7 days. If MRI was negative, the patients were followed over 2 years for the onset of clinically manifest PsA., Results: A total of 389 patients were referred from dermatology centres and evaluated at 14 rheumatology sites in Germany. Seventy-seven (20%) patients with CE-/US-/FOI- were considered to have psoriasis only. PsA was diagnosed in 140/389 patients (36%) based on CE alone and in another 55 patients (14%) by additional MSUS; overall, 50% of the patient cohort was diagnosed with PsA. One hundred sixteen patients (30%) were FOI+ (CE-) of which 40 (37%) were FOI+/MRI+. In the 2-year follow-up of the FOI+/CE- patients, clinical PsA was confirmed in another 12%., Conclusion: FOI is a promising method for the detection of signs of musculoskeletal inflammation in hands that may serve as an early imaging biomarker for transitions from psoriasis to PsA. This imaging technique has the potential to detect PsA in at-risk patients with psoriasis, reduce time to PsA diagnosis and improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MK, ACF, TR, HB and FB are supported by Fraunhofer ITMP, the sponsor of this study. MK received research grants from Bionorica, BMS, Iron4u, LEO, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis and Pfizer and speaker’s fees, consulting fees and/or conference support from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. SGW participated in project planning boards with the owner of Xiralite GmbH and Pfizer as sponsor, but did not receive personal compensation. GRB is on the editorial board of RMD Open. SW received speaker’s fees and/or conference support from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, MSD, Mylan, Pfizer, Rheumaklinik Sendenhorst, Rheumatologische Fortbildungsakademie (Berlin), Rheumazentrum Rhein Ruhr, Sanofi, streamedup and UCB, and participated on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for AbbVie, BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly and UCB. BK received funding from Fraunhofer Institute for this study, speaker’s fees, conference support and/or advisory board fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celegen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer. HB received research support from the Fraunhofer Cluster of Excellence for Immune-mediated Diseases (a non-profit organisation) and speaker’s fees, consulting fees and/or conference support from Janssen-Cilag and Roche. FB received grants/research support from Bionorica, BMS, Iron4u, Janssen-Cilag, LEO, Novartis and Pfizer, speaker’s fees, consulting fees and/or conference support from AbbVie, Affibody, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Galapagos, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, MoonLake, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB and serves on data safety monitoring or advisory boards for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer, Galapagos, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Fluorescence optical imaging technique (FOI) is a well-established and valid method for visualization of changes in micro vascularization at different organ systems. As increased vascularization is an early feature of joint inflammation, FOI is a promising method to assess arthritis of the hands. But usability of the method is limited to the assessors experience as the measurement of FOI is semi-quantitative using an individual grading system such as the fluorescence optical imaging activity score (FOIAS). The goal of the study was to automatically and thus, objectively analyze the measured fluorescence intensity generated by FOI to evaluate the amount of inflammation of each of the subject's joints focusing on the distinction between normal joint status or arthritis in psoriatic arthritis patients compared to healthy volunteers. Due to the heterogeneity of the pathophysiological perfusion of the hands, a method to overcome the absoluteness of the data by extracting heatmaps out of the image stacks is developed. To calculate a heatmap for one patient, firstly the time series for each pixel is extracted, which is then represented by a feature value. Secondly, all feature values are clustered. The calculated cluster values represent the relativity between the different pixels and enable a comparison of multiple patients. As a metric to quantify the conspicuousness of a joint a score is calculated based on the extracted cluster values. These steps are repeated for a total number of three features. With this method a tendency towards a classification into unaffected and inflamed joints can be achieved. However, further research is necessary to transform the tendency into a robust classification model., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of an oral selective tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitor, deucravacitinib, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: In this double-blind, phase II trial, 203 patients with PsA were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo, deucravacitinib 6 mg once a day or 12 mg once a day. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology-20 (ACR-20) response at week 16., Results: ACR-20 response was significantly higher with deucravacitinib 6 mg once a day (52.9%, p=0.0134) and 12 mg once a day (62.7%, p = 0.0004) versus placebo (31.8%) at week 16. Both deucravacitinib doses resulted in significant improvements versus placebo (p≤0.05) in the multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints of change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary score and in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index-75 response. Improvements were also seen in multiple exploratory endpoints with deucravacitinib treatment. The most common adverse events (AEs) (≥5%) in deucravacitinib-treated patients were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, bronchitis, rash, headache and diarrhoea. There were no serious AEs and no occurrence of herpes zoster, opportunistic infections and major adverse cardiovascular events, or differences versus placebo in mean changes in laboratory parameters with deucravacitinib treatment., Conclusions: Treatment with the selective TYK2 inhibitor deucravacitinib was well tolerated and resulted in greater improvements than placebo in ACR-20, multiplicity-controlled secondary endpoints and other exploratory efficacy measures in patients with PsA. Larger trials over longer periods of time with deucravacitinib are warranted to confirm its safety profile and benefits in PsA., Trial Registration Number: NCT03881059., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PJM: research grants: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma and UCB; consulting and/or speaker fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma and UCB. AAD: consulting and/or advisory boards: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; research grants: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. DvdH: consulting fees: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda and UCB Pharma; Director: Imaging Rheumatology. FB: research grants: Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche; consultancies/speaker fees: Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche, Chugai, Bristol Myers Squibb and UCB Pharma. AJK: shareholder: Pfizer, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences and Novartis; paid consultant: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research and Gilead Sciences; speakers bureau: Celgene, Merck, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Genzyme, Flexion and AbbVie. JN: research grants to foundation: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Novartis, UCB, Pfizer, Gilead and Bristol Myers Squibb. SS, MN, SB: employees and shareholders of Bristol Myers Squibb. JK: employee of Bristol Myers Squibb at time of the study conduct., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate risankizumab, a biological therapy that inhibits interleukin 23, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD)., Methods: In the randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEEPsAKE 1 trial, 964 patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to receive risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24. Here, we report the results from the 24-week double-blind period; the open-label period with all patients receiving risankizumab is ongoing., Results: At week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (57.3% vs placebo, 33.5%; p<0.001). Significant differences were also observed for risankizumab versus placebo for the first eight ranked secondary endpoints, including skin and nail psoriasis endpoints, minimal disease activity and resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis (p<0.001). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported at similar rates in the risankizumab and placebo groups. Serious infections were reported for 1.0% and 1.2% of patients receiving risankizumab and placebo, respectively. There was one death in the risankizumab group (urosepsis deemed unrelated to the study drug)., Conclusions: Risankizumab treatment results in significantly greater improvement of signs and symptoms of PsA compared with placebo and is well tolerated in patients with active PsA who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 csDMARD., Trial Registration Number: NCT03675308., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LEK has received honoraria or fees for serving as a speaker or consultant from AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. He has received investigator-initiated study grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. MK has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker or as a consultant, and has received grants as a principal investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. KP has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker and as a consultant, as well as grants as principal investigator from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, Bausch Health (Valeant), Baxalta, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, EMD Serono, Forward Pharma, Galderma, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Lilly, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Stiefel, Sun Pharma, Takeda and UCB. LM has received fees for serving on an advisory board from Lilly. DW has received honoraria or fees for serving on advisory boards, as a speaker and as a consultant, from AbbVie and Novartis. WL, ZW, AMS, AE and LB are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options. AMS is listed as an inventor on some AbbVie patents. FB has received research grants, honoraria or fees for serving as a consultant or speaker from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Genzyme, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To characterize treatment patterns for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) currently receiving any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)., Methods: The Strategy for Psoriatic Arthritis In Germany (SPAIG) study was a retrospective observational study conducted from May to November 2017 at 46 rheumatology centers. Current and previous treatment data were collected at a single visit from adult patients with PsA and psoriasis who received DMARD treatment for ≥6 of the previous 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving a biologic DMARD (bDMARD). Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate associations between current characteristics and initial choice of therapy., Results: Mean age of the 316 patients was 55.1 years and mean PsA disease duration was 9.9 years. PsA activity was generally comparable across treatment groups. In this cohort, 57.3% of patients were currently treated with bDMARDs, 37.7% with conventional synthetic DMARDs, and 4.4% with targeted synthetic DMARDs. Almost half (48.4%) of patients reported DMARD modifications in the previous 12 months. Specific comorbidities and patient/disease characteristics were associated with initial therapy., Conclusion: DMARD treatment of PsA is frequently modified, suggesting the need for more effective therapies and assessment tools., (© 2020 Japan College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Improvements in both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations are important treatment goals in psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Objective: These post hoc analyses determined whether additional benefits related to various PsA domains are observed in patients simultaneously achieving 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI100), the primary endpoint of the SPIRIT-H2H study., Methods: Patients with active PsA and psoriasis in SPIRIT-H2H (N = 566) were categorised into two sets of four response groups irrespective of treatment allocation (approved dosages of ixekizumab or adalimumab): patients who simultaneously achieved ACR50 and PASI100 response, achieved ACR50 response only, achieved PASI100 response only, or did not achieve ACR50 or PASI100 response after 24 and 52 weeks of treatment. Patients achieving simultaneous ACR50 and PASI100 response were compared with the other patient response groups at the corresponding time point for efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes., Results: Patients simultaneously achieving ACR50 and PASI100 responses at week 24 or 52 showed higher rates of ACR70 response, minimal disease activity, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis ≤ 4, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis, and HRQoL improvement at weeks 24 and 52, respectively, than the other corresponding response groups at both time points., Conclusion: High levels of disease control, such as those obtained with simultaneous achievement of ACR50 and PASI100 response, were linked to better outcomes across a wide range of endpoints that are important for patients with PsA. Patients meeting this combined endpoint showed more comprehensive and thus greater control of disease activity. Trial registration NCT03151551 Key Points • Treatment goals for patients with psoriatic arthritis emphasise the importance of improving both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations of the disease. • A combined endpoint considering both these manifestations, achievement of at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index, was linked with achievement of a number of other endpoints relevant to psoriatic arthritis, including health-related quality of life that are important to patients with psoriatic arthritis. • Patients meeting the combined endpoint were more likely to achieve a disease state of remission, which is the stated aim of treatment for psoriasis., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: Making a differential diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is not straightforward. This is partly because of its heterogeneous presentation and partly because many patients with PsA are initially diagnosed with psoriasis and treated in primary care or by dermatologists, with referral to rheumatologists being delayed. Once diagnosed, optimal disease control requires frequent specialist monitoring, adjustment or switching of therapies, and management of comorbidities and concomitant diseases, as well as attention to patients' overall well-being. Given the breadth of expertise that diagnosis and management of PsA requires, we sought to define a collaborative, structured framework that supports the optimisation of multidisciplinary care for patients with PsA in Europe., Methods: An expert panel comprising four rheumatologists, three dermatologists, two specialist nurses and one psychologist-from Spain, the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy-met face-to-face to take part in a modified Delphi exercise., Results: The result of this exercise is a set of recommendations that are based on combining published evidence with the panel's extensive clinical experience. Recommendations can be implemented in a number of ways, but the central call-to-action of this framework is the need for improved collaboration between dermatologists (or primary care physicians) and rheumatologists. This could occur in a variety of different formats: standard referral pathways, multidisciplinary physician meetings to discuss patient cases, or 'one stop', combined clinics., Conclusion: We anticipate that when the majority of patients with PsA receive regular multidisciplinary care, improved patient outcomes will follow, although robust research is needed to explore this assumption., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib is a potential treatment for psoriatic arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, in patients who have an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are unclear., Methods: In a 24-week, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib at a dose of 15 mg or 30 mg once daily, placebo, or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every other week). The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% decrease in the number of tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in at least three of five other domains) at week 12 with upadacitinib as compared with placebo. Secondary end points included comparisons of upadacitinib with adalimumab., Results: A total of 1704 patients received an active drug or placebo. The percentage of patients who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was 70.6% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 78.5% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 36.2% with placebo (P<0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs. placebo), and 65.0% with adalimumab. The difference between groups for 15-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 5.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.6 to 11.8) and for 30-mg upadacitinib as compared with adalimumab was 13.5 percentage points (95% CI, 7.5 to 19.4). Both upadacitinib doses were noninferior to adalimumab for the ACR20 response at week 12; the 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. The incidence of adverse events through week 24 was 66.9% with 15-mg upadacitinib, 72.3% with 30-mg upadacitinib, 59.6% with placebo, and 64.8% with adalimumab. There were serious infections in 1.2%, 2.6%, 0.9%, and 0.7% of the patients, respectively. Hepatic disorders occurred in 9.1% of patients in the 15-mg upadacitinib group and 12.3% in the 30-mg upadacitinib group, but grade 3 increases in aminotransferase levels occurred in 2% of patients or fewer in all groups., Conclusions: The percentage of patients with psoriatic arthritis who had an ACR20 response at week 12 was significantly higher with 15-mg or 30-mg upadacitinib than with placebo. The 30-mg dose but not the 15-mg dose was superior to adalimumab. Adverse events were more frequent with upadacitinib than with placebo. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-PsA 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03104400.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The currently available scoring methods for enthesitis are often measures of pain but not of inflammation at entheseal sites. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) psoriatic arthritis (PsA) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring system (PsAMRIS) assesses inflammation and damage in PsA and was particularly developed for the hands. The ACHILLES trial used clinical measures for heel enthesitis in combination with MRI scoring based on PsAMRIS., Methods: Patients (age ≥ 18 years) with spondyloarthritis (SpA) and PsA were included in the trial if they presented with clinical and MRI-positive heel enthesitis. MRI of the affected heel was performed at three time points: screening, Week 24 and Week 52. Inflammatory MRI findings (tendinitis, bursitis and bone marrow oedema [BME]) in the area of the Achilles tendon and/or plantar aponeurosis, periarticular inflammation of the ankle joint and heel erosion were assessed qualitatively (absent/present). In addition, BME and bone erosion were quantitatively assessed based on PsAMRIS, where their proportion was compared to the volume of the affected bone. Mean scores of BME and bone erosion quantification were calculated, and the mean composite score (based on PsAMRIS) was calculated based on the individual score of each subject for periarticular inflammation, BME and bone erosion and further extended for bursitis and tendinitis. Modifications to PsAMRIS were introduced by categorising oedema length as ≤/> 0.5 cm and locating bone erosion., Conclusions: In ACHILLES, MRI was used to assess and evaluate heel enthesitis. Due to the lack of a validated scoring system for heel enthesitis at the time of ACHILLES initiation, this trial applied quantitative scoring based on PsAMRIS, with specific adaptations for the heel., Trial Registration: National Clinical Trial Registry, NCT02771210 . Registered 13 May 2016.

Objective: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the probability of achieving the Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) treatment targets of remission or low disease activity (LDA) with apremilast based on disease activity categories and corresponding responses in arthritis and other domains of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) not included in the cDAPSA., Methods: Pooled analyses from the Psoriatic Arthritis Long-term Assessment of Clinical Efficacy studies 1, 2, and 3 were performed. Probability analyses assessing the likelihood of achieving cDAPSA treatment targets by week 52 were performed using multiple imputation for discontinuations and missing values. Longitudinal analyses were performed in patients grouped by cDAPSA category at week 52., Results: Among 494 patients in the probability analyses, 46.9% with moderate disease activity and 24.9% with high disease activity at baseline achieved treatment targets (remission or LDA) by week 52. For patients with moderate disease activity at baseline, small improvements (cDAPSA reductions ≥30%) by week 16 were associated with achieving targets. Patients achieving remission or LDA by week 16 had high probabilities of remaining at treatment targets at week 52. Of 375 patients with cDAPSA components available at week 52, achieving targets with apremilast was associated with continuous disease activity improvements and no or mild arthritis and other PsA manifestations., Conclusion: The probability of achieving treatment targets (remission or LDA) at week 52 was greater for patients with moderate versus high disease activity at baseline. At a mean level, partial improvements by week 16 were associated with achieving treatment targets. Patients receiving apremilast who achieved cDAPSA targets by week 52 also had no or mild arthritis or other PsA manifestations., (© 2020 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Psoriatic arthritis is a heterogeneous immune-mediated disease that usually involves skin and joints but can also affect entheses and extraarticular structures in the disease course. In addition, associated diseases must be considered when choosing the appropriate therapeutic strategy. Different recommendations for treatment of psoriatic arthritis are available for clinical use. The recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) are the two internationally accepted guidelines frequently used to assist therapeutic decisions in clinical practice. New targeted treatment options developed based on a better knowledge of critical pathogenic pathways, will enlarge our armamentarium for optimized pharmacotherapy of psoriatic arthritis and improve personalized patient care., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PJM reports research grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen and Lilly; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Galapagos, Genentech and Gilead. JSS reports research grants from AbbVie, Astra-Zeneca, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB. FB reports research grants from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche; personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai; and investigator fees from Lilly. PN reports research grants and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, Gilead, Sanofi, UCB and Roche. HT reports research grants and non-financial support from Lilly. MG reports personal fees from AbbVie, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Akros Pharma Inc, AMGEN Inc, Arcutis Pharmaceuticals Inc, Boehringer Engelheim International GmbH, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene corporation, Dermira Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Jannsen Inc, LEO Pharma, MedImmune, Merck and Co, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Roche Laboratories, Sanofi Genzyme, UCB and Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc. PE has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, Abbvie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz and Lilly; has received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche and UCB; and has received research grants paid to his employer from AbbVie, BMS, Pfizer, MSD and Roche. PSH reports research grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie; research grants from Amgen, Janssen, Pfizer and UCB; and personal fees from Lilly and Galapagos. SLL, LL, EK, HL-S and SP are employees of, and own stock in, Eli Lilly and Company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of ixekizumab, an IL-17A antagonist, in patients with active PsA., Methods: In SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), patients (n = 363) with previous inadequate response to TNF inhibitors entered the double-blind period (weeks 0-24) and received placebo or ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) following a 160-mg starting dose at week 0. During the extension period (weeks 24-156), patients maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo patients received IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W (1:1). We present the accumulated safety findings (week 24 up to 156) at the time of this analysis for patients who entered the extension period (n = 310). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient years are presented. ACR responses are presented on an intent-to-treat basis using non-responder imputation up to week 52., Results: From week 24 up to 156 (with 228 patient years of ixekizumab exposure), 140 [61.3 IR] and 15 (6.6 IR) patients reported infections and serious adverse events, respectively. Serious adverse events included one death and four serious infections. In all patients initially treated with IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W at week 0 (non-responder imputation), ACR20 (61 and 51%), ACR50 (42 and 33%) and ACR70 (26 and 18%) responses persisted out to week 52. Placebo patients re-randomized to ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy as measured by ACR responses at week 52., Conclusion: During the extension period, the overall safety profile of ixekizumab remained consistent with that observed with the double-blind period, and clinical improvements persisted up to 1 year.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate minimal disease activity (MDA) assessments in patients with PsA during routine clinical care., Methods: We used data from a multicentre observational study of patients with active PsA who initiated treatment with adalimumab during routine clinical practice and continued treatment for at least 6 months to evaluate achievement of MDA, individual MDA criteria (modified to conform to study assessments) and ACR responses during 24 months of therapy. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate the association between MDA and individual criteria at month 6; regression models were used to determine the influence of baseline MDA criteria on achievement of MDA at month 6., Results: A total of 1684 patients were included in these analyses; most had long-standing disease. MDA was achieved by 597 patients (35.5%) at month 6. This proportion increased to 45.5% at month 24 in patients remaining on therapy. MDA status was stable over time; >75% of patients with MDA at month 6 recorded MDA at subsequent visits. Pain was the most difficult individual criterion to achieve, and enthesitis was the least difficult. Higher functional status and fewer tender joints at baseline predicted achievement of MDA at month 6. About half of patients (51.5%) with an ACR20 response at month 6 achieved MDA., Conclusion: In this observational cohort of patients with long-standing disease, MDA provided a stable and valid assessment of clinical status over 24 months., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01111240.

Objective: To evaluate patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving etanercept (ETN) monotherapy or ETN plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) to determine the proportion achieving a clinically meaningful response in arthritis, psoriasis, and quality of life simultaneously., Methods: A prospective, multicenter, 52-week observational study in patients with active PsA evaluated treatment with ETN in clinical practice (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00293722). This analysis assessed simultaneous achievement of 3 treatment targets: low disease activity (LDA) based on 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28); body surface area (BSA) involvement ≤ 3%; and a score > 45 on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical component summary., Results: Of 579 patients, 380 received ETN monotherapy and 199 received combination ETN plus csDMARD. At 52 weeks, data for all 3 disease domains were available for 251 patients receiving monotherapy and 151 receiving combination therapy. In the monotherapy and combination therapy groups, 61 (24.3%) and 37 (24.5%) patients, respectively, achieved all 3 treatment targets simultaneously. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving monotherapy versus combination therapy achieved SF-12 > 45 (43.0% vs 31.8%; p < 0.05) and DAS28 LDA (72.5% vs 62.3%; p < 0.05). Conversely, BSA ≤ 3% was reached by a significantly greater proportion receiving combination therapy (75.5% vs 56.6%; p < 0.001). However, baseline BSA involvement was higher for the monotherapy group., Conclusion: While nearly half the patients achieved arthritis and psoriasis treatment targets simultaneously and one-fourth reached all 3 treatment targets, combining ETN and csDMARD did not substantially improve clinical response compared with ETN monotherapy in this real-world PsA patient population.

As in other inflammatory rheumatic diseases, the objective of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment is the achievement of a defined target. Recent recommendations propose aiming for remission or low disease activity; however, a consensual definition of remission is lacking. A state of minimal disease activity (MDA) has been established and is defined by low activity assessed by tender/swollen joint counts, tender entheseal points, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index or body surface area, patient pain and global activity visual analog scale, and functional evaluation by Health Assessment Questionnaire. Since its development, MDA has been used increasingly in studies and clinical trials. In this article, the potential use of MDA as a treatment target in PsA is reviewed. The frequencies of MDA achievement with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are summarized based on data from registries, observational studies, and clinical trials. Predictors and the prognostic effect of attaining MDA are also evaluated.

Background: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is under investigation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. We evaluated tofacitinib in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who had previously had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors., Methods: In this 6-month randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 395 patients, in a 2:2:1:1 ratio, to four regimens: 5 mg of tofacitinib administered orally twice daily (132 patients); 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily (132 patients); placebo, with a switch to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily at 3 months (66 patients); or placebo, with a switch to 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily at 3 months (65 patients). Data from the patients who received placebo during the first 3 months of the trial were pooled. The primary end points were the percentage of patients who had at least 20% improvement according to the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20 response) and the change from baseline score on the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; scores range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at the month 3 analysis., Results: At 3 months, the rates of ACR20 response were 50% with the 5-mg dose of tofacitinib and 47% with the 10-mg dose, as compared with 24% with placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons); the corresponding mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI score were -0.39 and -0.35, as compared with -0.14 (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Serious adverse events occurred in 4% of the patients who received the 5-mg dose of tofacitinib continuously and in 6% who received the 10-mg dose continuously. Over the course of 6 months, there were four serious infections, three herpes zoster infections, one myocardial infarction, and one ischemic stroke among the patients who received tofacitinib continuously. Elevations of aspartate and alanine aminotransferase concentrations of three or more times the upper limit of the normal range occurred in more patients who received tofacitinib continuously than in patients who received placebo followed by tofacitinib., Conclusions: In this trial involving patients with active psoriatic arthritis who had had an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors, tofacitinib was more effective than placebo over 3 months in reducing disease activity. Adverse events were more frequent with tofacitinib than with placebo. (Funded by Pfizer; OPAL Beyond ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01882439 .).

Background: Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints. PsA is etiologically complex, and 11 susceptibility loci have been identified so far. Most of these overlap with loci associated with psoriasis vulgaris (PsV), the most common psoriatic skin manifestation which is also frequently seen in PsA patients. In addition, two copy number variants (CNVs) are associated with PsV, one of which, located within the LCE3 gene cluster, is also associated with PsA. Finally, an intergenic deletion has been reported as a PsA-specific CNV., Methods: We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of CNVs in PsA and assessed the contribution to disease risk by CNVs at known psoriasis susceptibility loci., Results: After stringent quality assessment and validation of CNVs of the GWAS with an alternative quantitative method, two significantly associated CNVs remained, one near UXS1, the other one at the TRB locus. However, MLPA analysis did not confirm the CN state in ~1/3 of individuals, and an analysis of an independent case-control-study failed to confirm the initial associations. Furthermore, detailed PCR-based analysis of the sequence at TRB revealed the existence of a more complex genomic sequence most accurately represented by freeze hg18 which accordingly failed to confirm the hg19 sequence. Only rare CNVs were detected at psoriasis susceptibility loci. At three of 12 susceptibility loci with CNVs (CSMD1, IL12B, RYR2), CN variability was confirmed independently by MLPA. Overall, the rate of CNV confirmation by MLPA was strongly dependent upon CNV type, CNV size and the number of array markers involved in a CNV., Conclusion: Although we identified PsA associations at several loci and confirmed that the common CNVs at these sites were real, ~1/3 of the common CNV states could not be reproduced. Furthermore, replication analysis failed to confirm the original association. Furthermore, SNP array-based analyses of CNVs were found to be more reliable for deletions than duplications, independent of the respective CNV allele frequency. CNVs are thus good candidate disease variants, while the methods to detect them should be applied cautiously and reproduced by an independent method.

Objective: ACPAs are associated with bone destruction in RA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between ACPA and bone destruction in patients with a distinct inflammatory disorder, PsA., Methods: We used baseline data from a large observational study of PsA patients preparing to initiate treatment with adalimumab to analyse demographic and disease characteristics by ACPA status. To ensure a homogeneous PsA study population, only patients with active psoriatic skin manifestations who met Classification of Psoriatic Arthritis criteria for PsA were included in the analyses, thereby minimizing the risk of including misdiagnosed RA patients. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to explore potential associations between ACPA seropositivity and bone destruction., Results: Of 1996 PsA patients who met the strict inclusion criteria, 105 (5.3%) were positive for ACPA. ACPA-positive patients had significantly higher swollen joint counts and 28-joint DAS values than ACPA-negative patients and significantly higher rates of erosive changes and dactylitis. Multiple logistic regression analysis confirmed the association of ACPA seropositivity with a 2.8-fold increase in the risk of erosive disease., Conclusion: As has been previously shown for RA, ACPA is associated with bone destruction in PsA, suggesting that the osteocatabolic effect of ACPA is not confined to RA but is also detectable in the different pathogenetic context of a distinct disease entity., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01111240., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To evaluate the clinical/functional outcomes associated with etanercept (ETN) monotherapy versus combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: Data from patients with PsA who received ETN alone (n = 322) or combined with methotrexate (MTX; n = 152) for 24 weeks in 2 placebo-controlled clinical trials were summarized across studies., Results: Similar proportions of patients in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups achieved the PsA Response Criteria (80% and 83%) and the American College of Rheumatology improvements of 20% (ACR20; both 70%); numerically higher proportions receiving monotherapy achieved ACR50 (55% vs 48%) and ACR70 (35% vs 27%). Little between-group difference was observed in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein, the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index improvement., Conclusion: ETN with and without MTX provided similar benefits in active PsA.

Objective: To examine the influence of concomitant methotrexate (MTX) with adalimumab (ADA) on outcomes in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using data from an observational study of ADA., Methods: Data from a German noninterventional study of patients with PsA starting treatment with ADA were analyzed retrospectively for effects of concomitant MTX on key outcomes, including Disease Activity Score-28 joints, tender and swollen joint counts, skin assessments, and safety. Patients were categorized into those with symptoms of axial involvement and those with no symptoms of axial involvement as judged by the examining clinician., Results: A total of 1455 patients met the study criteria, 296 with axial involvement (ADA monotherapy = 165; plus MTX = 131) and 1159 with no axial involvement (ADA monotherapy = 658; plus MTX = 501). ADA, alone or combined with MTX, resulted in strong and comparable reductions in disease activity measures in patients with and those without axial disease over 24 months of therapy. In multiple regression analyses, concomitant MTX did not affect joint or skin outcomes in either the group with axial manifestations or the group without axial disease. Neither adverse event rates nor withdrawal rates were significantly influenced by concomitant MTX., Conclusion: ADA is an effective treatment option for patients with PsA with or without axial involvement. Compared with ADA monotherapy, the use of concomitant MTX with ADA does not improve articular or skin outcomes in patients with PsA regardless of axial symptoms., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01111240.

Objectives: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis; it has a higher estimated genetic component than psoriasis alone, however most genetic susceptibility loci identified for PsA to date are also shared with psoriasis. Here we attempt to validate novel single nucleotide polymorphisms selected from our recent PsA Immunochip study and determine specificity to PsA., Methods: A total of 15 single nucleotide polymorphisms were selected (PImmunochip <1×10(-4)) for validation genotyping in 1177 cases and 2155 controls using TaqMan. Meta-analysis of Immunochip and validation data sets consisted of 3139 PsA cases and 11 078 controls. Novel PsA susceptibility loci were compared with data from two large psoriasis studies (WTCCC2 and Immunochip) to determine PsA specificity., Results: We found genome-wide significant association to rs2476601, mapping to PTPN22 (p=1.49×10(-9), OR=1.32), but no evidence for association in the psoriasis cohort (p=0.34) and the effect estimates were significantly different between PsA and psoriasis (p=3.2×10(-4)). Additionally, we found genome-wide significant association to the previously reported psoriasis risk loci; NOS2 (rs4795067, p=5.27×10(-9))., Conclusions: For the first time, we report genome-wide significant association of PTPN22 (rs2476601) to PsA susceptibility, but no evidence for association to psoriasis., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The development programmes of different TNF-blocking agents in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) not only provided substantial evidence for the therapeutic benefits of the specific treatment options, but also enabled new insights into the differential treatment effects on distinct disease manifestations. For the first time, specific robust evidence for distinctive effects on different manifestations of PsA, as a distinct entity separate from rheumatoid arthritis (RA), has been generated in a standardized way. The clearest evidence was shown for an effect on peripheral arthritis (polyarticular) with ACR20 response rates from 45 up to 58% (vs. 9-24% for placebo), and an inhibition of radiographic progression demonstrated for the first time for a treatment principle in PsA. However, as PsA does not remain confined to the peripheral joints, it was necessary to address diverse patterns of PsA-subtypes in the outcome measurements of the anti-TNF trials. Accordingly, the results of the clinical studies on anti-TNF treatment also have demonstrated efficacy on enthesitis, dactylitis and skin psoriasis, either in sub analysis of results from phase III RCTs, or in additional prospective studies.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to review the available evidence on TNF inhibitor monotherapy vs combination therapy with MTX in PsA., Methods: A literature search was conducted up to and including October 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TNF inhibitor monotherapy vs combination therapy with MTX in patients with PsA. Key information was extracted from the abstracts and/or full text of the articles retrieved., Results: Eleven published articles and three conference abstracts were retrieved, reporting on six RCTs of four TNF inhibitors. Most RCTs found no differences in efficacy for peripheral arthritis between patients treated with or without MTX. However, the studies were not powered to answer this question. Some data suggest that concomitant MTX may reduce the progression of structural damage. No significant differences in other outcomes have been reported. Data on TNF inhibitor monotherapy vs MTX combination therapy were reported from six registries. Three registries reported that the use of concomitant MTX did not affect the efficacy of TNF inhibitor therapy. Data from three European Union registries suggest that TNF inhibitor (especially mAbs) drug survival is superior in patients taking concomitant MTX, while one Canadian registry reported no difference., Conclusion: Available evidence on the efficacy and safety of TNF inhibitor monotherapy vs add-on MTX therapy shows little or no improvement with combination therapy, although the use of concomitant MTX appears to prolong TNF inhibitor drug survival of mAb TNF inhibitors. Registries and observational studies have the potential to fill some of the knowledge gaps in this area., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis and, despite the larger estimated heritability for PsA, the majority of genetic susceptibility loci identified to date are shared with psoriasis. Here, we present results from a case-control association study on 1,962 PsA patients and 8,923 controls using the Immunochip genotyping array. We identify eight loci passing genome-wide significance, secondary independent effects at three loci and a distinct PsA-specific variant at the IL23R locus. We report two novel loci and evidence of a novel PsA-specific association at chromosome 5q31. Imputation of classical HLA alleles, amino acids and SNPs across the MHC region highlights three independent associations to class I genes. Finally, we find an enrichment of associated variants to markers of open chromatin in CD8(+) memory primary T cells. This study identifies key insights into the genetics of PsA that could begin to explain fundamental differences between psoriasis and PsA.

Background: The association between skin and joint manifestations in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) requires further characterization., Objective: We evaluated the association between severity of skin disease and joint involvement and the effectiveness and safety of adalimumab in PsA patients by baseline psoriasis severity., Methods: Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to evaluate data from 1,918 PsA patients starting adalimumab treatment. Subgroup analyses were conducted on patients empirically grouped by baseline target lesion score as a marker of psoriasis severity., Results: Psoriasis severity was not associated with joint manifestations at baseline or after 12 months of treatment. All subgroups showed improvements in skin and joints during therapy, and adalimumab was safe and well tolerated in all subgroups., Conclusion: The severity of skin manifestations does not correlate with the severity of joint disease in PsA patients; even patients with mild skin disease may have extensive musculoskeletal involvement.

Background: Prompt identification and treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis is critical to reducing the risk of joint damage, disability, and comorbidities., Objective: We sought to estimate PsA prevalence in patients with plaque psoriasis in 34 dermatology centers in 7 European and North American countries., Methods: Consecutive patients were evaluated by dermatologists for plaque psoriasis and subsequently by rheumatologists for PsA. PsA prevalence was estimated primarily based on rheumatologists' assessment of medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests., Results: Of 949 patients evaluated, 285 (30%) had PsA (95% confidence interval 27-33) based on rheumatologists' assessment. PsA diagnosis changed in 1.2% of patients when diagnostic laboratory tests were added to medical history and physical examination. Of 285 patients given the diagnosis of PsA, 117 (41%) had not been previously given the diagnosis., Limitations: Bias may have been introduced by lack of standardized diagnostic criteria and unbalanced recruitment based on country populations., Conclusions: In this study, almost a third of patients with psoriasis seen in dermatology centers had PsA as determined by rheumatologists. More than a third of patients with PsA had not been previously given the diagnosis. Clinical evaluation alone is often sufficient basis for PsA diagnosis, but laboratory test results may be helpful in some patients., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the "real-world" clinical effectiveness and safety of leflunomide in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: This prospective, multinational 24-week observational study involved adult patients with active PsA who initiated treatment with leflunomide. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was response as assessed by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) in patients with pre- and posttreatment data. A modified PsARC response analysis included patients with joint counts, but no severity scores. Other effectiveness evaluations included global assessments, fatigue, pain, skin disease, dactylitis, and nail lesions. All patients were evaluated for safety., Results: A total of 514 patients were enrolled in this study (mean age 50.7 years, mean disease duration 6.1 years). In the primary effectiveness analysis, 380 (86.4%) of 440 patients (95% confidence interval 82.8%-89.4%) achieved a PsARC response at 24 weeks. Significant improvements were observed in tender and swollen joint scores and counts, patient and physician global assessments, fatigue, pain, skin disease, dactylitis, and nail lesions. The discontinuation rate was 12.3%. Ninety-eight adverse drug reactions occurred in 62 (12.1%) patients; 3 drug reactions were serious (2 increased liver enzymes, 1 hypertensive crisis)., Conclusion: Leflunomide is an effective and well-tolerated option for PsA in daily clinical practice, with beneficial effects on peripheral arthritis and on other PsA manifestations, including pain, fatigue, dactylitis, and skin disease., (Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: In recent genome-wide association studies for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and psoriasis vulgaris, common coding variants in the TRAF3IP2 gene were identified to contribute to susceptibility to both disease entities. The risk allele of p.Asp10Asn (rs33980500) proved to be most significantly associated and to encode a mutant protein with an almost completely disrupted binding property to TRAF6, supporting its impact as a main disease-causing variant and modulator of IL-17 signaling., Methods: To identify further variants, exons 2-4 encoding both known TNF-receptor-associated factor (TRAF) binding domains were sequenced in 871 PsA patients. Seven missense variants and one three-base-pair insertion were identified in 0.06% to 1.02% of alleles. Five of these variants were also present in 931 control individuals at comparable frequency. Constructs containing full-length wild-type or mutant TRAF3IP2 were generated and used to analyze functionally all variants for TRAF6-binding in a mammalian two-hybrid assay., Results: None of the newly found alleles, though, encoded proteins with different binding properties to TRAF6, or to the cytoplasmic tail of the IL-17-receptor α-chain, suggesting that they do not contribute to susceptibility., Conclusions: Thus, the TRAF3IP2-variant p.Asp10Asn is the only susceptibility allele with functional impact on TRAF6 binding, at least in the German population.

Objective: The strongest susceptibility locus of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region (psoriasis susceptibility region 1, or PSORS1), and HLA-Cw*06:02 has been reported as the PSORS1 susceptibility allele. Non-HLA genes within the MHC region have also been implicated in PsA, but because of the strong linkage disequilibrium at chromosome 6p21, it is difficult to make a distinction between susceptibility alleles and linked markers. Recent studies have demonstrated that the association between PsA and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) promoter polymorphism TNF*-857 is independent of PSORS1. The aim of this study was to replicate the independent association of TNF*-857 in patients with PsA., Methods: A total of 909 patients with PsA and 1,315 healthy controls originating from the UK, Germany, and Italy were typed for TNF*-857 and for the estimated risk alleles of HLA-Cw*06:02., Results: Overall, the results of genotyping in these 3 case-control cohorts replicated the finding that the frequency of carriers of TNF*-857 TT/CT who were negative for the PSORS1 risk allele was significantly higher among patients with PsA compared with control subjects (30% versus 21%; P = 9.17 × 10(-5))., Conclusion: The results of this collaborative study indicate that TNF*-857T is a susceptibility allele for PsA independent of the PSORS1 allele., (Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory joint disease that is distinct from other chronic arthritides and which is frequently accompanied by psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) and seronegativity for rheumatoid factor. We conducted a genome-wide association study in 609 German individuals with PsA (cases) and 990 controls with replication in 6 European cohorts including a total of 5,488 individuals. We replicated PsA associations at HLA-C and IL12B and identified a new association at TRAF3IP2 (rs13190932, P = 8.56 × 10⁻¹⁷). TRAF3IP2 was also associated with PsV in a German cohort including 2,040 individuals (rs13190932, P = 1.95 × 10⁻³). Sequencing of the exons of TRAF3IP2 identified a coding variant (p.Asp10Asn, rs33980500) as the most significantly associated SNP (P = 1.13 × 10⁻²⁰, odds ratio = 1.95). Functional assays showed reduced binding of this TRAF3IP2 variant to TRAF6, suggesting altered modulation of immunoregulatory signals through altered TRAF interactions as a new and shared pathway for PsA and PsV.

Background: Leflunomide has shown promise in the treatment of psoriasis., Objective: To provide an in-depth analysis of the effect of leflunomide on psoriasis in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: 190 patients with plaque psoriasis (at least 3% skin involvement) and active PsA were randomized to double-blind treatment with leflunomide (100 mg/day loading dose for 3 days followed by 20 mg/day orally) or placebo for 24 weeks., Results: As previously reported, leflunomide resulted in a significantly higher Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria response rate than placebo (58.9 vs. 29.7%; p < 0.0001). Significant differences in favor of leflunomide were also observed in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50 in 30.4% of patients vs. 18.9% for placebo; p = 0.05), target lesion response (46.4 vs. 25.3%; p = 0.0048), combined skin and joint response (27.2 vs. 8.9%; p < 0.0001), Dermatology Life Quality Index (improvement of 1.9 points vs. 0.2; p = 0.0173) and certain SF-36 subdomains. Dermatological responses were observed at the earliest examination (4 weeks) and increased throughout the 24-week study., Conclusion: Once-daily oral leflunomide is an effective and convenient treatment for PsA and plaque psoriasis., (2006 S. Karger AG, Basel)

Objective: Current treatment options for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are limited. Leflunomide, an oral pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor, is highly effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and small studies have suggested similar efficacy in PsA. We undertook this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of leflunomide in patients with PsA and psoriasis., Methods: One hundred ninety patients with active PsA and psoriasis (at least 3% skin involvement) were randomized to receive leflunomide (100 mg/day loading dose for 3 days followed by 20 mg/day orally) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of patients classified as responders by the Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC). Additional efficacy (joint and skin involvement), safety, and quality-of-life assessments were performed., Results: At 24 weeks, 56 of 95 leflunomide-treated patients (58.9%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 48.4-68.9) and 27 of 91 placebo-treated patients (29.7% [95% CI 20.6-40.2]) were classified as responders by the PsARC (P < 0.0001). Significant differences in favor of leflunomide were also observed in the proportions of patients achieving modified American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria, improvement in the designated psoriasis target lesion, and mean changes from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores and quality-of-life assessments. Diarrhea and alanine aminotransferase increases occurred at higher rates in the leflunomide group. No cases of serious liver toxicity were observed., Conclusion: Leflunomide is an effective treatment for PsA and psoriasis, providing a safe and convenient alternative to current therapies.