Clinical Edge Journal Scan

Key clinical point: Erenumab was effective in achieving and sustaining the remission of medication overuse headache (MOH) in adults with chronic migraine (CM) and nonopioid MOH, with adverse events reflecting the known safety profile of erenumab.

Major findings: At 6 months, 140 mg erenumab was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving increased MOH remission (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; P < .001) and sustained MOH remission (OR, 2.63; P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in both erunumab groups were constipation (15.2%) and COVID-19 (13.9%); no new adverse events were reported.

Study details: This phase 4 randomized controlled trial included 584 adults with CM and MOH in the nonopioid-treated cohort who did not respond to one or more preventive treatments. Participants were randomly assigned to receive monthly injections of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen. Some authors declared being employees or stockholders of Amgen, and others declared having ties with various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Tepper SJ, Dodick DW, Lanteri-Minet M, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab for nonopioid medication overuse headache in chronic migraine: A phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA Neurol. Published online September 16, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Erenumab was effective in achieving and sustaining the remission of medication overuse headache (MOH) in adults with chronic migraine (CM) and nonopioid MOH, with adverse events reflecting the known safety profile of erenumab.

Major findings: At 6 months, 140 mg erenumab was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving increased MOH remission (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; P < .001) and sustained MOH remission (OR, 2.63; P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in both erunumab groups were constipation (15.2%) and COVID-19 (13.9%); no new adverse events were reported.

Study details: This phase 4 randomized controlled trial included 584 adults with CM and MOH in the nonopioid-treated cohort who did not respond to one or more preventive treatments. Participants were randomly assigned to receive monthly injections of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen. Some authors declared being employees or stockholders of Amgen, and others declared having ties with various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Tepper SJ, Dodick DW, Lanteri-Minet M, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab for nonopioid medication overuse headache in chronic migraine: A phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA Neurol. Published online September 16, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Erenumab was effective in achieving and sustaining the remission of medication overuse headache (MOH) in adults with chronic migraine (CM) and nonopioid MOH, with adverse events reflecting the known safety profile of erenumab.

Major findings: At 6 months, 140 mg erenumab was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving increased MOH remission (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; P < .001) and sustained MOH remission (OR, 2.63; P < .001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in both erunumab groups were constipation (15.2%) and COVID-19 (13.9%); no new adverse events were reported.

Study details: This phase 4 randomized controlled trial included 584 adults with CM and MOH in the nonopioid-treated cohort who did not respond to one or more preventive treatments. Participants were randomly assigned to receive monthly injections of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) or placebo for 24 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Amgen. Some authors declared being employees or stockholders of Amgen, and others declared having ties with various sources, including Amgen.

Source: Tepper SJ, Dodick DW, Lanteri-Minet M, et al. Efficacy and safety of erenumab for nonopioid medication overuse headache in chronic migraine: A phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. JAMA Neurol. Published online September 16, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Triptans, including eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan, were more efficacious than newer and more expensive medications, such as lasmiditan and rimegepant, for the acute treatment of migraine.

Major findings: All active interventions were superior to placebo in achieving freedom from pain at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.73) with naratriptan and (OR, 5.19) for eletriptan. Eletriptan was the most effective for pain relief at two hours (OR, 1.46-3.01), followed by rizatriptan (OR, 1.59-2.44), sumatriptan (OR, 1.35-2.04), and zolmitriptan (OR, 1.47-1.96). For sustained pain freedom, eletriptan and ibuprofen were the most effective.

Study details: This network meta-analysis of 137 randomized controlled trials included 89,445 adults with migraine who received one of 17 drugs, including antipyretics, ditans, gepants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and triptans, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors reported having ties with various sources.

Source: Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source

Key clinical point: Triptans, including eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan, were more efficacious than newer and more expensive medications, such as lasmiditan and rimegepant, for the acute treatment of migraine.

Major findings: All active interventions were superior to placebo in achieving freedom from pain at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.73) with naratriptan and (OR, 5.19) for eletriptan. Eletriptan was the most effective for pain relief at two hours (OR, 1.46-3.01), followed by rizatriptan (OR, 1.59-2.44), sumatriptan (OR, 1.35-2.04), and zolmitriptan (OR, 1.47-1.96). For sustained pain freedom, eletriptan and ibuprofen were the most effective.

Study details: This network meta-analysis of 137 randomized controlled trials included 89,445 adults with migraine who received one of 17 drugs, including antipyretics, ditans, gepants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and triptans, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors reported having ties with various sources.

Source: Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source

Key clinical point: Triptans, including eletriptan, rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan, were more efficacious than newer and more expensive medications, such as lasmiditan and rimegepant, for the acute treatment of migraine.

Major findings: All active interventions were superior to placebo in achieving freedom from pain at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.73) with naratriptan and (OR, 5.19) for eletriptan. Eletriptan was the most effective for pain relief at two hours (OR, 1.46-3.01), followed by rizatriptan (OR, 1.59-2.44), sumatriptan (OR, 1.35-2.04), and zolmitriptan (OR, 1.47-1.96). For sustained pain freedom, eletriptan and ibuprofen were the most effective.

Study details: This network meta-analysis of 137 randomized controlled trials included 89,445 adults with migraine who received one of 17 drugs, including antipyretics, ditans, gepants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and triptans, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Lundbeck Foundation. Several authors reported having ties with various sources.

Source: Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source

Neck pain is commonly associated with headaches, especially with migraine headaches. This is well recognized, and the symptom of neck pain occurring during headache episodes or even independently of headache episodes is at least partially related to pain sensitivity.¹ While neck pain is often considered a part of the migraine experience, it's not commonly thought of as a disabling symptom. However, neck pain can be a major aspect of migraine disability.

A systematic review published in August 2024 in the journal Cephalalgia described neck pain disability as a part of migraine. The authors used 33 clinic-based studies that utilized either the Neck Disability Index (NDI) or the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to define the severity of neck pain disability. They concluded that individuals with migraine had higher NDI and NPRS scores than patients with tension-type headaches and patients without headaches. According to the NDI scoring system, 0–4 points indicate no disability, 5–14 points indicate mild disability, 15–24 points indicate moderate disability, 25–34 points indicate severe disability, and ≥ 35 points indicate complete disability. The authors reported that the mean NDI score for patients with migraine was 16.2, which was approximately 12 points higher than for healthy headache-free control participants.² This brings to light an issue that can substantially affect patients' quality of life. Patients who have neck pain with migraine may need focused attention to that symptom, in addition to overall migraine therapy, and it is important to ask migraine patients about the degree to which neck pain affects their life. In fact, many patients might not even realize that their neck pain is associated with their migraines.

Cardiovascular disease is another comorbidity that has been inconsistently associated with migraine. A study published in Headache: The Journal of Headache and Face Pain in August 2024 used data from a Danish population-based cohort longitudinal study that included over 140,000 women. The authors reported that migraine was associated with a risk for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in women aged ≤ 60 years.³

This link has been noted previously, although the studies have been inconsistent regarding how strong the link is, any specific causality, and whether there is a link at all. Potential causes for the possible associations have been attributed to "endothelial dysfunction, hypercoagulability, platelet aggregation, vasospasm, cardiovascular risk factors, paradoxical embolism, spreading depolarization, shared genetic risk, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and immobilization."⁴

Of note, there has also been documentation of a possible negative correlation between migraine and cardiovascular disease. Another article, from The Journal of Headache and Pain, published in August 2024, used data from 873,341 and 554,569 individuals, respectively, in two meta-analyses. The authors reported a potential protective effect of migraine on coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke, and a potential protective effect of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction on migraine.⁵

A possible explanation for the conflicting results could lie in heterogeneity of migraine. For example, vestibular migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including anxiety disorders or depressive disorders, sleep disorders, persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, and Meniere disease.⁶ Given the serious consequences of cardiovascular disease, screening for risk factors could be beneficial for preventing adverse health outcomes for migraine patients. Eventually, further research may reveal more specific correlations between comorbidities and migraine subtypes, rather than generalizing comorbidities to all migraine types.

Sources

1. Al-Khazali HM, Krøll LS, Ashina H, et al. Neck pain and headache: Pathophysiology, treatments and future directions. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;66:102804. Source

2. Al-Khazali HM, Al-Sayegh Z, Younis S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with migraine and tension-type headache. Cephalalgia. 2024;44:3331024241274266.  Source

3. Fuglsang CH, Pedersen L, Schmidt M, Vandenbroucke JP, Bøtker HE, Sørensen HT. The combined impact of migraine and gestational diabetes on long-term risk of premature myocardial infarction and stroke: A population-based cohort study. Headache. 2024 Aug 28.  Source

4. Agostoni EC, Longoni M. Migraine and cerebrovascular disease: still a dangerous connection? Neurol Sci. 2018;39(Suppl 1):33-37.  Source

5. Duan X, Du X, Zheng G, et al. Causality between migraine and cardiovascular disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:130. Source

6. Ma YM, Zhang DP, Zhang HL, et al. Why is vestibular migraine associated with many comorbidities? J Neurol. 2024 Sept 20. Source

Neck pain is commonly associated with headaches, especially with migraine headaches. This is well recognized, and the symptom of neck pain occurring during headache episodes or even independently of headache episodes is at least partially related to pain sensitivity.¹ While neck pain is often considered a part of the migraine experience, it's not commonly thought of as a disabling symptom. However, neck pain can be a major aspect of migraine disability.

A systematic review published in August 2024 in the journal Cephalalgia described neck pain disability as a part of migraine. The authors used 33 clinic-based studies that utilized either the Neck Disability Index (NDI) or the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to define the severity of neck pain disability. They concluded that individuals with migraine had higher NDI and NPRS scores than patients with tension-type headaches and patients without headaches. According to the NDI scoring system, 0–4 points indicate no disability, 5–14 points indicate mild disability, 15–24 points indicate moderate disability, 25–34 points indicate severe disability, and ≥ 35 points indicate complete disability. The authors reported that the mean NDI score for patients with migraine was 16.2, which was approximately 12 points higher than for healthy headache-free control participants.² This brings to light an issue that can substantially affect patients' quality of life. Patients who have neck pain with migraine may need focused attention to that symptom, in addition to overall migraine therapy, and it is important to ask migraine patients about the degree to which neck pain affects their life. In fact, many patients might not even realize that their neck pain is associated with their migraines.

Cardiovascular disease is another comorbidity that has been inconsistently associated with migraine. A study published in Headache: The Journal of Headache and Face Pain in August 2024 used data from a Danish population-based cohort longitudinal study that included over 140,000 women. The authors reported that migraine was associated with a risk for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in women aged ≤ 60 years.³

This link has been noted previously, although the studies have been inconsistent regarding how strong the link is, any specific causality, and whether there is a link at all. Potential causes for the possible associations have been attributed to "endothelial dysfunction, hypercoagulability, platelet aggregation, vasospasm, cardiovascular risk factors, paradoxical embolism, spreading depolarization, shared genetic risk, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and immobilization."⁴

Of note, there has also been documentation of a possible negative correlation between migraine and cardiovascular disease. Another article, from The Journal of Headache and Pain, published in August 2024, used data from 873,341 and 554,569 individuals, respectively, in two meta-analyses. The authors reported a potential protective effect of migraine on coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke, and a potential protective effect of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction on migraine.⁵

A possible explanation for the conflicting results could lie in heterogeneity of migraine. For example, vestibular migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including anxiety disorders or depressive disorders, sleep disorders, persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, and Meniere disease.⁶ Given the serious consequences of cardiovascular disease, screening for risk factors could be beneficial for preventing adverse health outcomes for migraine patients. Eventually, further research may reveal more specific correlations between comorbidities and migraine subtypes, rather than generalizing comorbidities to all migraine types.

Sources

1. Al-Khazali HM, Krøll LS, Ashina H, et al. Neck pain and headache: Pathophysiology, treatments and future directions. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;66:102804. Source

2. Al-Khazali HM, Al-Sayegh Z, Younis S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with migraine and tension-type headache. Cephalalgia. 2024;44:3331024241274266.  Source

3. Fuglsang CH, Pedersen L, Schmidt M, Vandenbroucke JP, Bøtker HE, Sørensen HT. The combined impact of migraine and gestational diabetes on long-term risk of premature myocardial infarction and stroke: A population-based cohort study. Headache. 2024 Aug 28.  Source

4. Agostoni EC, Longoni M. Migraine and cerebrovascular disease: still a dangerous connection? Neurol Sci. 2018;39(Suppl 1):33-37.  Source

5. Duan X, Du X, Zheng G, et al. Causality between migraine and cardiovascular disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:130. Source

6. Ma YM, Zhang DP, Zhang HL, et al. Why is vestibular migraine associated with many comorbidities? J Neurol. 2024 Sept 20. Source

Neck pain is commonly associated with headaches, especially with migraine headaches. This is well recognized, and the symptom of neck pain occurring during headache episodes or even independently of headache episodes is at least partially related to pain sensitivity.¹ While neck pain is often considered a part of the migraine experience, it's not commonly thought of as a disabling symptom. However, neck pain can be a major aspect of migraine disability.

A systematic review published in August 2024 in the journal Cephalalgia described neck pain disability as a part of migraine. The authors used 33 clinic-based studies that utilized either the Neck Disability Index (NDI) or the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) to define the severity of neck pain disability. They concluded that individuals with migraine had higher NDI and NPRS scores than patients with tension-type headaches and patients without headaches. According to the NDI scoring system, 0–4 points indicate no disability, 5–14 points indicate mild disability, 15–24 points indicate moderate disability, 25–34 points indicate severe disability, and ≥ 35 points indicate complete disability. The authors reported that the mean NDI score for patients with migraine was 16.2, which was approximately 12 points higher than for healthy headache-free control participants.² This brings to light an issue that can substantially affect patients' quality of life. Patients who have neck pain with migraine may need focused attention to that symptom, in addition to overall migraine therapy, and it is important to ask migraine patients about the degree to which neck pain affects their life. In fact, many patients might not even realize that their neck pain is associated with their migraines.

Cardiovascular disease is another comorbidity that has been inconsistently associated with migraine. A study published in Headache: The Journal of Headache and Face Pain in August 2024 used data from a Danish population-based cohort longitudinal study that included over 140,000 women. The authors reported that migraine was associated with a risk for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in women aged ≤ 60 years.³

This link has been noted previously, although the studies have been inconsistent regarding how strong the link is, any specific causality, and whether there is a link at all. Potential causes for the possible associations have been attributed to "endothelial dysfunction, hypercoagulability, platelet aggregation, vasospasm, cardiovascular risk factors, paradoxical embolism, spreading depolarization, shared genetic risk, use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and immobilization."⁴

Of note, there has also been documentation of a possible negative correlation between migraine and cardiovascular disease. Another article, from The Journal of Headache and Pain, published in August 2024, used data from 873,341 and 554,569 individuals, respectively, in two meta-analyses. The authors reported a potential protective effect of migraine on coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke, and a potential protective effect of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction on migraine.⁵

A possible explanation for the conflicting results could lie in heterogeneity of migraine. For example, vestibular migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including anxiety disorders or depressive disorders, sleep disorders, persistent postural-perceptual dizziness, and Meniere disease.⁶ Given the serious consequences of cardiovascular disease, screening for risk factors could be beneficial for preventing adverse health outcomes for migraine patients. Eventually, further research may reveal more specific correlations between comorbidities and migraine subtypes, rather than generalizing comorbidities to all migraine types.

Sources

1. Al-Khazali HM, Krøll LS, Ashina H, et al. Neck pain and headache: Pathophysiology, treatments and future directions. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2023;66:102804. Source

2. Al-Khazali HM, Al-Sayegh Z, Younis S, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of Neck Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale in patients with migraine and tension-type headache. Cephalalgia. 2024;44:3331024241274266.  Source

3. Fuglsang CH, Pedersen L, Schmidt M, Vandenbroucke JP, Bøtker HE, Sørensen HT. The combined impact of migraine and gestational diabetes on long-term risk of premature myocardial infarction and stroke: A population-based cohort study. Headache. 2024 Aug 28.  Source

4. Agostoni EC, Longoni M. Migraine and cerebrovascular disease: still a dangerous connection? Neurol Sci. 2018;39(Suppl 1):33-37.  Source

5. Duan X, Du X, Zheng G, et al. Causality between migraine and cardiovascular disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study. J Headache Pain. 2024;25:130. Source

6. Ma YM, Zhang DP, Zhang HL, et al. Why is vestibular migraine associated with many comorbidities? J Neurol. 2024 Sept 20. Source

Matching adjusted indirect comparison is one method of evaluating comparative effectiveness. To compare the efficacy between bimekizumab, an interleukin (IL) 17A/F inhibitor and risankizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, Mease et al conducted such a study using data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) involving patients who were biologic-naive or inadequate responders to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors  who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).¹
 

At week 52, bimekizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving a ≥ 70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response in patients who were biologic-naive and TNF inhibitor inadequate responders (TNFi-IR), compared with risankizumab. Bimekizumab also had greater odds of achieving minimal disease activity in patients who were TNFi-IR. Thus, bimekizumab may be superior to risankizumab for treating those with PsA. Randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

In regard to long-term safety and efficacy of bimekizumab, Mease et al reported that bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with PsA.² In this open-label extension (BE VITAL) of two phase 3 trials that included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52, no new safety signals were noted from weeks 52 to 104,. SARS-CoV-2 infection was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. Approximately 50% of biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a 50% or greater improvement in the ACR response.

Guselkumab, another IL-23 inhibitor, has proven efficacy in treating PsA. Curtis et al investigated the impact of early achievement of improvement with guselkumab and longer-term outcomes.³ This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24. The study demonstrated that guselkumab led to early achievement of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in clinical disease activity index for PsA (cDAPSA), with higher response rates at week 4 compared with placebo. Moreover, achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at weeks 24 and 52. Thus, guselkumab treatment achieved MCII in cDAPSA after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year. Early treatment response and a proven safety record make guselkumab an attractive treatment option for PsA.

PsA clinical trials mostly include patients with polyarthritis. Little is known about treatment efficacy for oligoarticular PsA. To address this gap in knowledge, Gossec et al reported the results of the phase 4 FOREMOST trial that included 308 patients with early (symptom duration 5 years or less) targeted therapy–naive oligoarticular PsA and were randomly assigned to receive apremilast (n = 203) or placebo (n = 105).⁴ At week 16, a higher proportion of patients receiving apremilast achieved minimal disease activity (joints response) compared with those receiving placebo. No new safety signals were reported. Apremilast is thus efficacious in treating early oligoarticular PsA as well as polyarticular PsA and psoriasis. Similar studies with other targeted therapies will help clinicians better manage early oligoarticular PsA.

References

1. Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 9. Source
2. Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 31. Source
3. Curtis JR, et al. Early improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Sep 11. Source
4. Gossec L, Coates LC, Gladman DD, et al. Treatment of early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis with apremilast: primary outcomes at week 16 from the FOREMOST randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2024 Sep 16:ard-2024-225833. Source

Matching adjusted indirect comparison is one method of evaluating comparative effectiveness. To compare the efficacy between bimekizumab, an interleukin (IL) 17A/F inhibitor and risankizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, Mease et al conducted such a study using data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) involving patients who were biologic-naive or inadequate responders to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors  who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).¹
 

At week 52, bimekizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving a ≥ 70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response in patients who were biologic-naive and TNF inhibitor inadequate responders (TNFi-IR), compared with risankizumab. Bimekizumab also had greater odds of achieving minimal disease activity in patients who were TNFi-IR. Thus, bimekizumab may be superior to risankizumab for treating those with PsA. Randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

In regard to long-term safety and efficacy of bimekizumab, Mease et al reported that bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with PsA.² In this open-label extension (BE VITAL) of two phase 3 trials that included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52, no new safety signals were noted from weeks 52 to 104,. SARS-CoV-2 infection was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. Approximately 50% of biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a 50% or greater improvement in the ACR response.

Guselkumab, another IL-23 inhibitor, has proven efficacy in treating PsA. Curtis et al investigated the impact of early achievement of improvement with guselkumab and longer-term outcomes.³ This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24. The study demonstrated that guselkumab led to early achievement of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in clinical disease activity index for PsA (cDAPSA), with higher response rates at week 4 compared with placebo. Moreover, achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at weeks 24 and 52. Thus, guselkumab treatment achieved MCII in cDAPSA after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year. Early treatment response and a proven safety record make guselkumab an attractive treatment option for PsA.

PsA clinical trials mostly include patients with polyarthritis. Little is known about treatment efficacy for oligoarticular PsA. To address this gap in knowledge, Gossec et al reported the results of the phase 4 FOREMOST trial that included 308 patients with early (symptom duration 5 years or less) targeted therapy–naive oligoarticular PsA and were randomly assigned to receive apremilast (n = 203) or placebo (n = 105).⁴ At week 16, a higher proportion of patients receiving apremilast achieved minimal disease activity (joints response) compared with those receiving placebo. No new safety signals were reported. Apremilast is thus efficacious in treating early oligoarticular PsA as well as polyarticular PsA and psoriasis. Similar studies with other targeted therapies will help clinicians better manage early oligoarticular PsA.

References

1. Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 9. Source
2. Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 31. Source
3. Curtis JR, et al. Early improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Sep 11. Source
4. Gossec L, Coates LC, Gladman DD, et al. Treatment of early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis with apremilast: primary outcomes at week 16 from the FOREMOST randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2024 Sep 16:ard-2024-225833. Source

Matching adjusted indirect comparison is one method of evaluating comparative effectiveness. To compare the efficacy between bimekizumab, an interleukin (IL) 17A/F inhibitor and risankizumab, an IL-23 inhibitor, Mease et al conducted such a study using data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) involving patients who were biologic-naive or inadequate responders to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors  who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).¹
 

At week 52, bimekizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving a ≥ 70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response in patients who were biologic-naive and TNF inhibitor inadequate responders (TNFi-IR), compared with risankizumab. Bimekizumab also had greater odds of achieving minimal disease activity in patients who were TNFi-IR. Thus, bimekizumab may be superior to risankizumab for treating those with PsA. Randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

In regard to long-term safety and efficacy of bimekizumab, Mease et al reported that bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with PsA.² In this open-label extension (BE VITAL) of two phase 3 trials that included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52, no new safety signals were noted from weeks 52 to 104,. SARS-CoV-2 infection was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event. Approximately 50% of biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a 50% or greater improvement in the ACR response.

Guselkumab, another IL-23 inhibitor, has proven efficacy in treating PsA. Curtis et al investigated the impact of early achievement of improvement with guselkumab and longer-term outcomes.³ This was a post hoc analysis of two phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, which included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24. The study demonstrated that guselkumab led to early achievement of minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in clinical disease activity index for PsA (cDAPSA), with higher response rates at week 4 compared with placebo. Moreover, achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at weeks 24 and 52. Thus, guselkumab treatment achieved MCII in cDAPSA after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year. Early treatment response and a proven safety record make guselkumab an attractive treatment option for PsA.

PsA clinical trials mostly include patients with polyarthritis. Little is known about treatment efficacy for oligoarticular PsA. To address this gap in knowledge, Gossec et al reported the results of the phase 4 FOREMOST trial that included 308 patients with early (symptom duration 5 years or less) targeted therapy–naive oligoarticular PsA and were randomly assigned to receive apremilast (n = 203) or placebo (n = 105).⁴ At week 16, a higher proportion of patients receiving apremilast achieved minimal disease activity (joints response) compared with those receiving placebo. No new safety signals were reported. Apremilast is thus efficacious in treating early oligoarticular PsA as well as polyarticular PsA and psoriasis. Similar studies with other targeted therapies will help clinicians better manage early oligoarticular PsA.

References

1. Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 9. Source
2. Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Aug 31. Source
3. Curtis JR, et al. Early improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 Sep 11. Source
4. Gossec L, Coates LC, Gladman DD, et al. Treatment of early oligoarticular psoriatic arthritis with apremilast: primary outcomes at week 16 from the FOREMOST randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2024 Sep 16:ard-2024-225833. Source

Key clinical point: Nearly two out of three patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had clinically significant central sensitization (CS), with the severity of psoriasis, anxiety level, and sleep quality being independent predictors of worse CS Inventory (CSI) scores.

Major finding: Overall, 65.1% patients had clinically significant CS, with a CSI score ≥ 40, with the severity of psoriasis and disease activity scores for PsA being positively associated with CSI scores (correlation coefficient 0.393-0.652; P < .001). The Psoriasis Area Severity Index (odds ratio [OR] 9.70; P = .017), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (OR 2.89; P = .014), and Insomnia Severity Index (OR 5.56; P = .041) scores were independent predictors of CS.

Study details: This cross-sectional observational study included 103 patients with PsA (age 18-75 years) with a mean CSI score of 45.4.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kaya MN, Tecer D, Kılıç Ö, et al. Impact of central sensitization on clinical and functional aspects of psoriatic arthritis. Medicina. 2024;60(9):1449 (Sept 4). Source

Key clinical point: Nearly two out of three patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had clinically significant central sensitization (CS), with the severity of psoriasis, anxiety level, and sleep quality being independent predictors of worse CS Inventory (CSI) scores.

Major finding: Overall, 65.1% patients had clinically significant CS, with a CSI score ≥ 40, with the severity of psoriasis and disease activity scores for PsA being positively associated with CSI scores (correlation coefficient 0.393-0.652; P < .001). The Psoriasis Area Severity Index (odds ratio [OR] 9.70; P = .017), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (OR 2.89; P = .014), and Insomnia Severity Index (OR 5.56; P = .041) scores were independent predictors of CS.

Study details: This cross-sectional observational study included 103 patients with PsA (age 18-75 years) with a mean CSI score of 45.4.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kaya MN, Tecer D, Kılıç Ö, et al. Impact of central sensitization on clinical and functional aspects of psoriatic arthritis. Medicina. 2024;60(9):1449 (Sept 4). Source

Key clinical point: Nearly two out of three patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) had clinically significant central sensitization (CS), with the severity of psoriasis, anxiety level, and sleep quality being independent predictors of worse CS Inventory (CSI) scores.

Major finding: Overall, 65.1% patients had clinically significant CS, with a CSI score ≥ 40, with the severity of psoriasis and disease activity scores for PsA being positively associated with CSI scores (correlation coefficient 0.393-0.652; P < .001). The Psoriasis Area Severity Index (odds ratio [OR] 9.70; P = .017), General Anxiety Disorder-7 (OR 2.89; P = .014), and Insomnia Severity Index (OR 5.56; P = .041) scores were independent predictors of CS.

Study details: This cross-sectional observational study included 103 patients with PsA (age 18-75 years) with a mean CSI score of 45.4.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any financial support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kaya MN, Tecer D, Kılıç Ö, et al. Impact of central sensitization on clinical and functional aspects of psoriatic arthritis. Medicina. 2024;60(9):1449 (Sept 4). Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or inadequately responsive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: From weeks 52 to 104, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) was consistent with previous studies, with no new safety signals. SARS-CoV2 infection (18.6 per 100 patient-years) was the most common TEAE. Approximately 50% biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a ≥50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response.

Study details: This open-label extension (BE-VITAL) of two phase 3 trials included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of UCB Pharma. LC Coates declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB.

Source: Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00708-8 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or inadequately responsive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: From weeks 52 to 104, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) was consistent with previous studies, with no new safety signals. SARS-CoV2 infection (18.6 per 100 patient-years) was the most common TEAE. Approximately 50% biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a ≥50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response.

Study details: This open-label extension (BE-VITAL) of two phase 3 trials included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of UCB Pharma. LC Coates declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB.

Source: Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00708-8 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab demonstrated consistent safety and sustained efficacy for up to 2 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or inadequately responsive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: From weeks 52 to 104, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) was consistent with previous studies, with no new safety signals. SARS-CoV2 infection (18.6 per 100 patient-years) was the most common TEAE. Approximately 50% biologic-naive and TNFi-IR patients maintained a ≥50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response.

Study details: This open-label extension (BE-VITAL) of two phase 3 trials included biologic-naive (n = 852) and TNFi-IR (n = 400) patients with PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab, placebo with crossover to bimekizumab at week 16, or adalimumab followed by bimekizumab at week 52.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by UCB Pharma. Five authors declared being employees or shareholders of UCB Pharma. LC Coates declared being an editorial board member of Rheumatology and Therapy. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB.

Source: Mease PJ, Merola JF, Tanaka Y, et al. Safety and efficacy of bimekizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 2-year results from two phase 3 studies. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00708-8 Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) showed minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Both guselkumab doses (Q4W and Q8W) vs placebo led to early achievement of MCII in cDAPSA (hazard ratio 1.6-1.7; all P < .0001), with higher response rates at week 4 (P < .01). Achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at 24 and 52 weeks (odds ratio 1.4-3.5; all P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab (Q4W or Q8W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (JRD), LLC. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of JRD or other sources. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including JRD.

Source: Curtis JR, Deodhar A, Soriano ER, et al. Early Improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Sept 11). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00702-0 Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) showed minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Both guselkumab doses (Q4W and Q8W) vs placebo led to early achievement of MCII in cDAPSA (hazard ratio 1.6-1.7; all P < .0001), with higher response rates at week 4 (P < .01). Achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at 24 and 52 weeks (odds ratio 1.4-3.5; all P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab (Q4W or Q8W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (JRD), LLC. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of JRD or other sources. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including JRD.

Source: Curtis JR, Deodhar A, Soriano ER, et al. Early Improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Sept 11). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00702-0 Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab treatment every 4 or 8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) showed minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in Clinical Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA) after the first dose and sustained disease control for up to 1 year in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Both guselkumab doses (Q4W and Q8W) vs placebo led to early achievement of MCII in cDAPSA (hazard ratio 1.6-1.7; all P < .0001), with higher response rates at week 4 (P < .01). Achieving early MCII in cDAPSA was associated with sustained disease control at 24 and 52 weeks (odds ratio 1.4-3.5; all P < .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2, included 1120 patients with active PsA who received guselkumab (Q4W or Q8W) or placebo with a crossover to guselkumab Q4W at week 24.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development (JRD), LLC. Four authors declared being employees or shareholders of JRD or other sources. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including JRD.

Source: Curtis JR, Deodhar A, Soriano ER, et al. Early Improvements with guselkumab associate with sustained control of psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analyses of two phase 3 trials. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Sept 11). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00702-0 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i), altered serum levels of matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP3), S100 calcium-binding protein A8 (S100A8), acid phosphatase 5, tartrate resistant (ACP5), and CXC motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10), with initial levels of these biomarkers effectively predicting treatment response to biologics in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The serum levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, CCL2, and CXCL10 were significantly reduced with TNFi (all P < .05), whereas ACP5 and CCL2 levels increased with IL-17i (both P < .05). The baseline levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, and CXCL10 effectively predicted response to biologic treatment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve > 0.8).

Study details: This study retrospectively analyzed data from 205 patients with PsA who did (n = 130) or did not (n = 75) receive biologics or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 56 patients with psoriasis without arthritis, of whom 28 patients received biologics.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, with additional funding provided by the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Offenheim R, Cruz-Correa OF, Ganatra D, Gladman DD. Candidate biomarkers for response to treatment in psoriatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2024 (Sept 1). doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2024-0396 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i), altered serum levels of matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP3), S100 calcium-binding protein A8 (S100A8), acid phosphatase 5, tartrate resistant (ACP5), and CXC motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10), with initial levels of these biomarkers effectively predicting treatment response to biologics in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The serum levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, CCL2, and CXCL10 were significantly reduced with TNFi (all P < .05), whereas ACP5 and CCL2 levels increased with IL-17i (both P < .05). The baseline levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, and CXCL10 effectively predicted response to biologic treatment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve > 0.8).

Study details: This study retrospectively analyzed data from 205 patients with PsA who did (n = 130) or did not (n = 75) receive biologics or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 56 patients with psoriasis without arthritis, of whom 28 patients received biologics.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, with additional funding provided by the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Offenheim R, Cruz-Correa OF, Ganatra D, Gladman DD. Candidate biomarkers for response to treatment in psoriatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2024 (Sept 1). doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2024-0396 Source

Key clinical point: Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i), altered serum levels of matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP3), S100 calcium-binding protein A8 (S100A8), acid phosphatase 5, tartrate resistant (ACP5), and CXC motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10), with initial levels of these biomarkers effectively predicting treatment response to biologics in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: The serum levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, CCL2, and CXCL10 were significantly reduced with TNFi (all P < .05), whereas ACP5 and CCL2 levels increased with IL-17i (both P < .05). The baseline levels of MMP3, S100A8, ACP5, and CXCL10 effectively predicted response to biologic treatment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve > 0.8).

Study details: This study retrospectively analyzed data from 205 patients with PsA who did (n = 130) or did not (n = 75) receive biologics or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 56 patients with psoriasis without arthritis, of whom 28 patients received biologics.

Disclosures: This study was partially funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, with additional funding provided by the Krembil Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Offenheim R, Cruz-Correa OF, Ganatra D, Gladman DD. Candidate biomarkers for response to treatment in psoriatic disease. J Rheumatol. 2024 (Sept 1). doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2024-0396 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) had a significantly higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than control individuals in the general population; with methotrexate co-medication not being a risk factor for ILD.

Major finding: The 5-year risk for ILD was significantly higher in patients with PsA vs individuals in the general population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.4; 95% CI 2.8-7.0). The risk for ILD did not increase among patients with PsA who did vs did not use methotrexate as co-medication (aHR 1.0; 95% CI 0.4-2.2).

Study details: This observational cohort study included 10,919 patients with PsA and 29,478 patients with rheumatoid arthritis from five Nordic rheumatology registers (all age ≥ 18 years) who initiated bDMARD treatment, along with 362,087 control individuals from the general population.

Disclosures: This study was supported by NordForsk, Foreum, and other sources. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Provan SA, Ljung L, Kristianslund EK, et al. Interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis patients initiating biologics, and controls - Data from five Nordic registries. J Rheumatol.  2024 (Sept 1). doi: 0.3899/jrheum.2024-0252 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) had a significantly higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than control individuals in the general population; with methotrexate co-medication not being a risk factor for ILD.

Major finding: The 5-year risk for ILD was significantly higher in patients with PsA vs individuals in the general population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.4; 95% CI 2.8-7.0). The risk for ILD did not increase among patients with PsA who did vs did not use methotrexate as co-medication (aHR 1.0; 95% CI 0.4-2.2).

Study details: This observational cohort study included 10,919 patients with PsA and 29,478 patients with rheumatoid arthritis from five Nordic rheumatology registers (all age ≥ 18 years) who initiated bDMARD treatment, along with 362,087 control individuals from the general population.

Disclosures: This study was supported by NordForsk, Foreum, and other sources. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Provan SA, Ljung L, Kristianslund EK, et al. Interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis patients initiating biologics, and controls - Data from five Nordic registries. J Rheumatol.  2024 (Sept 1). doi: 0.3899/jrheum.2024-0252 Source

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) had a significantly higher risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD) than control individuals in the general population; with methotrexate co-medication not being a risk factor for ILD.

Major finding: The 5-year risk for ILD was significantly higher in patients with PsA vs individuals in the general population (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 4.4; 95% CI 2.8-7.0). The risk for ILD did not increase among patients with PsA who did vs did not use methotrexate as co-medication (aHR 1.0; 95% CI 0.4-2.2).

Study details: This observational cohort study included 10,919 patients with PsA and 29,478 patients with rheumatoid arthritis from five Nordic rheumatology registers (all age ≥ 18 years) who initiated bDMARD treatment, along with 362,087 control individuals from the general population.

Disclosures: This study was supported by NordForsk, Foreum, and other sources. Several authors declared receiving grants, honoraria, or consulting fees from or having other ties with various sources.

Source: Provan SA, Ljung L, Kristianslund EK, et al. Interstitial lung disease in rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis patients initiating biologics, and controls - Data from five Nordic registries. J Rheumatol.  2024 (Sept 1). doi: 0.3899/jrheum.2024-0252 Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab showed better clinical efficacy outcomes than risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, bimekizumab vs risankizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response in biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.80; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 3.69; P < .001) patients. It was also linked to greater odds of minimal disease activity response in TNFi-IR patients (aOR 2.43; P = .003).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) that involved biologic-naive or TNFi-IR patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma and the National Institute of Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00706-w Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab showed better clinical efficacy outcomes than risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, bimekizumab vs risankizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response in biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.80; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 3.69; P < .001) patients. It was also linked to greater odds of minimal disease activity response in TNFi-IR patients (aOR 2.43; P = .003).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) that involved biologic-naive or TNFi-IR patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma and the National Institute of Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00706-w Source

Key clinical point: Bimekizumab showed better clinical efficacy outcomes than risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic-naive or showed inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

Major finding: At week 52, bimekizumab vs risankizumab led to a higher likelihood of achieving ≥70% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response in biologic-naive (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.80; P < .001) and TNFi-IR (aOR 3.69; P < .001) patients. It was also linked to greater odds of minimal disease activity response in TNFi-IR patients (aOR 2.43; P = .003).

Study details: This matching-adjusted indirect comparison of data from four phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, KEEPsAKE-1, and KEEPsAKE-2) that involved biologic-naive or TNFi-IR patients with PsA who received bimekizumab (n = 698) or risankizumab (n = 589).

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma and the National Institute of Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, UK. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. Other authors declared having ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ, Warren RB, Nash P, et al. Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and risankizumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks assessed using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Rheumatol Ther. 2024 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1007/s40744-024-00706-w Source