Publications

Mease et al. showed that guselkumab provided significantly higher rates of clinical improvement and significant inhibition of structural damage progression versus PBO, with no new safety signals, at Week 24 in biologic-naïve participants with active and erosive PsA. Mease et al. report primary efficacy and safety results for the double-blind PBO-controlled phase (Weeks 0-24) of the 3-year APEX study.

Wang et al. validated the effectiveness and safety of UPA in this real-world study of Chinese PsA patients. UPA demonstrated comparable effectiveness to secukinumab (SEC) in psoriatic lesion improvement while showing comparable joint symptom relief compared with adalimumab (ADA), coupled with a favourable safety profile.

Burmester et al. provide insights into the benefit–risk profiles of UPA and adalimumab in patients with varying cardiovascular (CV) risks, suggesting that UPA may offer efficacy advantages over adalimumab irrespective of baseline CV risk, with generally similar rates of AEs. To better understand the benefits and risks of RA treatments in patients with different background CV risk, Burmester et al. assessed the short-term and long-term benefit–risk profiles of UPA and adalimumab in patients enrolled in SELECT-COMPARE.

Palsson et al. aimed to estimate the prevalence and predictors of ever achieving remission and sustained remission (SR) in PsA patients initiating b/tsDMARDs therapy in Sweden, using three different remission criteria (DAPSA28, DAS28CRP and EGA). Palsson et al. found that despite increased availability and a wider selection of b/tsDMARDs with different modes of action, a considerable proportion of PsA patients receiving such treatments never achieve remission and approximately half never achieve SR. Fewer swollen joints at baseline predicted a greater likelihood of SR according to all assessed remission definitions, while male sex predicted the likelihood of SR according to DAPSA28 and EGA.

The SELECT-MONOTHERAPY study evaluated the safety and efficacy of UPA monotherapy through 260 weeks of treatment, in patients with RA who had prior inadequate response to MTX. No new safety signals were observed with long-term exposure to UPA, and results were consistent with prior findings and the established safety profile of UPA across indications. These data support the potential of UPA as a treatment option for patients with moderate to severe active RA who have responded inadequately to MTX.

Poddubnyy et al. identified no apparent increase in the risk of developing extramusculoskeletal manifestations (EMMs) in patients with PsA, r-axSpA, and nr-axSpA receiving 15mg UPA in the SELECT trials. Majority of patients did not report a history of EMMs at baseline, regardless of disease indication or study treatment.

Van den Bosch et al. reported that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily led to sustained improvement in nr-axSpA over two years, including disease activity, pain, and quality of life. The study reports that 57.1% achieved ASAS40 response at week 104, with no new safety signals identified.

Kanda et al. investigated the efficacy of second-line b/tsDMARDs in RA patients unresponsive to first-line b/tsDMARDs. Using data from the FIRST registry, the study assessed 687 patients with RA treated with TNFis, IL-6 receptor inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 immunoglobulin, or JAKis. After propensity score-based adjustment, JAKi showed the highest persistence rate, greatest improvement in CDAI, and highest remission rates at 24 weeks. Among JAKi, UPA was most effective in achieving remission, with a safety profile comparable to other b/tsDMARDs.