Retrospective evaluation of patient profiling and effectiveness of apremilast in an Italian multicentric cohort of psoriatic arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the baseline characteristics, the reasons for prescription, and the effectiveness/safety profile of real-life apremilast for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: PsA patients treated with apremilast were retrospectively extracted from an Italian multicentric cohort. Baseline population characteristics and reasons for apremilast prescription were analysed. Clinical response was defined as the proportion of patients achieving Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) remission/low disease activity (LDA), minimal disease activity (MDA), and very low disease activity (VLDA). Six-month retention rate was computed by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a detailed analysis of reasons for discontinuation. Univariate and multivariate models were developed to examine predictors of clinical response and persistence. RESULTS: The study population included 131 patients mainly with oligoarticular PsA (58%), carrying at least one comorbidity (64.1%, in particular history of malignancies [25.9%] and latent tuberculosis [16.3%]) treated with apremilast as first-line targeted therapy (47.7%) or in biologics failures (52.3%). Contraindication to biologics (60.3%) and lack of poor prognostic factors (27.5%) were the most frequent reason for apremilast prescription. The 6-month retention rate was 72.1%. Inefficacy (n=7), diarrhoea (n=10), nausea (n=3), and headache (n=7) were the most frequent reasons for discontinuation. At 3 months DAPSA LDA/remission, MDA, and VLDA were observed in 40.3, 6.7, and 5.6% of patients, respectively. Female sex was a negative predictor of both retention rate and clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: In our real-life analysis apremilast was mainly used in oligoarticular PsA carrying comorbidities leading to contraindications to biologics. Effectiveness and safety profiles were consistent with clinical trials.

Effectiveness of Certolizumab-Pegol in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Spondyloarthritis, and Psoriatic Arthritis Based on the BIOPURE Registry: Can Early Response Predict Late Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Identification of predictors of clinical response to certolizumab-pegol (certolizumab) may aid the decision-making process for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the effectiveness of certolizumab and identify any predictors of favorable outcome in patients with RA, PsA, or SpA. METHODS: We studied 355 RA, SpA, and PsA patients starting treatment with certolizumab. Endpoints of the study were drug survival and identification of predictors of clinical outcome. Drug retention was analyzed via the Kaplan-Meier method, and hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Of 355 certolizumab initiators, 178 had RA, 94 had PsA, and 83 had SpA. Biologic-naïve RA patients had significantly higher survival rates (73.3%) than switchers taking certolizumab as a second-line (49.0%) or third- or next-line biologic agent (51.2%; p = 0.0001). Instead, PsA and SpA patients showed similar drug retention rates regardless of the line of treatment. A significant clinical improvement from baseline was seen at 3 months for RA (28 joint-Disease Activity Score [DAS28]; p = 0.001), PsA (Disease Activity Index for PsA [DAPSA]; p = 0.001), and SpA (Bath Ankylosing Disease Index; p = 0.01). Biologic-naïve patients had the lowest HR (0.31; p = 0.001) of discontinuing certolizumab for RA, and the highest HR (7.94; p = 0.01) of achieving minimal disease activity (MDA) for PsA. For PsA, a predictor of late MDA was the achievement of low/remission DAPSA at 3 months, and 3-month low/remission DAS28 predicted late remission for RA. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed that the best predictor of certolizumab effectiveness in unselected patients with RA, PsA, or SpA was a biologic-naïve status and achievement of an early response within 3 months.

Correction to: Drug survival and effectiveness of ustekinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Real-life data from the biologic Apulian registry (BIOPURE).

In Fig. 1 - paned D, incorrect image was published. This is now presented correctly in this article.

Drug survival and effectiveness of ustekinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Real-life data from the biologic Apulian registry (BIOPURE).

This study aims to evaluate the drug survival and effectiveness of ustekinumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients naïve to biologics or inadequate responders to tumor necrosis factor (TNF-IR) inhibitors in real life. PsA patients starting ustekinumab were enrolled from 2014 to 2016. Joint involvement, peripheral or axial, Psoriatic Area Severity Index, Disease Activity Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Lee Enthesitis Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire, body mass index, comorbidities, co-therapies, mechanism of action, and causes of discontinuation of prior TNFi were collected at baseline, and 6 and 12 months. Twelve-month drug survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves. Hazard ratios (HRs) of drug discontinuation adjusted for baseline factors were estimated by multiple Cox regression analysis. Percentages of DAPSA-based remission, as crude value and adjusted for drug retention (LUNDEX index), were compared by χ2 test. Mean differences of DAPSA from baseline to 6 and 12 months were compared between naïve and TNF-IR patients by ANOVA. Of 160 PsA patients starting ustekinumab, 54 were naïve and 106 were TNF-IR. Twelve-month drug survival was significantly higher in naïve (87%) than in TNF-IR (68%, p = 0.01). Baseline co-therapy with methotrexate did not increase the persistence on ustekinumab. Naïve patients had the lowest risk of ustekinumab discontinuation (HR 0.27, p = 0.01), and the highest DAPSA-based remission (34%, LUNDEX 26%). Mean differences from baseline of DAPSA was significantly greater in naïve than in TNF-IR patients at 12 months (- 14.4 ± 10 vs. - 4.1 ± 17, p = 0.01). Our data showed that ustekinumab has a good effectiveness in real life and the best outcomes are achieved in biologic-naïve PsA patients.

Golimumab in real-life settings: 2 Years drug survival and predictors of clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, and psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the drug survival of golimumab, and predictors thereof, in patients affected with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in a prospective observational cohort. METHODS: This is a non-interventional, longitudinal study on RA, SpA, and PsA patients starting treatment with golimumab. Endpoints were the 2 years persistence rate of golimumab and predictors of therapy discontinuation. Drug retention was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models. Hazard ratios (HR) of golimumab discontinuation were estimated by Cox-regression hazard models. RESULTS: Of 416 patients starting golimumab, 171 biologic-naïve and 245 inadequate responders to prior biologic drugs, 88 had RA, 147 SpA, and 181 PsA. Global 2 years drug retention was 70.2%, with no different hazard of discontinuation among diseases or line of biologic treatment. The strongest predictor of golimumab discontinuation was female gender (HR = 1.95). Golimumab monotherapy was associated with higher risk drug interruption (HR = 1.67). Within SpA, predictors of golimumab discontinuation were female sex (HR = 4.19), and absence of extra-articular manifestations (HR = 4.60). In PsA, duration of disease was negatively associated to drug interruption (HR = 0.93), whereas golimumab monotherapy was positively (HR = 2.21) associated. Interestingly, failing to achieve a good EULAR response at 3 months was the only predictor of golimumab discontinuation for RA patients (HR = 3.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided evidence that golimumab has high retention rate in real-life settings. SpA male patients with extra-articular manifestations, PsA patients on co-therapy with DMARDs, and RA patients attaining an early clinical response had the highest probability to continue golimumab over 2 years.

Tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor therapy and rehabilitation for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for a synergistic effect of combining rehabilitation with biological anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Data were analysed to identify the most effective rehabilitation programmes, the best endpoints for effectiveness, and patient subgroups most likely to benefit from combination therapy. Systematic MEDLINE and Embase searches were performed to identify studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes and biological therapy in patients with AS. Evidence was categorised by study type, and efficacy, adverse effects and other outcomes were summarised. RESULTS: Of the 75 studies identified, 13 investigated the combination of a rehabilitation programme with TNF inhibitor therapy, while the remainder studied rehabilitation with standard therapy (often not specified). Data from these few studies suggest that combined rehabilitation plus anti-TNF therapy is more effective in terms of symptom severity, disease activity, disability and quality-of-life indices versus biologic alone or rehabilitation with standard medical therapy, or, in non-comparative studies, compared with baseline. The most effective rehabilitation appears to be supervised or in-patient programmes with an educational component. Available data do not provide guidance on most appropriate endpoints or identify patients most likely to benefit from combination therapy. Combined, TNF inhibitor and rehabilitation therapy appear to have a synergistic effect, possibly due to increased adherence to exercise. Exercise regimes are more effective if supervised and include an education component. CONCLUSIONS: Further randomized, controlled trials comparing endpoints and investigating longer-term benefits of combining TNF inhibitors with rehabilitation in different AS subgroups are needed.