Danese et al. report that in the TUSCANY-2 study, afimkibart showed a favourable
benefit–risk profile with clinically meaningful improvements and early onset of response during induction, sustained through maintenance, and an acceptable safety profile with no safety signals. Danese et al. describe results from the Phase 2b TUSCANY-2 trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of 50mg, 150mg, and 450mg doses of afimkibart in adults with moderately-to-severely active UC.

Mease et al. report that patients without radiographic progression through 2 years of secukinumab treatment had greater achievement of LDA states at Week 104 than patients with radiographic progression. This post hoc analysis by Mease et al. of the FUTURE 5 study evaluated the relationship between radiographic progression status at Week 104 and achievement of LDA or remission and identified demographics and clinical characteristics that were associated with radiographic progression status at Week 104.

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.

Marzo-Ortega et al. report that dactylitis and enthesitis are associated with a greater disease burden and worse prognosis, highlighting the importance for physicians to identify these conditions and provide adequate treatment. Authors evaluated guselkumab’s efficacy on dactylitis resolution (DR) and enthesitis resolution (ER), and their impact on subsequent disease control, in patients with active PsA and prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR).

In this first global clinical study of a nanobody in inflammatory arthritis, sonelokimab, an
IL-17A- and IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody demonstrated strong efficacy across multiple domains including high-hurdle composite joint and skin responses. McInnes et al. reported on the Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, PBO-controlled ARGO trial which evaluated the efficacy and safety of sonelokimab in patients with active PsA.

September 2025

This study by Olivares-Guerrero et al. provides comparative safety data from a clinical practice point of view, potentially contributing to facilitate the drug selection process for clinicians. New biologic treatments have a superior safety profile in real-world practice compared to adalimumab and its biosimilars. Olivares-Guerrero et al. used data from the BIOBADADERM registry of AEs to analyse the long-term safety profile of systemic treatments, including biological agents as well as new small oral molecules approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe PsO, using adalimumab and its biosimilars as comparators.

Cardiovascular safety of systemic psoriasis treatments: A prospective cohort study in the BIOBADADERM registry

J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2025;39:1631–42 https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jdv. 20828

This study by Lluch-Galcerá et al. provides valuable RWE to inform personalized clinical decision-making in the treatment of PsO. Authors evaluated the incidence of MACE associated with each systemic treatment used for patients with PsO and compared these rates to those observed with MTX.

Danese et al. showed that patients who achieved disease clearance 8 weeks after ustekinumab induction were more likely to be in long-term clinical, symptomatic and quality of life remission with ustekinumab maintenance treatment than patients who did not. Authors evaluated disease clearance in the Phase 3 UNIFI program and its association with long-term outcomes.

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.

This descriptive analysis indicates a long-term safety profile of UPA consistent with previous reports, further supporting long-term treatment of chronic diseases with UPA. Burmester at al. characterized the safety profile of UPA across multiple approved indications and offer insights into its long-term use to help inform clinical decision-making.