Key clinical point: Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment.

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the NCRI AML16 trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).

Disclosures: This NCRI AML16 trial was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Russell NH et al. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14). Doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.279010.

Key clinical point: Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment.

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the NCRI AML16 trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).

Disclosures: This NCRI AML16 trial was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Russell NH et al. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14). Doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.279010.

Key clinical point: Reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone improved survival in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who lacked favorable risk cytogenetics and were considered fit for intensive treatment.

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 60 months from remission, patients receiving RIC transplant vs. no transplant had superior survival (37% vs. 20%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67; P < .001). Survival benefit with transplant in first remission vs. chemotherapy alone was observed across all Wheatley risk groups (adjusted HR 0.68; P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from the NCRI AML16 trial including 932 patients (age 60-70 years) with AML who entered remission and lacked favorable risk. Of these, 144 underwent RIC transplants from either matched sibling donors (n = 52) or matched unrelated donors (n = 92).

Disclosures: This NCRI AML16 trial was supported by Cancer Research UK. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Russell NH et al. Haematologica. 2021(Oct 14). Doi: 10.3324/haematol.2021.279010.

Key clinical point: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), short-term posttransplant outcomes seemed similar in those who achieved first complete remission (CR1) with either first-line therapy with 5-azacitidine combined with venetoclax (aza-ven) or traditional intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: Rates of 12-month relapse-free survival and overall survival in aza-ven vs. IC groups were 58% vs. 54% and 63.2% vs. 70.8%, respectively. Cumulative incidences of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) at 6 months and chronic GVHD at 12 months were 58% and 40% in the aza-ven group and 62% and 42% in the IC group, respectively.

Study details: This retrospective study included patients with AML who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after achieving CR1 with either first-line aza-ven therapy (n = 24) or IC (n = 24).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Pasvolsky O et al. Ann Hematol. 2021(Oct 9). Doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04693-8.

Key clinical point: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), short-term posttransplant outcomes seemed similar in those who achieved first complete remission (CR1) with either first-line therapy with 5-azacitidine combined with venetoclax (aza-ven) or traditional intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: Rates of 12-month relapse-free survival and overall survival in aza-ven vs. IC groups were 58% vs. 54% and 63.2% vs. 70.8%, respectively. Cumulative incidences of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) at 6 months and chronic GVHD at 12 months were 58% and 40% in the aza-ven group and 62% and 42% in the IC group, respectively.

Study details: This retrospective study included patients with AML who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after achieving CR1 with either first-line aza-ven therapy (n = 24) or IC (n = 24).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Pasvolsky O et al. Ann Hematol. 2021(Oct 9). Doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04693-8.

Key clinical point: In patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), short-term posttransplant outcomes seemed similar in those who achieved first complete remission (CR1) with either first-line therapy with 5-azacitidine combined with venetoclax (aza-ven) or traditional intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: Rates of 12-month relapse-free survival and overall survival in aza-ven vs. IC groups were 58% vs. 54% and 63.2% vs. 70.8%, respectively. Cumulative incidences of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) at 6 months and chronic GVHD at 12 months were 58% and 40% in the aza-ven group and 62% and 42% in the IC group, respectively.

Study details: This retrospective study included patients with AML who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation after achieving CR1 with either first-line aza-ven therapy (n = 24) or IC (n = 24).

Disclosures: No source of funding was identified. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Pasvolsky O et al. Ann Hematol. 2021(Oct 9). Doi: 10.1007/s00277-021-04693-8.

Key clinical point: Outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management after chemotherapy was not associated with an increased bacteremia incidence, treatment delays, or worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Major finding: Bacteremia incidence (adjusted risk ratio 0.73; P = .08), mean time to next chemotherapy course (intensification I: adjusted mean difference [D] −1.0; P = .51; intensification II: D −1.5; P = .79), and HRQoL (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales total score: D −2.8; P = .56) were not significantly different with outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management.

Study details: This cohort study included 554 pediatric patients with AML who received frontline chemotherapy with either outpatient or inpatient neutropenia management.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and partly by an award from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to KD Getz. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees and being a member of the data safety monitoring board for various sources including PCORI and NHLBI.

Source: Getz KD et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28385.

Key clinical point: Outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management after chemotherapy was not associated with an increased bacteremia incidence, treatment delays, or worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Major finding: Bacteremia incidence (adjusted risk ratio 0.73; P = .08), mean time to next chemotherapy course (intensification I: adjusted mean difference [D] −1.0; P = .51; intensification II: D −1.5; P = .79), and HRQoL (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales total score: D −2.8; P = .56) were not significantly different with outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management.

Study details: This cohort study included 554 pediatric patients with AML who received frontline chemotherapy with either outpatient or inpatient neutropenia management.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and partly by an award from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to KD Getz. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees and being a member of the data safety monitoring board for various sources including PCORI and NHLBI.

Source: Getz KD et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28385.

Key clinical point: Outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management after chemotherapy was not associated with an increased bacteremia incidence, treatment delays, or worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pediatric patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

Major finding: Bacteremia incidence (adjusted risk ratio 0.73; P = .08), mean time to next chemotherapy course (intensification I: adjusted mean difference [D] −1.0; P = .51; intensification II: D −1.5; P = .79), and HRQoL (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Generic Core Scales total score: D −2.8; P = .56) were not significantly different with outpatient vs. inpatient neutropenia management.

Study details: This cohort study included 554 pediatric patients with AML who received frontline chemotherapy with either outpatient or inpatient neutropenia management.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) and partly by an award from the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) to KD Getz. Some investigators, including the lead author, reported receiving grants and personal fees and being a member of the data safety monitoring board for various sources including PCORI and NHLBI.

Source: Getz KD et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.28385.

Key clinical point: Combination therapy with enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA) was well tolerated and had a better response rate than azacitidine alone (AZA) in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 AG221-AML-005 study including 101 adult patients with ND mutant-IDH2 AML who were ineligible for IC. They were randomly assigned to Ena-AZA (n = 68) or AZA (n = 33).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celgene, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). MG Frattini, P Martin-Regueira, F Lersch, J Gong, and M Hasan reported employment and equity ownership in BMS/Celgene. Other authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, royalties, nonfinancial support, research funding, and honoraria from various sources, including BMS/Celgene.

Source: DiNardo CD et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-P1608 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00494-0.

Key clinical point: Combination therapy with enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA) was well tolerated and had a better response rate than azacitidine alone (AZA) in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 AG221-AML-005 study including 101 adult patients with ND mutant-IDH2 AML who were ineligible for IC. They were randomly assigned to Ena-AZA (n = 68) or AZA (n = 33).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celgene, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). MG Frattini, P Martin-Regueira, F Lersch, J Gong, and M Hasan reported employment and equity ownership in BMS/Celgene. Other authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, royalties, nonfinancial support, research funding, and honoraria from various sources, including BMS/Celgene.

Source: DiNardo CD et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-P1608 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00494-0.

Key clinical point: Combination therapy with enasidenib and azacitidine (Ena-AZA) was well tolerated and had a better response rate than azacitidine alone (AZA) in patients with newly diagnosed (ND) mutant-IDH2 acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and ineligible for intensive chemotherapy (IC).

Major finding: The overall response rate was significantly higher in patients receiving Ena-AZA vs. AZA (74% vs. 36%; odds ratio 4.9; P = .0003). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 events in the Ena-AZA vs. AZA groups were thrombocytopenia (37% vs. 19%) and neutropenia (37% vs. 25%).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 2 AG221-AML-005 study including 101 adult patients with ND mutant-IDH2 AML who were ineligible for IC. They were randomly assigned to Ena-AZA (n = 68) or AZA (n = 33).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Celgene, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS). MG Frattini, P Martin-Regueira, F Lersch, J Gong, and M Hasan reported employment and equity ownership in BMS/Celgene. Other authors reported receiving grants, personal fees, royalties, nonfinancial support, research funding, and honoraria from various sources, including BMS/Celgene.

Source: DiNardo CD et al. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(11):P1597-P1608 (Oct 18). Doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00494-0.

Key clinical point: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors effectively improved skin, nail, and joint symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in patients with nail psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During the first 3 months, nail psoriasis improved significantly along with improvements in the mean number of swollen joints (SJ), which reduced from 6.4 to 3.1, and the mean number of tender joints, which reduced from 10.8 to 6.4 (both P < .001). Low disease activity according to SJ status was achieved at month 24. QoL improved by 50% (P < .001) after 3 months with further improvements up to month 24.

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective cohort study that evaluated effectiveness of 24 months of continuous therapy with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab in 100 adult patients with concomitant psoriasis, nail psoriasis, and PsA.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. Two authors declared being employees and shareholders of AbbVie, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co.

Source: Kokolakis G et al. J Pers Med. 2021;11(11):1083 (Oct 25). Doi: 10.3390/jpm11111083.

Key clinical point: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors effectively improved skin, nail, and joint symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in patients with nail psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During the first 3 months, nail psoriasis improved significantly along with improvements in the mean number of swollen joints (SJ), which reduced from 6.4 to 3.1, and the mean number of tender joints, which reduced from 10.8 to 6.4 (both P < .001). Low disease activity according to SJ status was achieved at month 24. QoL improved by 50% (P < .001) after 3 months with further improvements up to month 24.

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective cohort study that evaluated effectiveness of 24 months of continuous therapy with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab in 100 adult patients with concomitant psoriasis, nail psoriasis, and PsA.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. Two authors declared being employees and shareholders of AbbVie, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co.

Source: Kokolakis G et al. J Pers Med. 2021;11(11):1083 (Oct 25). Doi: 10.3390/jpm11111083.

Key clinical point: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors effectively improved skin, nail, and joint symptoms and quality of life (QoL) in patients with nail psoriasis and concomitant psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: During the first 3 months, nail psoriasis improved significantly along with improvements in the mean number of swollen joints (SJ), which reduced from 6.4 to 3.1, and the mean number of tender joints, which reduced from 10.8 to 6.4 (both P < .001). Low disease activity according to SJ status was achieved at month 24. QoL improved by 50% (P < .001) after 3 months with further improvements up to month 24.

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective cohort study that evaluated effectiveness of 24 months of continuous therapy with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab in 100 adult patients with concomitant psoriasis, nail psoriasis, and PsA.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. Two authors declared being employees and shareholders of AbbVie, and the other authors reported ties with several sources, including AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co.

Source: Kokolakis G et al. J Pers Med. 2021;11(11):1083 (Oct 25). Doi: 10.3390/jpm11111083.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.