Risk of infections in psoriatic arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis patients treated with targeted therapies: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of global infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis encompassing ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) treated with targeted therapies.

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were systematically searched up to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in patients with PsA or axial spondyloarthritis treated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). Global infections (any infections reported, including bacterial, viral and fungal infections, except serious infections) were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included serious infections defined as life-threatening infections or any infection requiring intravenous antibiotics or hospitalization. The relative risk of infections was determined by meta-analysis of RCTs.

RESULTS

A total of 60 RCTs were included (20,418 patients), encompassing 17 b/tsDMARDs, compared with placebo, conventional synthetic drugs (csDMARDs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). An increased risk of any infection for patients exposed to these drugs was found (RR 1.15, 95% CI [1.06-1.25]), mainly with high doses and longer duration of treatment. Most infections were respiratory tract or ear, nose, and throat (ENT) infections. Subgroup analyses showed a statistically significant increased risk of infections for axial spondyloarthritis patients (RR 1.32, 95% CI [1.14-1.52]), but not for PsA patients (RR 1.05, 95% CI [0.97-1.14]). Infection risk was highest with TNF inhibitors (RR 1.23, 95% CI [1.11-1.37]) and IL-17 inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07-1.59]). No increased risk of serious infections was shown.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to serious infections, the risk of global infections is moderately increased with b/tsDMARDs in spondyloarthritis, and is associated in particular with use of TNF and IL-17 inhibitors.

Circulating Immune Landscape Profiling in Psoriasis Vulgaris and Psoriatic Arthritis by Mass Cytometry

Background

Psoriasis, a systemic disorder mediated by the immune system, can appear on the skin, joints, or both. Individuals with cutaneous psoriasis (PsC) have an elevated risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) during their lifetime. Despite this known association, the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying this progression remain unclear.

Methods

We performed high-dimensional, in-depth immunophenotyping of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in patients with PsA and psoriasis vulgaris (PsV) by mass cytometry. Blood samples were collected before and after therapy for a longitudinal study. Then three sets of comparisons were made here: active PsA vs. active PsV, untreated PsV vs. treated PsV, and untreated PsA vs. treated PsA.

Results

Marked differences were observed in multiple lymphocyte subsets of PsA related to PsV, with expansion of CD4+ T cells, CD16- NK cells, and B cells. Notably, two critical markers, CD28 and CD127, specifically differentiated PsA from PsV. The expression levels of CD28 and CD127 on both Naïve T cells (TN) and central memory CD4+ T cells (TCM) were considerably higher in PsA than PsV. Meanwhile, after treatment, patients with PsV had higher levels of CD28hi CD127hi CD4+ TCM cells, CD28hi CD127hi CD4+ TN cells, and CD16- NK cells.

Conclusion

In the circulation of PsA patients, the TN and CD4+ TCM are characterized with more abundant CD28 and CD127, which effectively distinguished PsA from PsV. This may indicate that individuals undergoing PsV could be stratified at high risk of developing PsA based on the circulating levels of CD28 and CD127 on specific cell subsets.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Pharmacologic Treatment Strategies in Psoriatic Arthritis

PURPOSE

The goal of this narrative review was to provide current data on psoriatic arthritis (PsA) therapeutic strategies, supporting treatment decisions with a domain-based approach.

METHODS

This narrative review of treatment strategies for PsA focused on several disease domains (ie, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, axial disease, dactylitis, skin and nail disease), as well as the so-called "related conditions" of uveitis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, international guidelines, and recent congress abstracts.

FINDINGS

Currently, multiple approved treatment options offer a wide range of options, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors; inhibitors of interleukin-17 (IL-17), IL-12/23 (IL-12/23), IL-23 (IL-23), and Janus kinase; the phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast; and the T-cell modulator abatacept. However, no treatment option shows clear superiority concerning efficacy on peripheral arthritis and dactylitis over the others, whereas limited evidence suggests that the IL-17 inhibitor ixekizumab and the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab may be superior to TNF inhibitors in treating enthesitis. Recent data on enthesitis have also shown promising results for methotrexate. Treatment of axial PsA is mostly derived from axial spondyloarthritis, and more data are needed focusing on this specific subgroup of PsA patients. Thus far, the most important finding from the only randomized controlled trial in this specific population is that the IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab was superior to placebo in terms of clinical and radiologic end-points in axial PsA. Regarding psoriatic skin involvement, head-to-head trials in PsA as well as skin psoriasis showed the superiority of IL-17, IL-23, and IL-12/23 inhibitors over TNF inhibitors. When treating PsA with concurrent uveitis, according to the existing data, monoclonal TNF inhibitor antibodies should be preferred. In PsA and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, treatment decisions must include the consideration of which specific type of inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis) is present, as some of the agents either lack data or are ineffective in treating these 2 conditions. In both types, IL-17 inhibitors should be avoided. When determining treatment strategy, comorbidities should be carefully assessed, and the corresponding risk profile of the respective treatment modalities should be taken into consideration.

IMPLICATIONS

There are many approved therapeutic options for treating patients with PsA, and additional emerging treatment options are in the pipeline. Individualized treatment decisions for each patient, depending on the leading disease phenotype, underlying comorbidities, and patient preferences, should be made based on shared decision-making.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Investigational monoclonal antibodies in early development for psoriatic arthritis: beyond the biosimilars

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis that is present in approximately 25% of psoriasis patients. Currently, several targeted therapies are available to manage PsA; however, many patients fail these therapies. Several new therapeutic options, with differing mechanisms of action, are currently being evaluated.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews available results from phase I to phase III trials of several investigational monoclonal antibodies that the FDA has not yet approved for PsA. The proposed mechanisms of the new therapeutic agents and their relevance to the pathogenesis of PsA will be discussed. The investigational agents' efficacy and safety will be summarized, and their potential clinical applications for managing PsA will be contemplated.

EXPERT OPINION

Due to recent advances in understanding psoriatic arthritis, therapeutic agents are increasingly focused on inhibiting interleukin-17 and interleukin-23 pathways. Various strategies have been used to inhibit these cytokines, demonstrating favorable efficacy and acceptable safety profile.

Consensus on targeted drug therapy for spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is a group of chronic inflammatory diseases that predominantly involve the spine and/or peripheral joints. The clinical manifestations of SpA are highly heterogenous and complicated with various comorbidities. SpA is a disabling disease and adversely affects the quality of life of patients. Many new medications that target cytokines or pathways specific for the pathogenesis of SpA have been developed and they are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of SpA. However, identifying the target patient population and standardizing the usage of these drugs are critical issues in the clinical application of these "targeted therapeutic drugs". Under the leadership of National Clinical Research Center for Dermatologic and Immunologic Diseases (NCRC-DID), managed by Peking Union Medical College Hospital, the "Consensus on targeted drug therapy for spondyloarthritis" has been developed in collaboration with the Rheumatology and Immunology Physicians Committee, Chinese Medical Doctors Association, Rheumatology and Immunology Professional Committee, Chinese Association of Rehabilitation Medicine, and Chinese Research Hospital Association Rheumatology and Immunology Professional Committee. This consensus has been developed with evidence-based methodology and has followed the international standard for consensus development.

Identification of hub genes and immune infiltration in ulcerative colitis using bioinformatics

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the intestine, whose pathogenesis is not fully understood. Given that immune infiltration plays a key role in UC progression, our study aimed to assess the level of immune cells in UC intestinal mucosal tissues and identify potential immune-related genes. The GSE65114 UC dataset was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between healthy and UC tissues were identified using the "limma" package in R, while their Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways were determined with the clusterProfiler package. Protein-protein interaction network analysis and visualization were performed with STRING and Cytoscape. Immune cell infiltration was calculated with CIBERSORT. The relationship between hub genes and immune-infiltrated cells in UC was determined by Pearson correlation. A total of 206 DEGs were identified, of which 174 were upregulated and 32 downregulated. GO and KEGG functional classification indicated DEG enrichment in immune response pathways, including Toll-like receptor signaling, IL-17 signaling, and immune system process and chemokine signaling. 13 hub genes were identified. Infiltration matrix analysis of immune cells showed abundant plasma cells, memory B cells, resting CD4 memory T cells, γδ T cells, M0 and M1 macrophages, and neutrophils in UC intestinal tissues. Correlation analysis revealed 13 hub genes associated with immune-infiltrated cells in UC. 13 hub genes associated with immune-infiltrated cells in UC were identified; they included CXCL13, CXCL10, CXCL9, CXCL8, CCL19, CTLA4, CCR1, CD69, CD163, IL7R, PECAM1, TLR8 and TLR2. These genes could potentially serve as markers for the diagnosis and treatment of UC.

Implementation of the OMERACT Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scoring System in a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if the OMERACT PsA MRI Scoring System (PsAMRIS), including a novel total inflammation score, shows sensitivity to change with an agent (abatacept) known to impact clinical outcomes in PsA.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of a randomized phase IIb study of abatacept in patients with PsA and inadequate DMARD response. Participants received one of three abatacept dosing regimens [ABA3, ABA10 or ABA30/10 mg/kg (30 mg/kg switched to 10 mg/kg after two doses)] or placebo until day 169, then ABA10 through day 365. MRIs at baseline and days 85, 169 and 365 were centrally evaluated by two readers blinded to chronological order and treatment arm. Synovitis, osteitis, tenosynovitis, periarticular inflammation, bone erosions, joint space narrowing and bone proliferation were assessed using the PsAMRIS. A novel total inflammation score was tested.

RESULTS

MRIs for 123 patients were included. On day 169, ABA10 and ABA30/10 significantly reduced MRI synovitis and tenosynovitis, respectively, vs placebo [differences -0.966 (P = 0.039) and -1.652 (P = 0.014), respectively]. Synovitis in the placebo group increased non-significantly from baseline to day 169, total inflammation and tenosynovitis decreased non-significantly and all measures improved significantly after a switch to ABA10 [-1.019, -0.940, -2.275 (P < 0.05), respectively, day 365 vs day 169]. Structural outcomes changed minimally across groups.

CONCLUSION

Adults with PsA receiving ABA10 and ABA30/10 demonstrated significant resolution of inflammatory components of disease, confirmed by MRI, with synovitis and tenosynovitis improvements consistent with previously reported clinical responses for these doses. Results indicate that a reduction in OMERACT PsAMRIS inflammation scores may provide proof of tissue-level efficacy in PsA clinical trials.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT00534313.

The incidence of opportunistic infections in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with biologic and targeted synthetic agents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Biologic (bDMARD) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARD) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have broadened the treatment options and are increasingly used for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). These agents block different pro-inflammatory cytokines or specific intracellular signaling pathways that promote inflammation and can place patients at risk of serious infections. We aimed to review the incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with PsA who were treated with these agents.

Methods: We searched PubMed and EMBASE through 14 April 2022 for randomized clinical trials evaluating bDMARD or tsDMARD in the treatment of PsA. Trials were eligible if they compared the effect of a bDMARD or tsDMARD with placebo and provided safety data. We used the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the risk of bias among trials, and stratified the studies by mechanism of action (MOA) of the agents studied.

Results: We included 47 studies in this analysis. A total of 17,197 patients received at least one dose of an agent of interest. The cumulative incidence of OIs by MOA was as follows: 1) JAK inhibitors: 2.72% (95% CI: 1.05%–5.04%), 2) anti-IL-17: 1.18% (95% CI: 0.60%–1.9%), 3) anti-IL-23: 0.24% (95% CI: 0.04%–0.54%), and 4) anti-TNFs: 0.01% (95% CI: 0.00%–0.21%). Based on their MOA, these agents are known to increase the risk of certain serious infections. The cumulative incidence of herpes zoster infection following treatment with JAK inhibitors (JAKi) was 2.53% (95% CI: 1.03%–4.57%) and the cumulative incidence of opportunistic Candida spp. infections following treatment with anti-IL-17, was 0.97% (95% CI: 0.51%–1.56%).

Conclusion: The overall incidence of OIs among patients with PsA who were treated with biologic and targeted synthetic agents is low. However, careful monitoring is warranted for specific OIs such as herpes zoster infection following JAKi treatment, mucocutaneous candidiasis following anti-IL-17 treatment, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection following anti-TNF treatment.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Activation pathways that drive CD4+ T cells to break tolerance in autoimmune diseases. Immunol Rev 2022;307:161-190. [PMID: 35142369 PMCID: PMC9255211 DOI: 10.1111/imr.13071]

Autoimmune diseases are characterized by dysfunctional immune systems that misrecognize self as non-self and cause tissue destruction. Several cell types have been implicated in triggering and sustaining disease. Due to a strong association of major histocompatibility complex II (MHC-II) proteins with various autoimmune diseases, CD4+ T lymphocytes have been thoroughly investigated for their roles in dictating disease course. CD4+ T cell activation is a coordinated process that requires three distinct signals: Signal 1, which is mediated by antigen recognition on MHC-II molecules; Signal 2, which boosts signal 1 in a costimulatory manner; and Signal 3, which helps to differentiate the activated cells into functionally relevant subsets. These signals are disrupted during autoimmunity and prompt CD4+ T cells to break tolerance. Herein, we review our current understanding of how each of the three signals plays a role in three different autoimmune diseases and highlight the genetic polymorphisms that predispose individuals to autoimmunity. We also discuss the drawbacks of existing therapies and how they can be addressed to achieve lasting tolerance in patients.

The proliferation of belatacept-resistant T cells requires early IFNα pathway activation

Belatacept was developed to replace calcineurin inhibitors in kidney transplantation. Its use is associated with better kidney transplant function, a lower incidence of anti-donor antibodies and higher graft survival. However, it is also associated with a higher risk of cellular rejection. We studied the activation and proliferation mechanisms of belatacept-resistant T lymphocytes (TLs), to identify new pathways for control. We performed a transcriptomic analysis on CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1^- memory TLs, which are responsible for a higher incidence of graft rejection, after allogeneic stimulation with activated dendritic cells (aDCs) in the presence or absence of belatacept. After six hours of contact with aDCs, the (CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1^- ) (CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1⁺ ) and (CD4⁺ CD57^- ) lymphocytes had different transcriptional profiles with or without belatacept. In the CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1^- population, the IFNα-dependent activation pathway was positively overrepresented, and IRF7 transcript levels were high. IRF7 was associated with IFNα/β and IL-6 regulation. The inhibition of both these cytokines in a context of belatacept treatment inhibited the proliferation of CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1^- T cells. Our results show that IRF7 is rapidly upregulated in belatacept-resistant CD4⁺ CD57⁺ PD1^- TLs. The inhibition of type I IFN or IL-6 in association with belatacept treatment reduces the proliferation of belatacept-resistant TLs, paving the way for new treatments for use in organ transplantation.

Brazilian Society of Rheumatology 2020 guidelines for psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic and systemic immune disease characterized by inflammation of peripheral and/or axial joints and entheses in patients with psoriasis (PsO). Extra-articular and extracutaneous manifestations and numerous comorbidities can also be present. These recommendations replace the previous version published in May 2013. A systematic review of the literature retrieved 191 articles that were used to formulate 12 recommendations in response to 12 clinical questions, divided into 4 sections: diagnosis, non-pharmacological treatment, conventional drug therapy and biologic therapy. These guidelines provide evidence-based information on the clinical management for PsA patients. For each recommendation, the level of evidence (highest available), degree of strength (Oxford) and degree of expert agreement (interrater reliability) are reported.

Effect of Costimulatory Blockade With Abatacept After Ustekinumab Withdrawal in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: The PAUSE Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Does blockade of CD28/B7 costimulatory signaling with abatacept suppress the psoriasis molecular signature and prevent psoriasis relapse after ustekinumab withdrawal?

Findings

In this parallel-design, double-blind randomized clinical trial of 91 adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, costimulatory blockade with abatacept did not prevent psoriasis relapse and did not maintain suppression of the pathogenic psoriasis molecular signature following ustekinumab withdrawal.

Meaning

In this study, abatacept did not prevent psoriasis relapse, which may rely on alternative, compensatory mechanisms of residual T-cell activation in skin.

Importance

Psoriasis relapse may involve compensatory T-cell activation pathways in the presence of CD28-CD80/CD86 blockade with abatacept.

Objective

To determine whether costimulatory signaling blockade with abatacept prevents psoriasis relapse after ustekinumab withdrawal.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Psoriasis Treatment with Abatacept and Ustekinumab: a Study of Efficacy (PAUSE), a parallel-design, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial, was conducted at 10 sites in the US and Canada. Participant enrollment opened on March 19, 2014, and concluded on April 11, 2016. Participants were adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and received ustekinumab in a lead-in phase. Those who responded to ustekinumab at week 12 were randomized 1:1 to either the continued with ustekinumab group (ustekinumab group) or the switched to abatacept group (abatacept group). Treatment was discontinued at week 39, and participants were followed up for psoriasis relapse until week 88. Statistical analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and safety samples from May 3, 2018, to July 6, 2021.

Interventions

Participants received subcutaneous ustekinumab at weeks 0 and 4 (45 mg per dose for those ≤100 kg; 90 mg per dose for those >100 kg). Participants randomized to the abatacept group at week 12 received subcutaneous abatacept, 125 mg weekly, from weeks 12 to 39 and ustekinumab placebo at weeks 16 and 28. Participants randomized to the ustekinumab group received ustekinumab at weeks 16 and 28 and abatacept placebo weekly from weeks 12 to 39.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of participants with psoriasis relapse (loss of ≥50% of the initial Psoriasis Area and Severity Index improvement) between weeks 12 and 88. Secondary end points included time to psoriasis relapse, proportion of participants with psoriasis relapse between weeks 12 and 40, and adverse events. The psoriasis transcriptome and serum cytokines were evaluated.

Results

A total of 108 participants (mean [SD] age, 46.1 [12.1] years; 73 [67.6%] men) were treated with open-label ustekinumab; 91 were randomized to blinded treatment. Similar proportions of participants in the abatacept group and the ustekinumab group relapsed between weeks 12 and 88 (41 of 45 [91.1%] vs 40 of 46 [87.0%]; P = .41). Median time to relapse from the last dose of ustekinumab was similar between groups as well: 36 weeks (95% CI, 36-48 weeks) in the abatacept group vs 32 weeks (95% CI, 28-40 weeks) in the ustekinumab group. Similar numbers and rates of adverse events occurred. Abatacept did not maintain suppression of the pathogenic IL-23-mediated psoriasis molecular signature in lesions after ustekinumab withdrawal, and serum IL-19 levels increased.

Conclusions and Relevance

This parallel-design, double-blind randomized clinical trial found that abatacept did not prevent psoriasis relapse that occurred after ustekinumab withdrawal because it did not completely block the pathogenic psoriasis molecular pathways that led to relapse.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01999868

Placebo response in psoriatic arthritis clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the placebo response rate in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) randomised clinical trials (RCTs), its contributing factors, and impact on the effect size of active treatments.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases, from inception to December 20, 2020, for placebo-controlled RCTs in PsA. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool the response rates for the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria in the placebo arm, determined the risk difference for treatment vs placebo, and used meta-regression to determine the factors associated with placebo response rates. The risk of bias was assessed in duplicate. PROSPERO: CRD42021226000.

RESULTS

We included 42 RCTs (5,050 patients receiving placebo) published between 2000 and 2020; The risk of bias was low in 28 trials, high in four, and with some concerns in ten. The pooled placebo response rate was 20.3% (95% CI, 18.6% to 22.1%; predicted intervals, 11.7%-29.0%), with significant between-trial heterogeneity (I2=56.8%, p< 0.005). The pooled risk difference for treatment vs placebo was 27% (95%CI, 24% to 31%). In the multivariable meta-regression, there was a 15% (95% CI, 2.9% to 29.8%) increase in the odds of achieving the placebo response for each five-year increment in publication year (p= 0.016). In addition, the active treatment risk difference decreased for every five-year increment in publication year (β = -0.053; 95% CI -0.099 to -0.007; p= 0.024) but was not associated with the placebo response.

CONCLUSION

Despite increasing over time, the placebo response for ACR20 in PsA RCTs was not associated with the active treatment effect size.

Incidence of Psoriatic Arthritis Among Patients Receiving Biologic Treatments for Psoriasis: A Nested Case-Control Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of biologic treatments for psoriasis on the incidence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical records from a large health maintenance organization. Patients who received biologic treatment for psoriasis and were not diagnosed as having PsA before or at the time of biologic treatment initiation were included. Control psoriasis patients who did not receive biologic treatment were matched by age at time of diagnosis, sex, time from psoriasis diagnosis until treatment initiation, maximum body mass index, and smoking status. The groups were different in most characteristics. Therefore, propensity score matching was implemented. Log rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression were used to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,326 patients were included, of whom 663 had received biologic treatment and 663 had not. The Kaplan-Meier curve for the propensity score-matched groups reflected a statistically significant increased risk for PsA among the control group compared to the biologic treatment group. The results of the multivariable Cox regression showed that the control group had a significantly higher risk for PsA compared to the biologic treatment group within 10 years of follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 1.39 [95% confidence interval 1.03-1.87]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show a statistically and clinically significant decreased risk for developing PsA among patients with psoriasis who receive biologic treatments. The results suggest that biologic medications should be considered for patients who present with significant risk factors for PsA at an earlier stage of treatment.

The Role of Co-Signaling Molecules in Psoriasis and Their Implications for Targeted Treatment

Psoriasis is a chronic, systemic immune-mediated inflammatory disease manifesting in the skin, joint or both. Co-signaling molecules are essential for determining the magnitude of the T cell response to the antigen. According to the function of co-signaling molecules, they can be divided into co-stimulatory molecules and co-inhibitory molecules. The role of co-signaling molecules in psoriasis is recognized, mainly including the co-stimulatory molecules CD28, CD40, OX40, CD27, DR3, LFA-1, and LFA-3 and the co-inhibitory molecules CTLA-4, PD-1, and TIM-3. They impact the pathological process of psoriasis by modulating the immune strength of T cells, regulating the production of cytokines or the differentiation of Tregs. In recent years, immunotherapies targeting co-signaling molecules have made significant progress and shown broad application prospects in psoriasis. This review aims to outline the possible role of co-signaling molecules in the pathogenesis of psoriasis and their potential application for the treatment of psoriasis.

Predictive factors for switching in patients with psoriatic arthritis undergoing anti-TNFα, anti-IL12/23, or anti-IL17 drugs: a 15-year monocentric real-life study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the (a) potential predictors of first biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) failure and (b) factors associated with failure of multiple therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We enrolled consecutive PsA patients attending our unit and undergoing bDMARDs during 2004-2020. Disease characteristics, previous/ongoing treatments, comorbidities, and follow-up duration were recorded. Disease activity and functional and clinimetric scores were recorded at baseline and yearly and were compared between switchers and non-switchers, and within switchers according to the reasons for switching. Effectiveness was evaluated over time with descriptive statistics; multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of response and failure of multiple bDMARDs. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess differences in time-to-first bDMARD discontinuation. Infections and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-four patients were included (117 (44.32%) females, mean age 56 years, mean PsA duration 15 years); 117 (44.32%) switched bDMARDs at least once. Switchers were mostly females, with higher Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and worse Health Assessment Questionnaire at baseline. Mean time-to-first bDMARD discontinuation was 72 months; 2-year and 5-year retention rates were 75% and 60%, respectively. Survival curves for anti-TNFα/anti-IL12/23/anti-IL17 were similar (p = 0.66). Main reasons for switching were inefficacy (67.52%) and adverse events (25.7%). Female sex was associated with a higher risk of first bDMARD discontinuation (HR = 2.39; 95% CI: 1.50-3.81) and failure of multiple bDMARDs (OR = 1.99; 95% CI: 1.07-3.69); initiating therapy before 2015 was protective (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.22-0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival rate was good for anti-TNFα and other bDMARDs. Female sex was a predictor of first bDMARD discontinuation, unlike mechanism of action, comorbidities, and BMI. Key Points • Drug survival in PsA patients was confirmed be greater for the first bDMARD administered. • In case of failure of the first bDMARD, switching/swapping proved a good treatment option, as reflected by a persistent satisfactory effectiveness with second-line bDMARDs and so subsequent switches. • Female sex may constitute a predisposing risk factor for flare and therapeutic switches. • Discontinuation or switching of biologics due to mechanism of action, comorbidities tolerability and BMI did not seem to impact first bDMARD withdrawal.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Immediate Effect of Baricitinib on Arthritis and Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug-Induced Psoriasis-Like Skin Lesions in Two Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are very effective for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, they sometimes induce adverse events such as psoriasis-like skin lesions. We describe psoriasis-like skin lesions that developed simultaneously with an RA flare in patient 1 during treatment with abatacept and in patient 2 soon after starting certolizumab pegol. The skin lesions persisted in patient 2 despite stopping certolizumab. Baricitinib was initiated because of RA flare and resulted in immediate beneficial effects on arthritis as well as skin lesions. The RA went into remission in both patients, and the psoriasis-like skin lesions disappeared within four weeks (patient 1) and three months (patient 2).

Introduction of a Simplified Psoriatic Arthritis Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (sPsAMRIS): A Potential Tool for Treatment Monitoring in Peripheral Psoriatic Arthritis

Background: To evaluate whether a simplified (s) version of the psoriatic arthritis magnetic resonance imaging score (PsAMRIS), sPsAMRIS, is a potential tool for therapy monitoring in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods: Seventeen patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at 3 T of the clinically dominant hand at baseline and after 6 months. Scoring was performed by two musculoskeletal radiologists in terms of the PsAMRIS and sPsAMRIS, which is a simplified version with reduced item numbers based on prior evaluation of responsiveness to change by standardized response means (SRMs). Both scores were compared by calculation of overall and each sub-score’s SRMs and relative efficacy (RE) after bootstrapping. Results: PsAMRIS sub-scores of MCP joints 3 and 4, and proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint 4 had the highest SRM (−0.07 each), indicating highest responsiveness to change, and were, therefore, included in sPsAMRIS. Compared to PsAMRIS, sPsAMRIS was characterized by higher SRMs (sPsAMRIS: −0.13 vs. PsAMRIS: −0.02) and higher RE (29.46). sPsAMRIS and PsAMRIS were highly correlated at baseline (r = 0.75, p < 0.01 (Pearson’s correlation)) and at 6-month follow-up (r = 0.64, p = 0.01). Mean time burden for completion of scoring per MRI study was significantly reduced when using PsAMRIS (469 ± 87.03 s) as compared to sPsAMRIS (140.1 ± 21.25 s) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Due to its similar responsiveness to change compared to standard PsAMRIS, and time efficiency, sPsAMRIS might be a potential diagnostic tool to quantitatively assess and monitor therapy in PsA.

Skin manifestations in spondyloarthritis

Spondyloarthritides (SpA) like psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis/ankylosing spondylitis, reactive arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)-associated SpA can present with characteristic skin manifestations. These SpA-associated skin disorders may precede joint involvement, reflect a loss of efficacy of a current systemic treatment or can even be treatment associated. Cutaneous manifestations in SpA not only add additional morbidity with physical impact but also impose a psychosocial burden on affected patients. Psoriasis (PsO) - the main skin disease in SpA - has a variety of clinical presentations, including plaque-type PsO, inverse PsO, guttate PsO, erythrodermic PsO, nail PsO and pustular types. SpA associated with IBD presents with neutrophilic and granulomatous skin disorders, including pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa and cutaneous Crohn's disease. Reactive arthritides has a favourable prognosis and may feature keratoderma blenorrhagicum or balanitis circinatum as typical skin manifestations. Immunologically, SpA-associated skin diseases share interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 dysregulation but show distinctive genetic and immunological profiles. Therefore, they vary in their treatment responses to targeted therapies with biologicals or small molecules. In this review, we highlight the clinical presentation of skin manifestations in SpA and discuss therapeutic approaches in this interdisciplinary field.

Healthcare Cost and Utilization Associated with Biologic Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Analyses from a Large US Claims Database

Background

Costs associated with biologic switching and discontinuation can be high in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and their inappropriate use may have cost implications for patients, healthcare professionals, and payers.

Objective

To compare direct costs of treatment switchers, non-switchers, and discontinuers among patients with PsA who newly initiated a biologic.

Methods

Patients with PsA aged ≥ 18 years with ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for an FDA-approved subcutaneous biologic from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 were identified from the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. Patients were categorized into three mutually exclusive groups of non-switchers, switchers, and discontinuers, and healthcare costs and utilization during 1-year follow-up were described across the three groups separately.

Results

A total of 2560 patients with PsA newly initiating a biologic were categorized as non-switchers (54.8%), switchers (18.5%), and discontinuers (26.7%). During 1-year follow-up, after adjusting for age, sex, full-time work status, and co-morbidities, switchers had higher mean total all-cause healthcare costs than non-switchers (US$80,380 vs. US$69,031), driven by increased pharmacy (US$66,531 vs. US$56,674) and outpatient (US$10,881 vs. US$8,235) costs (all P < 0.0001). Discontinuers had the lowest mean total all-cause healthcare costs (US$50,054) but the highest medical costs (US$20,323). Switchers and discontinuers had higher all-cause healthcare utilization than non-switchers during 1-year follow-up, except switchers had fewer hospitalizations.

Conclusions

Patients with PsA who switch or discontinue biologics have higher medical costs and healthcare utilization than those continuing the same biologic. These findings highlight that  discontinuing or switching biologic therapies is associated with higher costs in patients with PsA, which may inform treatment and/or formulary decision-making.

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

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

Tackling the autoimmune side in Spondyloarthritis: A systematic review

Spondyloarthritis (SpA) are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory chronic diseases characterized by sharing common pathogenic, clinical and radiologic features. The aim of this review is to support clinicians in understanding and managing this complex disease, from pathogenesis to therapeutic targets, through a systematic review of the current literature in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and checklist. HLA-B27 has been found to be associated with axial involvement either in SA and in PsA patients: it might be involved through presentation of an "arthritogenic peptide" to autoreactive CD8+ T cells or might accumulate in misfolded form and induce production pro-inflammatory cytokines by binding to several innate immune receptors. This genetic background in combination with mechanical stress leads to the activation of both innate and acquired immune responses as well as a possible role of autoimmunity in SpA pathogenesis. The release of IL-23 and IL-17 is relevant for their systemic and local effect on bone, inducing the activation of osteoclasts. Thus, the regulatory role of IL-17 on fibroblasts, osteoblasts and chondrocytes has an impact in both synovial inflammation and joint destruction. Innovative therapies targeting IL-12/23 and IL-17 and the use of small targeted synthetic molecules, as JAK-inhibitors, proved to be effective in SpA patients representing an alternative strategy to TNF-inhibitors.

Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Background

Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals.

Objective

To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR).

Methods

A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes.

Results

The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable).

Conclusions

Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).

Fourteen small molecule and biological agents for psoriatic arthritis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy and safety of small molecule and biological agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of 14 small molecule and biological agents by network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials involving biological treatments for PsA were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov and by manual retrieval, up to June 2018. NMA was conducted with Stata 14.0 based on the frequentist method. Effect measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Intervention efficacy and safety were ranked according to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies involving 10,191 adult subjects were included. According to NMA, ≥ 20% improvement in modifed American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 75 (PASI75) response, and serious adverse events rate (SAEs) were observed. In direct comparisons, most of the biologics performed better than placebo in terms of ACR20 response rate and PASI75 response rate. Additionally, all medicines were comparable to placebo in terms of SAEs except secukinumab. In terms of mixed comparisons, with regard to the ACR20 response, etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX) were more effective than golimumab (GOL), with ORs of 3.33 (95% CI: 1.17-9.48) and 1.24 (95% CI: 0.61-2.52), respectively. For PASI75 response, IFX was superior to certolizumab pegol (OR = 10.08, 95% CI: 1.54-75.48). In addition, these medicines were comparable to each other in terms of SAEs. ETN and IFX were shown to have the most favorable SUCRA for achieving improved ACR20 and PASI75 responses, respectively, while ABT-122 exhibited the best safety according to the SUCRA for SAEs. Considering both the efficacy (ACR20, PASI75) and safety (SAEs), GOL, ETN, and IFX are the top 3 treatments.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Direct and indirect comparisons and integrated results suggested that the 3 anti- tumor necrosis factor -α biologics (GOL, ETN, and IFX) can be considered the best treatments for PsA after comprehensive consideration of efficacy and safety.

The pharmacological and clinical aspects behind dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs): rationale and systematic narrative review of clinical evidence

Background

Dose loading of biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in auto-immune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) is performed to achieve steady state drug concentrations earlier after treatment start compared to dosing regimens without loading. Although loading inherently results in increased costs, treatment targets in terms of reduced disease activity may be achieved at an earlier state. It is an interesting topic that, surprisingly, has not received much attention in literature.

Methods

In this review, we aimed at providing a theoretical description of the pharmacodynamic / -kinetic rationale for dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs and to systematically review the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of dose loading on disease activity in AIRDs.

Results

Only a small number of studies (n = 5) has been published comparing the effectiveness of dose loading versus a regimen without dose loading of bDMARDs in AIRDs, addressing abatacept (n = 2), certolizumab pegol (n = 1), and secukinumab (n = 2). These studies provide insufficient evidence on superiority of dose loading in terms of disease activity compared to a dosing regimen without loading, while safety issues might be comparable.

Conclusions

Although dose loading is commonly adopted for several bDMARDs in AIRDs, scientific evidence on its effectiveness and safety is surprisingly scarce and does not suggest superiority compared to a regimen without dose loading. More research in this field, also with regard to the pharmaco-economic consequences of dose loading, is urgently needed.

Updated therapies for the management of Psoriatic Arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a large volume of our clinical practice and its management can be challenging. Traditional DMARDs have been used over last six decades and observational studies have substantiated an effective use of many of these drugs. However, in last two decades use of anti-TNF agents has brought a new dimension in treatment of PsA and in many other autoimmune diseases. Regulatory role of the Th17 cells and its cytokines in the pathogenesis of PsA has successfully paved the foundations of anti-IL antibody based therapies in PsA. Newer therapies targeting the IL-23/IL-17 cytokines and its signaling proteins are now in development and bringing new promises for management of PsA. Herein, we provide an overview of the landscape of drug therapies, including IL-17, IL-12/23, IL-23 inhibitors, and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as those in development, such as RORγt inhibitors, anti-NGF agents, mTOR inhibitors and T cell ion-channel blockers.

Safety and efficacy of abatacept in patients with treatment-resistant SARCoidosis (ABASARC) - protocol for a multi-center, single-arm phase IIa trial

Introduction

Sarcoidosis is a granulomatous systemic disease that becomes chronic in approximately one third of affected patients resulting in quality of life and functional impairment. Immunosuppressive drugs other than steroids represent alternative therapeutic options, but side effects like liver and bone marrow toxicity or increased susceptibility to infections limit their use. Pathophysiological studies in sarcoidosis patients demonstrate altered regulatory T-cell functions with a reduced expression of CTLA-4 (CD152) and prolonged inflammation. Therefore, interfering with CTLA-4 using abatacept might be a therapeutic option in sarcoidosis similar to rheumatoid arthritis therapy.

Methods/design

This is a multicenter prospective open-labeled single arm phase II study addressing the safety of abatacept in sarcoidosis patients. 30 patients with chronic sarcoidosis requiring immunosuppressive therapy beyond 5 mg prednisolone equivalent will be treated with abatacept in combination with corticosteroids for one year in two centers.

The primary endpoint is the number and characterization of severe infectious complications under treatment with abatacept.

Secondary endpoints are the rate of all infections, patient-related outcomes (assessed by questionnaires), lung function and immunological parameters including alveolar inflammation assessed by bronchoaveolar lavage.

Discussion

This is the first trial of abatacept in patients with sarcoidosis. It is hypothesized that administration of abatacept is safe in patients with chronic sarcoidosis and can limit ongoing inflammation. Patients’ wellbeing is assessed by established questionnaires. Immunological work-up will highlight the effect of abatacept on inflammatory pathways in sarcoidosis.

Trial registration

The trial has been registered at the German Clinical Trial Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) with the identity number DRKS00011660.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Costimulation Blockade in Transplantation

T cells play a pivotal role in orchestrating immune responses directed against a foreign (allogeneic) graft. For T cells to become fully activated, the T-cell receptor (TCR) must interact with the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) plus peptide complex on antigen-presenting cells (APCs), followed by a second "positive" costimulatory signal. In the absence of this second signal, T cells become anergic or undergo deletion. By blocking positive costimulatory signaling, T-cell allo-responses can be aborted, thus preventing graft rejection and promoting long-term allograft survival and possibly tolerance (Alegre ML, Najafian N, Curr Mol Med 6:843-857, 2006; Li XC, Rothstein DM, Sayegh MH, Immunol Rev 229:271-293, 2009). In addition, costimulatory molecules can provide negative "coinhibitory" signals that inhibit T-cell activation and terminate immune responses; strategies to promote these pathways can also lead to graft tolerance (Boenisch O, Sayegh MH, Najafian N, Curr Opin Organ Transplant 13:373-378, 2008). However, T-cell costimulation involves an incredibly complex array of interactions that may act simultaneously or at different times in the immune response and whose relative importance varies depending on the different T-cell subsets and activation status. In transplantation, the presence of foreign alloantigen incites not only destructive T effector cells but also protective regulatory T cells, the balance of which ultimately determines the fate of the allograft (Lechler RI, Garden OA, Turka LA, Nat Rev Immunol 3:147-158, 2003). Since the processes of alloantigen-specific rejection and regulation both require activation of T cells, costimulatory interactions may have opposing or synergistic roles depending on the cell being targeted. Such complexities present both challenges and opportunities in targeting T-cell costimulatory pathways for therapeutic purposes. In this chapter, we summarize our current knowledge of the various costimulatory pathways in transplantation and review the current state and challenges of harnessing these pathways to promote graft tolerance (summarized in Table 10.1).

Kidney Complications of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Review

Immunologic control of malignancy has long been recognized as an important determinant of disease progression. Recent advances in immunology have led to the focus on several mechanisms that can be targeted to achieve tumor suppression. In particular, checkpoint inhibition has evolved in less than a decade to become one of the most important strategies in cancer therapy, with a meaningful improvement in patient survival. Six agents have been approved for clinical use to date and many more are in the industry pipeline. The spectrum of malignancies responsive to immunotherapy ranges from advanced melanoma, for which the first immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab was approved, to Hodgkin lymphoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and others. Notwithstanding its clinical benefits, checkpoint inhibition carries a risk for significant off-target toxicity stemming from the immune system activation. In this review, we discuss general principles of checkpoint inhibition, mechanisms of toxicity, and kidney complications of the treatment and propose diagnostic and treatment strategies when kidney injury occurs.

Pharmacodynamic Monitoring of Biological Therapies in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn disease share similar underlying pathophysiological processes, providing the opportunity to treat the patients using similar biological therapies. Failure of biological treatments due to underexposure can be managed by therapeutic drug monitoring. Adjusting the treatment based on pharmacokinetic monitoring can be further improved by taking pharmacodynamic parameters such as clinical and molecular markers into account.

METHODS

Here, we critically evaluate the existing evidence, the hurdles to be taken, and the opportunities for a widespread implementation of pharmacodynamic monitoring.

RESULTS

Pharmacodynamic monitoring typically is the monitoring of biochemical markers. A pharmacodynamic marker preferably is specific for the pharmacological action of a drug, but most of the time nonspecific pharmacodynamic markers are used, such as C-reactive protein and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Clinical pharmacodynamic markers typically evaluate physical variables or symptoms. Although physician-reported outcomes have been studied for a longer time and often have been shown to correlate well with molecular pharmacodynamic markers and treatment outcomes, the introduction of mobile health or mHealth technologies caused a shift toward patient-reported outcomes, with the associated challenge to consistently reflect the inflammatory state, thereby preventing undertreatment or unnecessary overdosing of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary goal of pharmacodynamic monitoring is to optimize the response, but it can also have an impact on safety, costs, patient adherence, etc. Ideally, the constant remote monitoring of patient-reported disease activity is expected to become the standard, facilitated by mHealth technologies.

An update on pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis and potential therapeutic targets

Introduction: Innate immune response and bone remodeling are key factors contributing to the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Moreover, the evidence of autoantibodies in patients' sera suggests an autoimmune side in PsA. Besides the immune pathways, studies strongly support the role of genetic risk alleles in affecting the clinical heterogeneity of PsA as well as the response to therapy. A good clinical response to treatment, indeed, represents a challenge in PsA patients and the identification of patient-targeted therapies is still a critical issue. Areas covered: We performed a systematic review aiming at describing new evidence on PsA pathogenesis and treatments. Reported items for systematic reviews (PRISMA checklist) were analyzed. Studies included from the PubMed database addressed the following items: innate immunity, autoimmunity, bone remodeling, and therapeutic targets in PsA; time frame of research 1970-2019. Specifically, we reviewed data on IL-17 inhibitors, abatacept, JAK inhibitors, ABT 122, and A (3) adenosine receptors agonist, CF101. Expert opinion: In PsA an intriguing pathogenetic network has been documented. Several biological and synthetic drugs are promising in terms of efficacy and safety profile.

Risk of tuberculosis reactivation associated with traditional disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and non-anti-tumor necrosis factor biologics in patients with rheumatic disorders and suggestion for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Two classes of biologics, anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and non-anti-TNF targeted, are currently available for the treatment of rheumatic diseases.

AREAS COVERED

Discussion on the need for LTBI diagnosis in rheumatic patients treated csDMARDs and non-anti-TNFs through a review of the literature. The literature, updated to 15 April 2019, on tuberculosis (TB) reactivation risk in patients exposed to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and non-anti-TNF biologics was reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

An increased risk of TB reactivation in patients receiving csDMARDs (except sulphasalazine) resulted, while a review of clinical trials, and Periodic Safety Update Reports from pharmaceutical Companies evidenced a very low or absent risk for non-anti-TNF biologics. Hence, a contradiction emerges considering that latent TB infection (LTBI) screening is recommended for non-anti-TNF candidates but not for csDMARDs. Concerning the low TB incidence countries, several actions could be undertaken, including to screen all patients independently on the treatment, to omit the procedure in non-anti-TNF candidates, or to perform the LTBI investigations only in high-risk patients. According to WHO guidelines, LTBI screening in low TB risk countries seems unnecessary, except in high TB risk subjects.

Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells: Ductile Targets in Disease

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) represent a heterogeneous population of immature myeloid cells with major regulatory functions and rise during pathological conditions, including cancer, infections and autoimmune conditions. MDSC expansion is generally linked to inflammatory processes that emerge in response to stable immunological stress, which alter both magnitude and quality of the myelopoietic output. Inability to reinstate physiological myelopoiesis would fall in an “emergency state” that perpetually reprograms myeloid cells toward suppressive functions. While differentiation and reprogramming of myeloid cells toward an immunosuppressive phenotype can be considered the result of a multistep process that originates in the bone marrow and culminates in the tumor microenvironment, the identification of its driving events may offer potential therapeutic approaches in different pathologies. Indeed, whereas expansion of MDSCs, in both murine and human tumor bearers, results in reduced immune surveillance and antitumor cytotoxicity, placing an obstacle to the effectiveness of anticancer therapies, adoptive transfer of MDSCs has shown therapeutic benefits in autoimmune disorders. Here, we describe relevant mechanisms of myeloid cell reprogramming leading to generation of suppressive MDSCs and discuss their therapeutic ductility in disease.

Persistence and adherence of biologics in US patients with psoriatic arthritis: analyses from a claims database

Aim: To evaluate the persistence and adherence of subcutaneous biologics in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patients & methods: Psoriatic arthritis patients who initiated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab or secukinumab between 15 January 2016 and 31 July 2017 were identified in the Truven Databases. Outcomes included discontinuation rate, persistence and adherence over 12 months. Results: Of 1558 patients included, the 12-month discontinuation rate was lowest with secukinumab (36.5%), followed by adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and certolizumab pegol (42.6-51.6%). Mean persistence ranged from 240.7 (certolizumab pegol) to 282.8 days (secukinumab). The mean proportion of days covered was highest with secukinumab (0.67) and lowest with certolizumab pegol (0.49). Conclusion: Patients who initiated secukinumab had the lowest discontinuation rate and highest persistence and adherence over 12 months.

An overview of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are engineered proteins with high affinity for various proinflammatory immune mediators to reduce inflammation and its sequelae in various rheumatic diseases. These medications, introduced at the advent of the 21st century, have revolutionized the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (including ankylosing spondylitis) and psoriatic arthritis. Currently approved bDMARDs for axial spondyloarthritis are etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol, and secukinumab. For psoriatic arthritis, all of these drugs are approved in addition to ixekizumab, ustekinumab, abatacept, and tofacitinib. Selection of the optimal bDMARD should consider patient comorbidity including uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease.

Characteristics of Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis Receiving Secukinumab and Reasons for Initiation: A US Retrospective Medical Chart Review

Introduction

Secukinumab is a fully human anti-interleukin 17A monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the United States. Few studies have investigated prescribing patterns among rheumatologists who have initiated secukinumab for the treatment of patients with PsA in real-world settings. This US medical chart review describes clinical and treatment characteristics of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were prescribed secukinumab and rheumatologist-reported reasons for prescribing secukinumab in clinical practice.

Methods

This US medical chart review included patients with physician-diagnosed PsA aged ≥ 18 years initiating secukinumab after January 15, 2016. Eligible rheumatologists used online forms to collect patient demographics, disease characteristics, comorbidity profiles, and treatment histories before or on the date of the first secukinumab prescription recorded in the medical chart. Information on reasons for secukinumab prescription and dosing was also collected.

Results

Medical charts from 153 patients with PsA who initiated secukinumab were reviewed by 46 rheumatologists between July 7, 2017, and August 11, 2017. Overall, 53.6% of patients were male, mean (standard deviation) age was 47.3 (11.5) years, and 24.8% were biologic naive. The most common reasons for secukinumab prescription among biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients, respectively, were efficacy/effectiveness of secukinumab (84.2%) and failure of other prior biologics (80.9%). Nearly all patients (94.1%) received a loading regimen, including 150 mg every week (32.7%) and 300 mg every week (61.4%). Overall, 145 patients (94.8%) received ≥ 1 maintenance dose, of whom 49.7% received 150 mg every 4 weeks and 50.3% received 300 mg every 4 weeks.

Conclusions

At the time of the chart review, most patients with PsA who initiated secukinumab were biologic experienced, although one-quarter received secukinumab as first-line biologic therapy. Efficacy/effectiveness of secukinumab and failure of other biologics were the most common reasons for initiating secukinumab.

Funding

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ.

Plain Language Summary

Plain language summary available for this article.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Objective:

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

Methods:

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

Results:

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

Conclusion:

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Special Article: 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).

METHODS

We identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.

CONCLUSION

The 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.