Explore the vast range of titles available.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) accounts for around 20% of referrals to the early arthritis clinic and presents a significant diagnostic and management challenge. Early diagnosis is important to prevent long term functional disability and to ensure optimal management of arthritis and key comorbidities. From the rheumatologist’s perspective, the differential diagnosis includes rheumatoid arthritis, gout and other inflammatory arthritides. Once diagnosed, it is essential to assess the disease fully, including arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, skin/nail disease and axial involvement. Using this information, appropriate treatment can be planned using therapies that are effective at treating the relevant domains of disease. Despite poor data, traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs are commonly used and have been effective in observational studies. Following tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, which have proven excellent efficacy in multiple domains of PsA, new biologics are available or in development and will improve treatment options for people with refractory PsA.

Since the second version of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations were published in 2015, therapeutic options for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have advanced considerably. This work reviews the literature since the previous recommendations (data published 2013–2020, including conference presentations between 2017 and 2020) and reports high-quality, evidence-based, domain-focused recommendations for medication selection in PsA developed by GRAPPA clinicians and patient research partners. The overarching principles for the management of adults with PsA were updated by consensus. Principles considering biosimilars and tapering of therapy were added, and the research agenda was revised. Literature searches covered treatments for the key domains of PsA: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin and nail psoriasis; additional searches were performed for PsA-related conditions (uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease) and comorbidities. Individual subcommittees used a GRADE-informed approach, taking into account the quality of evidence for therapies, to generate recommendations for each of these domains, which were incorporated into an overall schema. Choice of therapy for an individual should ideally address all disease domains active in that patient, supporting shared decision-making. As safety issues often affect potential therapeutic choices, additional consideration was given to relevant comorbidities. These GRAPPA treatment recommendations provide up-to-date, evidence-based guidance on PsA management for clinicians and people with PsA.This Evidence-Based Guideline presents the latest treatment recommendations for medication selection in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), covering the six clinical domains of PsA, related conditions and associated comorbidities, and reflecting important advances in the field since the previous update.

Early intervention and tight control of inflammation optimise outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis but these approaches have not yet been studied in psoriatic arthritis. We aimed to assess the effect of tight control on early psoriatic arthritis using a treat-to-target approach. For this open-label multicentre randomised controlled trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with early psoriatic arthritis (<24 months symptom duration), who had not previously received treatment with any disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, were enrolled from eight secondary care rheumatology centres in the UK. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either tight control (with review every 4 weeks and with escalation of treatment if minimal disease activity criteria not met) or standard care (standard therapy according to the treating clinician, with review every 12 weeks) for 48 weeks. Randomisation was done by minimisation incorporating a random element, to ensure treatment groups were balanced for randomising centre and pattern of arthritis (oligoarticular vs polyarticular). The randomisation procedure was done through a central 24-h automated telephone system based at the Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research (Leeds, UK). This was an open-label study in which patients and clinicians were aware of treatment group assignment. Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20% (ACR20) response at 48 weeks, analysed by intention to treat with multiple imputation for missing ACR components. Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106079, and the ISCRCTN registry, number ISCRCTN30147736. Between May 28, 2008, and March 21, 2012, 206 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive tight control (n=101) or standard care (n=105). In the intention-to-treat patient population, the odds of achieving an ACR20 response at 48 weeks were higher in the tight control group than in the standard care group (odds ratio 1·91, 95% CI 1·03–3·55; p=0·0392). Serious adverse events were reported by 20 (10%) patients (25 events in 14 [14%] patients in the tight control group and eight events in six [6%] patients in the standard care group) during the course of the study. No unexpected serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Tight control of psoriatic arthritis disease activity through a treat-to-target approach significantly improves joint outcomes for newly diagnosed patients, with no unexpected serious adverse events reported. Arthritis Research UK and Pfizer.

Background Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post hoc analysis assessed tofacitinib efficacy on enthesitis by baseline location and severity, and impact on disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in patients with PsA. Methods Data were pooled from two phase 3 studies (NCT01877668/NCT01882439) in patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily to month (M)6 or placebo to M3. Endpoints were: change from baseline in Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) or Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index (SPARCC); proportions of patients with enthesitis, relapsed enthesitis after resolution, de novo enthesitis , low disease activity (LDA) or remission (minimal disease activity/very low disease activity; Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score; Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis, and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis); and PROs (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F] total and arthritis pain Visual Analog Scale scores). Descriptive statistics were generated by visit and treatment. Change from baseline in PROs was evaluated by multivariate linear regression. Results Seven hundred ten patients from two studies were included: 479 had LEI > 0; 545 had SPARCC > 0; and 136 had LEI = 0 and SPARCC = 0 at baseline. At baseline, among patients with LEI > 0 or SPARCC > 0, mean LEI and SPARCC across treatments and enthesitis locations/severities ranged from 1.0–4.4 and 1.3–9.4, respectively. Across several baseline enthesitis locations/severities, changes from baseline in LEI and SPARCC up to M3 were greater with tofacitinib (-2.0–0.4 and -3.5–0.2) vs placebo (-‍0.9–‍0.4 and -1.5–1.1). Enthesitis at M6 was more common in patients with greater baseline enthesitis severity. At M6, ≤ 40% of patients with baseline LEI > 0 or SPARCC > 0 whose enthesitis had resolved by M1/M3 experienced a relapse, and < 14% of patients with baseline LEI = 0 and SPARCC = 0 had de novo enthesitis. LDA/remission rates generally increased with tofacitinib over time. Baseline LEI location was significantly associated with change from baseline in arthritis pain score, while baseline SPARCC severity was significantly associated with change from baseline in FACIT-F total and arthritis pain scores. Conclusion Tofacitinib treatment resulted in improvements in enthesitis in patients with PsA, regardless of baseline location or severity. Trial registration NCT01877668;NCT01882439.

Background Axial involvement constitutes a specific domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors have demonstrated improvement in axial PsA (axPsA) symptoms, but have not shown efficacy in treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS), suggesting differences in axPsA processes and treatments. In a post hoc, pooled analysis of patients with investigator- and imaging-confirmed sacroiliitis in two phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled studies (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2), patients treated with guselkumab, an IL-23p19 inhibitor, had greater axial symptom improvements compared with placebo. Confirmatory imaging at baseline was restricted to the sacroiliac (SI) joints, occurred prior to/at screening, and was locally read. Methods The STAR study will prospectively assess efficacy outcomes in PsA patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed axial inflammation. Eligible, biologic-naïve patients with PsA ( N =  405) for ≥ 6 months and active disease (≥ 3 swollen and ≥ 3 tender joints, C-reactive protein [CRP] ≥ 0.3 mg/dL) despite prior non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, apremilast, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs will be randomized (1:1:1) to guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W); guselkumab at week (W) 0, W4, then every 8 weeks (Q8W); or placebo with crossover to guselkumab at W24, W28, then Q8W. Patients will have Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score ≥ 4, spinal pain component score (0–10 visual analog scale) ≥ 4, and screening MRI-confirmed axial involvement (positive spine and/or SI joints according to centrally read Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada [SPARCC] score ≥ 3 in ≥ 1 region). The primary endpoint is mean change from baseline in BASDAI at W24; multiplicity controlled secondary endpoints at W24 include AS Disease Activity Score employing CRP (ASDAS), Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA), Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Investigator’s Global Assessment of skin disease (IGA), and mean changes from baseline in MRI SI joint SPARCC scores. Centrally read MRIs of spine and SI joints (scored using SPARCC) will be obtained at W0, W24, and W52, with readers blinded to treatment group and timepoint. Treatment group comparisons will be performed using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel or chi-square test for binary endpoints and analysis of covariance, mixed model for repeated measures, or constrained longitudinal data analysis for continuous endpoints. Discussion This study will evaluate the ability of guselkumab to reduce both axial symptoms and inflammation in patients with active PsA. Trial registration This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04929210 , on 18 June 2021. Protocol version: Version 1.0 dated 14 April 2021.

Agents which increase intracellular cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) may have an antagonistic effect on pro-inflammatory molecule production so that inhibitors of the cAMP degrading phosphodiesterases have been identified as promising drugs in chronic inflammatory disorders. Although many such inhibitors have been developed, their introduction in the clinic has been hampered by their narrow therapeutic window with side effects such as nausea and emesis occurring at sub-therapeutic levels. The latest generation of inhibitors selective for phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), such as apremilast and roflumilast, seems to have an improved therapeutic index. While roflumilast has been approved for the treatment of exacerbated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), apremilast shows promising activity in dermatological and rheumatological conditions. Studies in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have demonstrated clinical activity of apremilast. Efficacy in psoriasis is probably equivalent to methotrexate but less than that of monoclonal antibody inhibitors of tumour necrosis factor (TNFi). Similarly, in psoriatic arthritis efficacy is less than that of TNF inhibitors. PDE4 inhibitors hold the promise to broaden the portfolio of anti-inflammatory therapeutic approaches in a range of chronic inflammatory diseases which may include granulomatous skin diseases, some subtypes of chronic eczema and probably cutaneous lupus erythematosus. In this review, the authors highlight the mode of action of PDE4 inhibitors on skin and joint inflammatory responses and discuss their future role in clinical practice. Current developments in the field including the development of topical applications and the development of PDE4 inhibitors which specifically target the subform PDE4B will be discussed.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); few have compared them head to head.ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of all evaluated DMARDs for active PsA, with a special focus on biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) licensed for PsA or psoriasis.MethodsA systematic review identified RCTs and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared treatments on efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis) and safety (patients discontinuing due to adverse events (DAE)) outcomes. Subgroup analyses explored ACR response among patients with and without prior biological therapy exposure.ResultsThe NMA included 46 studies. Results indicate that some tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) may perform numerically, but not significantly, better than interleukin (IL) inhibitors on ACR response but perform worse on PASI response. Few significant differences between bDMARDs on ACR response were observed after subgrouping for prior bDMARD exposure. Guselkumab and IL-17A or IL-17RA inhibitors—brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab—were best on PASI response. These IL-inhibitors and adalimumab were similarly efficacious on resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. Infliximab with and without methotrexate, certolizumab 400 mg every 4 weeks and tildrakizumab showed the highest rates of DAE; abatacept, golimumab and the IL-inhibitors, the lowest.ConclusionsDespite similar efficacy for ACR response, IL-17A and IL-17RA inhibitors and guselkumab offered preferential efficacy to anti-TNFs in skin manifestations, and for enthesitis and dactylitis, thereby supporting drug selection based on predominant clinical phenotype.

Background The interleukin-23p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab effectively treats signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated the effect of guselkumab on fatigue. Methods Across two phase 3 trials of guselkumab (DISCOVER-1, DISCOVER-2), patients with active PsA despite standard therapy were randomized to subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W, N = 373); guselkumab 100 mg at week 0, week 4, and then Q8W ( N = 375); or placebo ( N = 372) through week 24, after which patients in the placebo group crossed over to guselkumab Q4W. Fatigue was measured as a secondary endpoint using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue instrument (range 0–52, higher scores indicate less fatigue). Least-squares mean changes in FACIT-Fatigue scores were compared between treatments using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures. Mediation analysis was used to adjust for indirect effects on fatigue deriving from improvement in other outcomes, including ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20; prespecified), minimal disease activity (MDA; post hoc), or C-reactive protein (CRP; post hoc). Results Baseline mean (SD) FACIT-Fatigue scores in DISCOVER-1 ( N = 381) and DISCOVER-2 ( N = 739), ranging from 29.1 (9.5) to 31.4 (10.1), indicated substantial levels of fatigue relative to the United States general population (43.6 [9.4]). Across studies, mean improvements, and proportions of patients with ≥4-point improvements, in FACIT-Fatigue scores at week 24 with guselkumab Q4W and Q8W (5.6–7.6 and 54–63%, respectively) were larger vs placebo (2.2–3.6 and 35–46%). Improvement in FACIT-Fatigue scores with guselkumab was sustained from week 24 to week 52, with moderate-to-large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 0.52–0.81 at week 24; 0.66–0.91 at week 52). Mediation analyses demonstrated that substantial proportions of the effects of guselkumab vs placebo on fatigue were direct effect, after adjusting for achievement of ACR20 (Q4W 69–70%, Q8W 12–36% direct effect) or MDA (72–92% across dosing regimens) response or for change in serum CRP concentrations (82–88% across dosing regimens). Conclusions In patients with active PsA, guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or Q8W led to clinically meaningful and sustained improvements in fatigue through 1 year. A substantial portion of the improvement in FACIT-Fatigue scores induced by guselkumab was independent of effects on the achievement of other select outcomes. Trial registration Name of the registry: ClinicalTrials.gov Trial registrations: DISCOVER-1, NCT03162796; DISCOVER-2, NCT03158285 Date of registration: DISCOVER-1, May 22, 2017; DISCOVER-2, May 18, 2017 URLs of the trial registry record: DISCOVER-1, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03162796?term=NCT03162796&draw=1&rank=1 DISCOVER-2, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03158285?term=NCT03158285&draw=2&rank=1

Background: Involvement of the axial skeleton (sacroiliac joints and spine) is a relatively frequent manifestation associated with psoriatic skin disease, mostly along with involvement of peripheral musculoskeletal structures (peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis), which are referred to as psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Data suggest that up to 30% of patients with psoriasis have PsA. Depending on the definition used, the prevalence of axial involvement varies from 25% to 70% of patients with PsA. However, there are currently no widely accepted criteria for axial involvement in PsA.Objective: The overarching aim of the Axial Involvement in Psoriatic Arthritis (AXIS) study is to systematically evaluate clinical and imaging manifestations indicative of axial involvement in patients with PsA and to develop classification criteria and a unified nomenclature for axial involvement in PsA that would allow defining a homogeneous subgroup of patients for research. Design: Prospective, multicenter, multinational, cross-sectional study. Methods and analyses: In this multicenter, multinational, cross-sectional study, eligible patients [adult patients diagnosed with PsA and fulfilling Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) with musculoskeletal symptom duration of ⩽10 years not treated with biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs] will be recruited prospectively. They will undergo study-related clinical and imaging examinations. Imaging will include radiography and magnetic resonance imaging examinations of sacroiliac joints and spine. Local investigators will evaluate for the presence of axial involvement based on clinical and imaging information which will represent the primary outcome of the study. In addition, imaging will undergo evaluation by central review. Finally, the central clinical committee will determine the presence of axial involvement based on all available information. Ethics: The study will be performed according to the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice guidelines. The study protocol will be approved by the individual Independent Ethics Committee / Institutional Review Board of participating centers. Written informed consent will be obtained from all included patients.Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04434885.

Background This study examined the time to clinically meaningful response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo switching to tofacitinib. Methods Data were from two phase 3 studies, OPAL Broaden (12 months) and OPAL Beyond (6 months). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only), or placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3. Baseline to initial response time was according to pre-defined clinically meaningful criteria on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; ≥ 0.35-point improvement), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F; ≥ 4-point improvement), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS; post-baseline score ≤ 3.2 and > 1.6-point improvement from baseline), and minimal disease activity (MDA; meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria) composite. Results In OPAL Broaden, median time to initial HAQ-DI score response was 29, 53, and 30 days in patients treated with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, or adalimumab, compared with 162 and 112 days in patients treated with placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3, respectively. Across studies, median time to initial FACIT-F total score response was shorter in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID (31 days) vs other groups (84–92 days). Median time to initial response was approximately 11 (MDA)/6–9 months (PASDAS) in tofacitinib/adalimumab groups in OPAL Broaden. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates tofacitinib’s efficacy on most patient-reported and clinical endpoints over time and shows a shorter time to initial, clinically meaningful response in patients receiving tofacitinib vs patients switching from placebo to tofacitinib. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01877668. Registered June 12, 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01882439. Registered June 18, 2013.