Drug Therapies for Peripheral Joint Disease in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review

[Psoriatic arthritis : Clinical challenges and pharmaceutical management]

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a systemic immune-mediated inflammatory disease of the musculoskeletal system, which is accompanied by a chronic and progressive course. It is characterized by different clinical manifestations and can severely impair the quality of life and function of patients due to the existing heterogeneity of the manifestations. The (early) diagnosis of PsA and individualized therapeutic management in routine clinical practice are difficult due to the enormous clinical variability. In addition to the appearance of arthritis of the peripheral joints, there can be involvement of the axial skeleton, skin psoriasis, nail psoriasis, enthesitis and dactylitis. The clinical appearance, course of the disease, risk factors and pathophysiological mechanisms of PsA have been extensively researched in recent decades. With the associated better understanding of the disease, new treatment options and goals for effective treatment have also been established.

Management of Peripheral Arthritis in Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Literature Review Informing the 2021 GRAPPA Treatment Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compile evidence for the efficacy and safety of therapeutic options for the peripheral arthritis domain of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) for the revised 2021 Group in Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) treatment recommendations.

METHODS

A working group consisting of clinicians and patient research partners was convened. We reviewed the evidence from new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for PsA treatment from February 19, 2013, to August 28, 2020. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-informed approach to derive evidence for the classes of therapeutic options for 3 patient groups: (1) naïve to treatment, (2) inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), and (3) inadequate response to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendations were derived through consensus meetings.

RESULTS

The evidence review included 69 RCTs. We derived GRADE evidence for each class of therapeutic options and achieved consensus for the recommendations. For patients naïve to treatment, the working group strongly recommends csDMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide) and phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, and emphasizes regular assessment and early escalation to achieve treatment target. bDMARDs (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi], interleukin 17 inhibitors [IL-17i], IL-12/23i, IL-23i) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) are also strongly recommended. For patients with inadequate response to csDMARDs, we strongly recommend TNFi, IL-17i, IL-12/23i, IL-23i, and JAKi. For those who had prior experience with bDMARDs, we strongly recommend a second TNFi, IL-17i, IL-23i, and JAKi. The evidence supporting nonpharmacological interventions was very low. An expert panel conditionally recommends adequate physical activity, smoking cessation, and diet to control weight gain.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supporting optimal therapy for the peripheral arthritis domain of PsA was compiled for the revised 2021 GRAPPA treatment recommendations.

Comparison between adalimumab introduction and methotrexate dose escalation in patients with inadequately controlled psoriatic arthritis (CONTROL): a randomised, open-label, two-part, phase 4 study

BACKGROUND

Many patients with psoriatic arthritis do not reach minimal disease activity (MDA) on methotrexate alone. This phase 4 open-label study aimed to compare attainment of MDA following introduction of adalimumab with methotrexate escalation in patients with psoriatic arthritis who do not reach MDA after an initial methotrexate course (≤15 mg every week).

METHODS

CONTROL was a phase 4, randomised, two-part, open-label study conducted in 14 countries and 46 sites. We recruited patients with confirmed active psoriatic arthritis, naive to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, with an inadequate response to 15 mg or less of methotrexate. In part 1, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either methotrexate 15 mg (oral or subcutaneous) every week with the addition of adalimumab 40 mg (subcutaneously) every other week (adalimumab plus methotrexate group) or methotrexate (oral or subcutaneous) escalation up to 25 mg every week (escalated methotrexate group). Randomisation was done using Interactive Response Technology and stratified by the duration of methotrexate treatment (≤3 months and >3 months). In this open-label study there was no masking; participants, people giving the interventions, those assessing outcomes, and those analysing the data were aware of group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who reached MDA at 16 weeks. After 16 weeks (part 2), patients who reached MDA (responders) had their current therapy maintained or modified, wheras patients who did not reach MDA (non-responders) had their therapy escalated until 32 weeks. The primary endpoint in part 2 was the proportion of patients who reached MDA at 32 weeks, analysed in all patients who received one or more doses of study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02814175.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 5, 2016, and March 19, 2020, 245 of 287 patients initially assessed were enrolled in the study (50% men and 50% women; 92% of patients were White). 123 patients were randomly assigned to receive adalimumab plus methotrexate and 122 patients to receive escalated methotrexate. All 245 patients were included in the primary analysis, and 227 completed part 1 and entered part 2. A significantly higher proportion of patients reached MDA at 16 weeks in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group (51 [41%] patients) compared with the escalated methotrexate group (16 [13%] patients; p<0·0001). Efficacy was generally maintained through 32 weeks for patients who reached MDA at 16 weeks, with 41 (80%) of 51 adalimumab responders and ten (67%) of 15 methotrexate responders maintaining MDA at 32 weeks. Of adalimumab non-responders, 17 (30%) of 57 patients reached MDA at 32 weeks after adalimumab escalation to every week dosing. Among methotrexate non-responders, 50 (55%) of 91 reached MDA after adalimumab introduction. In part 1, two patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group reported serious adverse events; and in part 2, one adalimumab responder, three adalimumab non-responders, and three methotrexate non-responders reported serious adverse events. No new safety signals were identified.

INTERPRETATION

Results from this novel treatment-strategy trial support the addition of adalimumab over escalating methotrexate in patients with psoriatic arthritis not reaching MDA after an initial methotrexate course. Safety results were consistent with the therapies' known safety profiles.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Therapiestrategien der Psoriasisarthritis

Bestehende Therapieempfehlungen und deren Limitationen In den letzten Jahren haben sich die Basistherapieoptionen für die Behandlung der Psoriasisarthritis deutlich erweitert. Das Sicherheitsprofil der verfügbaren Therapien ist gut untersucht und für die verschiedenen Präparate bekannt. Verschiedene Empfehlungen zur Auswahl und Steuerung der geeigneten Therapie stehen dem Behandler zur Verfügung. Hierbei finden die Empfehlungen der European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) und der Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) national und international in der Routine Anwendung.

Zugelassene Therapieoptionen zur Behandlung der Psoriasisarthritis csDMARD-Therapien haben im Vergleich zur RA in der PsA-Behandlung eine schlechte Evidenzlage. Für neue Substanzen in den Kategorien tsDMARD und bDMARD liegen höhere Evidenzniveaus vor. Da neue Therapien unterschiedliche Zielstrukturen adressieren, bieten sich zunehmend Chancen der personalisierten und individualisierten Therapieentscheidung. Gerade neue pathophysiologische Erkenntnisse zum Erkrankungsbild und die daraus resultierenden Therapieoptionen, die gezielt spezifische Targets adressieren, bieten Möglichkeiten einer immer differenzierteren und individualisierten medikamentösen Behandlung zur Verbesserung der Versorgung der PsA-Patienten, v. a. mit Fokus auf personalisierte Strategien zur optimalen Behandlung verschiedener Manifestationsformen und -muster.

Randomisierte kontrollierte Studien und deren Relevanz für den Versorgungsalltag Studienendpunkte randomisierter kontrollierter Studien, deren Studiendesign oft aus der rheumatoiden Arthritis entliehen ist, dienen auch aufgrund der großen Heterogenität der Erkrankung kaum als Basis für individuelle Therapieentscheidungen. Ein mehrschrittiges Vorgehen bei der Auswahl eines individualisierten Behandlungsregimes ist wichtig unter Berücksichtigung der klinischen Manifestation, potenzieller Begleiterkrankungen, von Langzeitsicherheitsaspekten, Kontraindikationen, Applikationsformen und nicht zuletzt des Patientenwunschs.

New-Onset Psoriatic Arthritis under Biologics in Psoriasis Patients: An Increasing Challenge?

Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) development is sustained by tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α, interleukin (IL)17, and IL23; hence, biologics targeting those cytokines represent useful therapeutic weapons for both conditions. Nevertheless, biologics strongly reduce PsA risk; several studies reported the possibility of new-onset PsA during biologic therapy for psoriasis. The aim of this 1-year prospective study is to evaluate the prevalence of paradoxical PsA in psoriasis patients under biologic therapy and review the existing literature. For each patient, age, sex, psoriasis duration, psoriasis severity, comorbidities, and previous and current psoriasis treatments were collected, and each subject was screened for PsA using the Early ARthritis for Psoriatic patient (EARP) questionnaire every 3 months for 1 year. New-onset PsA was diagnosed in 10 (8.5%) out of 118 patients (three male, 30.0%; mean age 44.5 years) involving every different biologic class (anti-TNF, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23). No significant risk factor for new-onset PsA was identified; no significant difference was found comparing patients who developed PsA and subjects who did not develop PsA regarding psoriasis severity, past/current therapies, and comorbidities. Clinicians must keep in mind the possibility of PsA onset also in patients undergoing biologics so that PsA screening should be strongly recommended at each follow-up.

Effect of n-3 PUFA on extracellular matrix protein turnover in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by involvement of skin, axial and peripheral skeleton. An altered balance between extracellular matrix (ECM) formation and breakdown is a key event in PsA, and changes in ECM protein metabolites may provide insight to tissue changes. Dietary fish oils (n-3 PUFA) might affect the inflammation driven tissue turnover. The aim was to evaluate ECM metabolites in patients with PsA compared to healthy individuals and investigate the effects of n-3 PUFA. The 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of PUFA included 142 patients with PsA. Fifty-seven healthy individuals were included for comparison. This study is a sub-study investigating biomarkers of tissue remodelling as secondary outcomes. Serum samples at baseline and 24 weeks and healthy individuals were obtained, while a panel of ECM metabolites reflecting bone and soft tissue turnover were measured by ELISAs: PRO-C1, PRO-C3, PRO-C4, C1M, C3M, C4M, CTX-I and Osteocalcin (OC). C1M, PRO-C3, PRO-C4 and C4M was found to be elevated in PsA patients compared to the healthy individuals (from 56 to 792%, all p < 0.0001), where no differences were found for OC, CTX-I, PRO-C1 and C3M. PRO-C3 was increased by 7% in patients receiving n-3 PUFA after 24 weeks compared to baseline levels (p = 0.002). None of the other biomarkers was changed with n-3 PUFA treatment. This indicates that tissue turnover is increased in PsA patients compared to healthy individuals, while n-3 PUFA treatment for 24 weeks did not have an effect on tissue turnover. Trial registration NCT01818804. Registered 27 March 2013–Completed 18 February 2016. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01818804?term=NCT01818804&rank=1

Treatment guidelines in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex inflammatory musculoskeletal and skin disease. The treatment of PsA has changed substantially over the past 10 years. Clinical practice guidelines are developed to help busy clinicians rapidly integrate evolving knowledge of therapeutic management into practice. In this review, we compare PsA treatment recommendations or guidelines developed by one national organization [ACR and National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) in 2018], one regional organization (EULAR in 2015), and one international organization (the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis in 2015). We examine the development of guidelines in PsA more broadly and examine similarities and differences in the three sets of recommendations.

GO-DACT: a phase 3b randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of GOlimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus placebo plus MTX in improving DACTylitis in MTX-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of golimumab in combination with methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) dactylitis.

Methods

Multicentre, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-design phase 3b trial in 11 Portuguese rheumatology centres. Patients with PsA along with active dactylitis and naive to MTX and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) were randomly assigned to golimumab or placebo, both in combination with MTX. The primary endpoint was Dactylitis Severity Score (DSS) change from baseline to week 24. Key secondary endpoints included DSS and Leeds Dactylitis Index (LDI) response, and changes from baseline in the LDI and MRI dactylitis score. Analysis was by intention-to-treat for the primary endpoint.

Results

Twenty-one patients received golimumab plus MTX and 23 MTX monotherapy for 24 weeks. One patient from each arm discontinued. Patient inclusion was halted at 50% planned recruitment due to a favourable interim analysis. Median baseline DSS was 6 in both arms. By week 24, patients treated with golimumab plus MTX exhibited significantly greater improvements in DSS relative to MTX monotherapy (median change of 5 vs 2 points, respectively; p=0.026). In the golimumab plus MTX arm, significantly higher proportions of patients achieved at least 50% or 70% improvement in DSS and 20%, 50% or 70% improvement in LDI in comparison to MTX monotherapy.

Conclusions

The combination of golimumab and MTX as first-line bDMARD therapy is superior to MTX monotherapy for the treatment of PsA dactylitis.

Trial registration number

NCT02065713

A novel treatment for psoriatic arthritis: Janus kinase inhibitors

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a type of chronic inflammatory arthritis which is associated with psoriasis. The early recognition and treatment for PsA are of critical importance. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as a kind of orally small molecules, have emerged as an encouraging class of drug in PsA treatment. This review provides a discussion of the role and current status of JAK inhibitors in the control of PsA. There are three JAK inhibitors approved for use in autoimmune diseases, for example, tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, and only tofacitinib has been approved in PsA treatment. The clinical trials of upadacitinib and filgotinib in PsA patients are undergoing. The efficacy and safety of these agents were briefly discussed. Although there are still issues in terms of their efficacy and safety currently, JAK inhibitors are expected to benefit more PsA patients in future.

Inhibition of radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis by adalimumab independent of the control of clinical disease activity

Objectives

To evaluate the relationship between radiographic progression and disease activity in subjects with PsA treated with adalimumab (ADA) or placebo (PBO) and the impact of concomitant MTX.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of the randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled ADEPT trial. Subjects were categorized according to time-averaged (TA) disease activity (remission, low, moderate or high) based on Disease Activity Score of 28 joints with CRP [DAS28(CRP)], Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) or Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) at week 24. Radiographic progression was assessed as change in modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) from baseline to week 24. The analyses included interaction terms between disease activity and treatment on radiographic progression, comparison of radiographic progression in subjects categorized by disease activity and treatment, and correlation between disease activity and radiographic progression by treatment.

Results

The interaction terms for TA disease activity and treatment on ΔmTSS were significant (P = 0.002–0.008). Irrespective of concomitant MTX, ΔmTSS was lower with ADA vs PBO in all disease activity categories. Importantly, even in subjects having moderate or high disease activity or not achieving MDA, ΔmTSS was significantly lower on ADA than PBO (P = 0.05–0.001 for TA-DAPSA, TA-PASDAS and MDA). Correlations between TA disease activity scores and ΔmTSS were moderately positive and significant (P < 0.001) with PBO but non-significant with ADA.

Conclusion

Among subjects with PsA treated with ADA, there was evidence of a ‘disconnect’ between disease activity and radiographic progression: inhibition of radiographic progression was greater than expected based on control of clinical disease activity alone. MTX had no added effect.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00646386.

Impact of Clinical Specialty Setting and Geographic Regions on Disease Management in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis in the United States: A Multicenter Observational Study

Background

Information on the factors that influence treatment management decisions for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited.

Objective

Our objective was to evaluate the impact of clinical specialty setting and geographic region on the management of patients with PsA in the USA.

Methods

LOOP was a multicenter, cross-sectional, observational study conducted across 44 sites in the USA. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with a suspected or established diagnosis of PsA and were routinely visiting a rheumatologist or dermatologist. All patients enrolled in the study were assessed by both a rheumatologist and a dermatologist. Primary outcomes were the times from symptom onset to PsA diagnosis; PsA diagnosis to first conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD); PsA diagnosis to first biologic DMARD (bDMARD); and first csDMARD to first bDMARD.

Results

Of 681 patients enrolled in the study, 513 had a confirmed diagnosis of PsA and were included in this analysis. More patients were recruited by rheumatologists (71.3%) than by dermatologists (28.7%). The median time from symptom onset to diagnosis of PsA was significantly shorter for patients enrolled by rheumatologists than for those enrolled by dermatologists (1.0 vs. 2.6 years; p < 0.001). Disease activity and burden were generally similar across enrolling specialties. However, patients in western areas of the USA had less severe disease than those in central or eastern areas, including measures of joint involvement, enthesitis, and dactylitis.

Conclusions

There was a substantial delay in the time from symptom onset to diagnosis in this study population, and this was significantly longer for patients enrolled in the dermatology versus the rheumatology setting. This supports the need for collaboration across specialties to ensure faster recognition and treatment of PsA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40257-019-00470-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Treatment of psoriatic arthritis : Are there differential indications?]

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a very heterogeneous immune-mediated disease that usually involves skin and joints but can also affect entheses and extra-articular structures during the disease course. Furthermore, it can also be linked with other associated diseases. Therefore, the individualized selection of an effective and patient-oriented treatment must be carried out taking the extent of various manifestations of the PsA itself and also of other influencing factors into consideration. Various recommendations for selection and control of the suitable treatment of PsA are available for clinical use. The recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) are the two recommendations that are frequently used and internationally acknowledged. Both recommendations were updated in 2016. Specific German treatment recommendations are currently missing. In analogy to the treat-to-target strategy for rheumatoid arthritis, at least minimal disease activity (MDA) should be achieved in PsA patients with the use of specific therapeutic interventions if remission as the maximum therapeutic goal cannot be reached. New treatment options, which target different specific molecules, offer possibilities for a more differentiated personalized medicinal treatment for improvement of the care of PsA patients. This particularly applies to a focus on personalized strategies for optimal treatment of various manifestation forms and patterns.

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.

[Value of combining biologics with methotrexate for treatment of psoriatic arthritis-questions remain]

BACKGROUND

Concomitant methotrexate (MTX) improves the therapeutic effect of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis treatment. However, the influence of MTX on biologic therapy in psoriasis arthritis (PsA) has not yet been fully clarified, as data from randomized clinical studies are lacking. So far, it is only known, that PsA patients with inadequate response to MTX or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone respond equally well to a subsequent biologic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate whether MTX-naive patients achieve greater disease improvement with the combination of MTX and a biologic than with biologic monotherapy alone, and whether patients on MTX in whom a biologic therapy is additionally started would worsen if MTX is discontinued.

METHODS

The current data situation and its limitations are presented. Furthermore, an investigator-initiated multicenter randomized clinical study in patients with active PsA is introduced (MUST study), which investigates the influence of placebo-controlled MTX combination therapy with the interleukin 12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab (UST) in order to close the existing evidence gap.

RESULTS

The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of UST monotherapy compared to MTX/UST combination therapy as measured by mean DAS28 values at week 24. Of 196 planned patients, 77 have been included so far. Recruitment is still open.

CONCLUSION

The MUST study offers the ideal opportunity to investigate the influence of concomitant MTX in a controlled study design and to assess whether the addition of MTX to UST therapy or its continuation is beneficial for PsA patients.

[Therapy of Psoriasis Arthritis Taking into Account New Treatment Options]

Therapy of Psoriasis Arthritis Taking into Account New Treatment Options Abstract. Psoriatic arthritis occurs in about 20-30 % of patients with psoriasis. The disease is heterogeneous and can involve a variety of the distinct anatomical sites. The choice of medication depends on the type and the severity of clinical features. The recommendations of EULAR and GRAPPA serve as a guide for the choice of medication, which is used in sequential treatment steps. This is presented in our review in usable, simplified terms. Potential comorbidities leading to contraindication for certain treatments are considered. We present new and highly effective treatments, based on the pathogenesis of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, targeting the IL-23/IL-17 pathway.

[Psoriatic arthritis : Current therapeutic standards]

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous immune-mediated disease that usually involves the skin and joints but can also affect the entheses, spine and other extra-articular structures. Furthermore, it can be coupled with associated comorbidities. The selection of a patient-oriented and effective therapy is based on the extent of various manifestations of the disease as well as further influencing factors. Various recommendations for selection and control are available for deciding on a suitable treatment. The recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA) are most frequently used and are internationally acknowledged. Both recommendations were updated in 2016. German treatment recommendations are currently lacking. In analogy to the treat-to-target strategy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, minimal disease activity should at least be achieved with the therapeutic intervention used if remission as the therapeutic target cannot be reached. New treatment options, which target different molecules, provide possibilities for a more differentiated therapy for improvement in the treatment of PsA patients.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

[Psoriatic arthritis : Overview of drug therapy options and administration characteristics]

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the musculoskeletal system with association to skin psoriasis and is characterized by variable clinical symptoms with very heterogeneous degrees of disease suffering for patients. Clinical manifestations essentially include alterations to the skin and nails, peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis and/or spinal involvement. This variability necessitates an individualized therapy of patients with different therapy targets. Apart from international guidelines no therapy recommendations are available in Germany for treatment of psoriatic arthritis. For this reason this article summarizes the established points, characteristics and aspects to be considered in the therapy of psoriatic arthritis in Germany, taking the various main forms of the disease into consideration.

Management of psoriatic arthritis in 2016: a comparison of EULAR and GRAPPA recommendations

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a heterogeneous, potentially severe disease. Many therapeutic agents are now available for PsA, but treatment decisions are not always straightforward. To assist in this decision making, two sets of recommendations for the management of PsA were published in 2016 by international organizations - the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA). In both sets of recommendations, the heterogeneity of PsA is recognized and the place of various drugs in the therapeutic armamentarium is discussed. Such agents include conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate, and targeted therapies including biologic agents, such as ustekinumab, secukinumab and TNF inhibitors, or the targeted synthetic drug apremilast. The proposed sequential use of these drugs, as well as some other aspects of PsA management, differ between the two sets of recommendations. This disparity is partly the result of a difference in the evaluation process; the focus of EULAR was primarily rheumatological, whereas that of GRAPPA was balanced between the rheumatological and dermatological aspects of disease. In this Perspectives article, we address the similarities and differences between these two sets of recommendations and the implications for patient management.

Methotrexate Efficacy in the Tight Control in Psoriatic Arthritis Study

OBJECTIVE

Methotrexate (MTX) is a commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in psoriatic arthritis, but there is conflicting evidence to support its efficacy.

METHODS

Within the Tight Control of Psoriatic Arthritis (TICOPA) study, patients were treated with MTX as part of the tight control protocol or standard care. Outcomes were recorded at the 12-week visit, including joint counts, skin, nail, enthesitis, dactylitis, and patient-reported measures.

RESULTS

Of the 206 patients enrolled, 188 received MTX in the first 12 weeks of the trial with 104 receiving a mean dose > 15 mg/week. The proportions of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) outcomes at 12 weeks were ACR20 40.8%, ACR50 18.8%, and ACR70 8.6%, with 22.4% achieving minimal disease activity. Improvements were seen in psoriasis with 27.2% reaching a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75. The proportion of patients with dactylitis and Leeds dactylitis instrument (LDI) scores decreased significantly (62.7% decrease in patients with dactylitis, median change LDI -59.7, -157.4 to -26.4, p = 0.033). The decrease in proportion of patients with enthesitis (25.7%) was significant, but the median change in enthesitis score was 0. There was a trend to higher proportions of patients receiving over 15 mg/week achieving ACR20, ACR50, and PASI75.

CONCLUSION

Despite the open-label design of the data, improvements in multiple clinical outcomes were seen. The proportion of patients reaching ACR20 in the TICOPA study was higher than in the Methotrexate in Psoriatic Arthritis study (41% vs 34%), but no comparative data are available for other outcomes. There is a suggestion of a dose response, but this is hard to assess when patients doing well may be maintained on lower doses.

Pharmacological treatment of spondyloarthritis: exploring the effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biological therapies

Spondyloarthritis represents a heterogeneous group of articular inflammatory diseases that share common genetic, clinical and radiological features. The therapy target of spondyloarthritis relies mainly in improving patients' quality of life, controlling articular inflammation, preventing the structural joints damage and preserving the functional abilities, autonomy and social participation of patients. Among these, traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been demonstrated to be effective in the management of peripheral arthritis; moreover, in the last decade, biological therapies have improved the approach to spondyloarthritis. In patients with axial spondyloarthritis, tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors are currently the only effective therapy in patients for whom conventional therapy with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has failed. The aim of this review is to summarize the current experience and evidence about the pharmacological approach in spondyloarthritis patients.

Making the next steps in psoriatic arthritis management: current status and future directions

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory condition with articular and extra-articular manifestations: peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin and nail disease. It is associated with cardiovascular comorbidities. It is now recognized as a new entity, different from rheumatoid arthritis and other spondyloarthritis in terms of clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, and response to therapies. Anti-tumor necrosis factors (anti-TNFs) have demonstrated clinical efficacies exceeding that of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The current treatment paradigms recommend early diagnosis and treatment, and a strategic and target orientated approach, aiming at a low disease activity status. New understanding in the immunopathogenesis of PsA has led to new treatment targets. This review addresses the evidence of current treatment for each of the domains as an aid to the clinician managing these patients in the clinic. Some new therapeutic targets are presented. We highlight the importance of development and validation in outcome measures, including that of composite scores that capture various disease domains that will facilitate future clinical trials to inform the best treatment.

Biologic Therapy for Psoriatic Arthritis

Biologic medications, therapeutic proteins that inhibit or modulate proinflammatory immune cells and cytokines, have significantly altered clinicians' ability to effectively treat psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The first widely used biologics have been those targeting tumor necrosis factor alpha. Five agents (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab) have shown significant benefit in all clinical domains of PsA as well as inhibiting progressive joint destruction. Treatment strategies such as treating PsA early in the disease course, treating to target and tight control, use of background methotrexate to reduce immunogenicity, and various cost-saving strategies are all being tested with biologic medicines for PsA.

GRAPPA Treatment Recommendations: An Update from the GRAPPA 2014 Annual Meeting and GRAPPA Meeting Adjacent to the 2014 ACR Meeting

At the 2014 annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), members discussed an update of their previous treatment recommendations published in 2009. Domain subcommittees representing the different aspects of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had been reconvened in 2013 and a new group was formed that focused on PsA comorbidities and associated conditions. A combined literature review was completed in February 2013 followed by individual group literature reviews and analyses. Articles from each of these subcommittees were published in 2014, updating the evidence for individual therapies in PsA. At their 2014 annual meeting, GRAPPA members discussed their plans for a summary article on treatment recommendations, finalized the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)-formatted recommendations for individual drugs within the domain subcommittees, and presented these for debate. Modifications to the GRAPPA grid were also discussed in breakout groups and presented to the full membership. At the GRAPPA meeting adjacent to the 2014 American College of Rheumatology meeting, a new GRAPPA treatment schema was proposed to replace the original GRAPPA grid. Each domain subcommittee discussed treatment algorithms based on their GRADE recommendations for inclusion in the final treatment recommendations article, which will be submitted in 2015.

Assessing the effectiveness of synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis - a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis is an inflammatory arthritis the primary manifestations of which are locomotor and skin disease. Although a number of guidelines have been published citing strategies for reducing disease progression, the evidence base for disease-modifying agents is unclear. This forms the focus of this systematic review.

METHODS

The systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 checklist. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that looked at the impact of interventions with disease-modifying agents, either synthetic drugs or biologics on musculoskeletal outcomes, notably American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. Results were analyzed using Review Manager 5.1.6 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Whilst our primary focus was on published trials, we also looked at new trials presented in abstract form in 2013-2014 that were not yet published to avoid omitting important and up-to-date information on developing treatments.

RESULTS

Our in-depth analysis included 28 trials overall enrolling 5,177 patients published between the 1980s and now as well as limited analysis of some studies in abstract form as described earlier. The most frequently available locomotor outcome measure was the American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders. The risk ratio for achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 percent responders response was positive in favor of treatment (risk ratio 2.30; 95% confidence interval 1.78-2.96); however, there was evidence of considerable heterogeneity between trials. Overall randomized controlled trials of established synthetic disease-modifying agents were largely negative (methotrexate, ciclosporin and sulfasalazine) though leflunomide showed a small positive effect. A new synthetic agent, apremilast, did show a positive benefit. For biologics, TNF inhibitors already licensed for use were effective and similar benefits were seen with newer agents including ustekinumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, and abatacept, although the latter did not impact on skin problems. Important limitations of the systematic review included, first, the fact that for many agents there were little data and, second, much of the recent data for newer biologics were only available in abstract form.

CONCLUSION

Conventional disease-modifying agents, with the possible exception of leflunomide, do not show clear evidence of disease-modifying effects in psoriatic arthritis, though a newer synthetic disease-modifying agents, apremilast, appears more effective. Biologic agents appear more beneficial, although more evidence is required for newer agents. This review suggests that it may be necessary to review existing national and international management guidelines for psoriatic arthritis.

Bone-immune cell crosstalk: bone diseases

Bone diseases are associated with great morbidity; thus, the understanding of the mechanisms leading to their development represents a great challenge to improve bone health. Recent reports suggest that a large number of molecules produced by immune cells affect bone cell activity. However, the mechanisms are incompletely understood. This review aims to shed new lights into the mechanisms of bone diseases involving immune cells. In particular, we focused our attention on the major pathogenic mechanism underlying periodontal disease, psoriatic arthritis, postmenopausal osteoporosis, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, metastatic solid tumors, and multiple myeloma.

Systematic Review of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: 2014 Update for the GRAPPA

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disorder characterized by the association of arthritis and periarticular inflammation in patients with psoriasis. In addition to a heterogeneous and variable clinical course, PsA is complex and multifaceted and may include prominent involvement in the peripheral and axial diarthrodial joints, the skin and nails, and in periarticular structures such as entheses. Simultaneous inflammation in the skin and musculoskeletal structures in a single patient, a relatively common scenario, often leads to marked decrease in function and quality of life. Thus, it is essential for the clinician to document the extent of disease involvement and craft a therapeutic plan that addresses the different domains of disease. In an effort to update previous treatment recommendations developed by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), several evidence-based, systemic reviews of therapies for PsA were completed, analyzed, and circulated for consensus.