Abstract
Background
The monoclonal antibody guselkumab is the first selective inhibitor of the interleukin-23 p19 subunit approved to treat adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and active psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Given its recent approval for active PsA, data describing patients with PsA initiating guselkumab outside of clinical trials are limited.
Objective
This analysis describes characteristics of patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA initiating guselkumab in the US-based, prospective, observational CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry.
Methods
Demographics, lifestyle/disease characteristics, comorbidities, prior treatment, and disease activity were summarized for patients with PsA initiating guselkumab from registry inception through 30 September, 2021.
Results
Of 113 patients initiating guselkumab, the majority were female (63%), obese (67%), had psoriasis (89%), and initiated guselkumab as monotherapy (81%). Common comorbidities were hypertension (32%), depression (30%), and diabetes mellitus (26%). Mean tender (6.8) and swollen (2.0) joint counts, clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA score (19.1), and 57% of participants with ≥ 3% body surface area affected by psoriasis indicated moderate disease activity. Axial involvement was identified in 49% of patients. Median patient-reported pain and fatigue visual analog scale scores (0–100) were 60 and 59, respectively. Prior to guselkumab, 76% of patients had received two or more biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; the last therapy prior to guselkumab was a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in 81% of patients.
Conclusions
Registry participants with PsA initiating guselkumab had active peripheral joint and skin disease, with substantial pain and fatigue; a considerable proportion had axial involvement. Future studies will evaluate the effectiveness of guselkumab in this population.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The characteristics of the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry participants with rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis initiating the interleukin-23 p19-subunit inhibitor, guselkumab, are described. |
Registry participants with psoriatic arthritis initiating guselkumab had active peripheral joint and skin disease, with substantial pain and fatigue. |
Most (76%) registry participants with psoriatic arthritis initiating guselkumab had previously received two or more biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. |
1 Introduction
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disease associated with active psoriasis or a prior history of psoriasis [1]. It is sometimes also associated with related conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and uveitis [2, 3]. The clinical manifestations of PsA can include peripheral arthritis, axial disease, skin and nail disease, dactylitis, and enthesitis [2,3,4,5]. The presence and severity of clinical manifestations vary widely by patient, from mild joint inflammation to severe debilitating joint damage with skin and nail involvement [6]. Treatment recommendations reflect the severity and heterogeneity of PsA disease activity, as well as the domains affected in a particular patient [2,3,4, 6,7,8,9].
Consensus guidelines from the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation, and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology advocate selecting the most appropriate therapy to broadly address the PsA disease domains present in individual patients [2, 7, 10]. Current treatment recommendations include nonpharmacologic therapies, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) [2, 7, 9, 10]. In the most recent update of the GRAPPA treatment recommendations, the use of selective interleukin-23 inhibitors to treat a variety of PsA manifestations, including peripheral arthritis (regardless of prior use of DMARDs), enthesitis, dactylitis, and skin and nail symptoms, was strongly supported [10].
Guselkumab is a high-affinity human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the p19 subunit of interleukin-23. The efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active PsA were evaluated in two phase III trials (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2) [11,12,13,14,15] and a phase IIIb trial (COSMOS) [16]. In DISCOVER-1 (biologic-naïve and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients), DISCOVER-2 (biologic-naïve patients), and COSMOS (patients with inadequate TNFi response), guselkumab was superior to placebo in relieving signs and symptoms of joint and skin manifestations of PsA and improving health-related quality of life and physical function at week 24 [11, 12, 16]. Response rates and average improvements in guselkumab-treated patients were sustained or numerically increased through 1 [13, 14] and 2 years [15]. In addition, in a recent Bayesian network meta-analysis, a primary endpoint assessment of guselkumab at week 24 demonstrated favorable arthritis efficacy comparable to that of drugs with other mechanisms of action, such as interleukin-17A inhibitors and subcutaneous TNFis, while offering a better Psoriatic Area and Severity Index response relative to many other treatments [17].
Guselkumab has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and those with active PsA, the latter approved in July 2020 [18]. Thus, limited information is available about the use of guselkumab in patients with PsA outside of clinical trials. The CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis (PsA/SpA) prospective observational registry includes detailed information about patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients enrolled in the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry who initiated therapy with guselkumab for the treatment of PsA. To our knowledge, this is one of the first reports to describe such a patient population.
2 Patients and Methods
2.1 Data Source
The CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry was launched in March 2013 and is a US-based, prospective, multicenter, noninterventional registry of patients with PsA or SpA who are under the care of a rheumatologist. As of 30 September, 2021, patients were recruited from 65 private and academic sites across 30 states, through 70 participating healthcare providers. During routine clinical visits occurring approximately every 6 months, patients and providers complete questionnaires capturing information on patient demographics, disease characteristics, PsA medication history, medical history and lifestyle characteristics, disease activity and severity, comorbidities, and adverse events (including infections, hospitalizations, and other targeted safety outcomes). Although other diagnostic tests and blood collection are not required for participation, relevant laboratory and imaging results are reported when available. As of 30 September, 2021, the registry included approximately 5260 patients.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry are described in Table S1 of the Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM). Briefly, the registry includes adults aged 18 years or older who have provided written consent and who have been diagnosed with PsA, the majority of whom fulfill Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis [19]. If axial PsA is present, they may also then meet the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axial SpA [20] or the modified New York classification criteria for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) [21]. Registry participants must also be prescribed or starting an eligible medication for the treatment of PsA, axial SpA, or AS. Patients are excluded if they have been diagnosed with any other form of autoimmune inflammatory arthritis (such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus) and/or were participating in or planning to participate in clinical trials in which a nonmarketed or marketed investigational drug is provided.
2.2 Analysis Population
This analysis included patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed PsA who enrolled in the registry between 1 March, 2013, and 30 September, 2021, and initiated guselkumab at or after registry enrollment. Both biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients were included in this analysis if they had not received guselkumab therapy prior to enrollment and could be assigned an initiation visit. An initiation visit was defined as the visit where guselkumab was first administered or prescribed for initiation.
2.3 Assessments
At registry enrollment, the rheumatologist completes questionnaires ascertaining information on patient medical history, including all prior and current treatment start and stop dates for PsA/SpA medications, and inclusive of all history prior to registry enrollment based on patient medical records. At each routine follow-up CorEvitas visit that occurs approximately every 6 months for patients enrolled in the registry (180 days from the last registry visit with a minus 30-day window or ≥ 150 days from the last eligible registry visit), information on therapy changes since the last visit is recorded. Data collected also include patient demographics (age, sex, and race), lifestyle characteristics (smoking status, alcohol use, and body mass index), comorbidities, PsA clinical features, calculated PsA disease activity measures, and patient-reported outcome measures. This analysis included patient-reported and provider-reported data collected during the guselkumab initiation visit, including reasons for guselkumab initiation, or previous routine visits.
Rheumatologists document the patients’ histories of comorbidities, including uveitis, IBD (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, possible IBD, and/or other IBD), cerebro-cardiovascular disease (see ESM), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety. Providers also document PsA clinical features information, including time since onset of PsA symptoms, time since PsA diagnosis, body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis, tender joint count (0–68), swollen joint count (0–66), Physician Global Assessment of PsA score (visual analog scale (VAS) 0–100) [22], Physician Global Assessment of PsA and Psoriasis score (VAS 0–100) [23], nail psoriasis VAS score (0–100), dactylitis count (0–20) [24], the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index score (0–16) [25], and the Leeds Enthesitis Index (0–6) score [24]. Axial involvement was determined based on the following physician-reported criteria: diagnosis of axial SpA (nonradiographic or radiographic) or AS, physician-indicated spinal involvement or completed any of the mobility measurements [includes occiput-to-wall distance, lateral lumbar flexion, and lumbar flexion (Schöber)], or selected any of the clinical features criteria for diagnosing axial SpA [26] (see details in Table S2 of the ESM).
Disease activity was measured using standard calculated efficacy assessment tools such as the Clinical Disease Activity Index [27], Disease Activity Index for PsA (DAPSA) [28,29,30], clinical DAPSA [29], achievement of Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) [30,31,32] or Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA) [30,31,32] (defined as meeting at least five or all seven, respectively, of the following criteria: tender joint count ≤ 1, swollen joint count ≤ 1, Psoriatic Area and Severity Index ≤ 1 or BSA ≤ 3, patient pain VAS ≤ 15, Patient Global Disease Activity VAS ≤ 20, health assessment questionnaire ≤ 0.5, and tender entheseal points ≤ 1), PsA Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) [32], and ASDAS employing C-reactive protein (ASDAS-CRP; in a subgroup of patients with axial involvement) [33, 34]. Table S2 of the ESM provides additional details about these measures.
Patient-reported outcome measures that were assessed were modified Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 [35, 36], patient-reported pain (VAS 0–100), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI, 0–10; in a subgroup of patients with axial involvement) [37], Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis (VAS 0–100) [38], Patient Global Assessment of Arthritis and Psoriasis (VAS 0–100) [38], Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (0–10; in a subgroup of patients with axial involvement) [39], the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index [40], the Health Assessment Questionnaire for Spondyloarthropathies [40], and the ASAS Health Index (in a subgroup of patients with axial involvement) [41]. Table S2 of the ESM provides additional details about these measures.
2.4 Statistical Analyses
For those patients who initiated guselkumab during a CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry visit, data were utilized from that visit. For patients whose guselkumab initiation occurred between registry visits, data from the prior visit were used if that visit was within 4 months prior to initiation. If the prior visit occurred more than 4 months before guselkumab was started, data were utilized from the first subsequent registry visit after guselkumab initiation if this visit was within 3 months after the start of therapy. If the subsequent visit was more than 3 months after guselkumab initiation, patients were excluded from this analysis. Data collected were summarized using descriptive statistics: counts and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations (SDs) and/or medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. All analyses were performed using Stata 16 (College Station, TX, USA).
3 Results
Of the 5260 patients enrolled in the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry as of 30 September, 2021, 4250 were diagnosed with PsA (Fig. 1). One hundred and thirteen of these registry participants initiated guselkumab at or after registry enrollment and were included in this analysis (Fig. 1). The first instance of guselkumab initiation identified was on 1 June, 2018. Mean (SD) age of these patients was 53.2 (12.5) years, 63% were female, and 90% were White (Table 1). Mean (SD) body mass index was 33.7 (8.8) kg/m2, reflecting a predominantly obese (67%) population. The most prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (32%), depression (30%), diabetes (26%), anxiety (13%), and cerebro-cardiovascular disease (11%). Of note, 7.1% of patients had IBD (ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, possible IBD, and/or other IBD) and 3.5% had uveitis. In 3 of 113 (2.7%) patients, guselkumab initiation occurred between registry visits. Data for these patients were taken from the first registry visit after guselkumab initiation if it occurred within 3 months of the start of therapy.
Registry participants who initiated guselkumab had been diagnosed with PsA for a mean (SD) of 9.5 (9.4) years and had a mean (SD) duration of 13.9 (11.3) years since PsA symptom onset prior to guselkumab initiation (Table 2). Eighty-nine percent of patients had a current or personal history of psoriasis. Among all patients with evaluable data, median (interquartile range) BSA affected by psoriasis was 4% (9%), although 27% had ≥ 10% BSA affected by psoriasis, and most had moderate nail psoriasis, with a mean (SD) nail psoriasis VAS score of 7.6 (14.5). Mean (SD) tender and swollen joint counts were 6.8 (8.8) and 2.0 (3.5), respectively, and mean (SD) dactylitis counts were 0.2 (0.7) among the total population and 1.9 (1.2) among the 12 (11%) patients with a dactylitis count ≥ 1. Twenty (22%) patients had a Leeds Enthesitis Index score ≥ 1, and 32 (28%) had a Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index score ≥ 1; the mean (SD) scores among these patients were 1.8 (1.0) and 3.1 (2.1), respectively. Axial involvement was identified in 49% of patients. Additionally, mean (SD) Physician Global Assessment of PsA score was 33.3 (23.4), and mean (SD) Physician Global Assessment of PsA and psoriasis score was 39.5 (23.7).
Among patients who had initiated guselkumab, 71% had ever previously received a csDMARD, 91% had ever previously received a bDMARD (76% had previously received two or more bDMARDs), 81% had ever previously received a TNFi bDMARD (48% had previously received two or more TNFis), and 46% had ever previously received a tsDMARD (note that these categories are not mutually exclusive) (Table 2). Seven patients (6%) were b/tsDMARD naïve. Approximately 81% of patients in this analysis received guselkumab as a monotherapy, 15% received concomitant methotrexate, and 4.4% received a csDMARD other than methotrexate. The last b/tsDMARD therapy for PsA prior to guselkumab initiation was a TNFi in 32% of patients, a non-TNFi bDMARD in 49% of patients, and a tsDMARD in 19% of patients, with a median (interquartile range) duration of use of 7.0 (13) months. Approximately half (51%) of all participants discontinued their last therapy for PsA because of lack of efficacy, whereas others cited safety (9.7%), insurance (1.8%), or other (6%) reasons for discontinuation, including patient preference, tolerability, frequency or route of administration, and cost; data were missing in 34% of participants. The reasons cited for initiation of guselkumab included active disease (84%), safety (1%), insurance (1%), and other (14%) reasons; data were missing in 5% of participants.
The mean (SD) clinical DAPSA score of the overall population was 19.1 (13.1), indicative of a population with moderate disease activity, while 82% of patients did not demonstrate MDA or VLDA (Table 3). Among the 12 of 13 patients who had MDA and provided a reason for guselkumab initiation, the reason for initiating guselkumab was active disease (i.e., inadequate initial response, failure to maintain initial response, or active disease (initially or a flare) leading to initiating a medication or changing the dose/frequency) in 11 patients and other (i.e., fear of future side effect, temporary interruption, patient preference, to improve compliance, to improve tolerability, frequency of administration, route of administration, alternate mechanism of action, and patient doing well) in one patient. Active disease was the reason for guselkumab initiation provided by all three patients in VLDA who initiated guselkumab. Mean [SD] scores for other calculated disease activity measures, including the Clinical Disease Activity Index (13.6 [9.0]), DAPSA (21.1 [14.8]), PASDAS (4.4 [1.6]), and ASDAS-CRP (3.3 [1.4], in patients with axial involvement) also consistently demonstrated that patients were experiencing moderate levels of disease activity at the time of guselkumab initiation. It should be noted that the sample number for ASDAS-CRP (n = 11) is small and should be interpreted with caution.
The mean (SD) BASDAI score of 5.8 (2.0) in patients with axial involvement was also indicative of a population with active disease using cut-off points originally developed for axial SpA (Table 4). These results were consistent with the moderately high mean (SD) patient-reported pain, fatigue, and spine pain (spine pain reported only in patients with axial involvement) VAS scores of 54.0 (26.0), 51.8 (26.9), and 56.6 (25.7), respectively; the mean (SD) patient global assessment of arthritis VAS score of 48.5 (24.8); and the mean (SD) patient global assessment of arthritis and psoriasis VAS score of 49.9 (24.7). In addition, mean [SD] Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire for Spondyloarthropathies scores (both 0.9 [0.7]) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (5.2 [2.4]) and ASAS Health Index (7.9 [4.8]) values, the latter two in the subgroup of patients with axial involvement, indicated moderately to severely impaired functioning at guselkumab initiation. The mean (SD) modified Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (4.1 [2.0]) was below the cut-off point for moderate disease (6.1–12.0).
4 Discussion
This observational analysis is one of the first reports describing the clinical characteristics of registry participants initiating guselkumab for PsA. At the time these patients started guselkumab therapy for PsA, they were experiencing active PsA across multiple domains, as demonstrated by mean tender and swollen joint counts; DAPSA, PASDAS, and BASDAI scores; the low proportion of patients (14%) in MDA; and the moderate levels of functional impairment. In addition, 49% of patients in this population had axial involvement, which is within the 25–70% range reported for patients with PsA [42]. This proportion is higher than the 12.5% previously reported for the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry, although that historical analysis used different criteria to define axial involvement than what were used for the current analysis [43]. The substantial proportion of patients with axial involvement may be indicative of a treatment-resistant population who are early adopters of a new PsA therapy. Indeed, the patients in this analysis generally reported inadequate disease control despite having received multiple prior therapies for PsA, thus highlighting the need for PsA treatments with new mechanisms of action.
Although the efficacy of guselkumab in patients with PsA axial disease has not been evaluated in a dedicated randomized controlled trial to date, axial symptoms were evaluated in 312 patients in the pivotal, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trials of guselkumab in PsA (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2) who had investigator- and imaging-confirmed sacroiliitis [44]. A post hoc analysis of pooled data from this subgroup of patients (guselkumab every 4 weeks [N = 103], guselkumab every 8 weeks [N = 91], and placebo [N = 118]) demonstrated that guselkumab resulted in greater mean improvements in BASDAI (including the individual component on spinal pain) and ASDAS compared with placebo at week 24, with improvements sustained through 1 year. A dedicated, prospective randomized controlled trial of guselkumab in patients with PsA axial disease is currently ongoing (NCT04929210) [47].
In this registry setting, most patients were biologic experienced; 91% of patients had previously received a bDMARD and 48% had previously received two or more TNFis. In contrast, per eligibility requirements, only 31% of patients in DISCOVER-1 and no patients in DISCOVER-2 were biologic experienced [11, 12]. In the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb COSMOS trial, which assessed guselkumab in patients with PsA with inadequate response to TNFis, patients had prior treatment with either one (88%) or two (12%) TNFis [16]. Notably, in the current study, most patients (81%) initiated guselkumab as monotherapy, although 19% of patients were receiving a concomitant csDMARD, the majority of which was methotrexate (15%). Use of guselkumab as monotherapy in patients with PsA is supported by prespecified subgroup analyses from the DISCOVER-1, DISCOVER-2, and COSMOS trials, which showed a consistent clinical response whether patients received guselkumab plus methotrexate or guselkumab alone [11, 12, 16].
Although the patients in this analysis had active disease despite being primarily biologic experienced, they had less severe disease, on average, compared with the patients in the DISCOVER trials, likely because of the minimum swollen and tender joint counts and CRP levels required for eligibility for these trials [11, 12]. Across treatment groups, DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 participants had higher mean baseline tender and swollen joint counts and DAPSA, PASDAS, and BASDAI scores than the patients in the analysis presented here [44, 45]. However, impairment of physical function and patient-reported pain scores were similar between the patient populations. Disease activity in the COSMOS trial population was similar to that in the DISCOVER trials [16]. It should also be noted that, in three patients, disease activity data were derived from the first subsequent registry visit after guselkumab initiation within 3 months of the start of therapy, which could have affected these results.
The demographic and disease characteristics at initiation of guselkumab in the registry participants presented here are similar to those from a recent observational study of a cohort of 24 patients from two Italian joint dermatology-rheumatology clinics with recently diagnosed PsA (≤ 2 years’ duration) who initiated guselkumab [46]. However, a smaller proportion of patients in the Italian study had prior treatment with bDMARDs. The registry participants who initiated guselkumab in this analysis and in the Italian study still had active disease despite many having previously used bDMARDs, with the majority of patients (76%) in this analysis having previously used two or more bDMARDs, suggesting harder to control disease that has not responded to previous therapies for PsA. This is consistent with the fact that 84% of the patients in this analysis initiated guselkumab because of active disease, and 51% cited a lack of efficacy as the reason for discontinuing their last therapy for PsA prior to guselkumab.
This analysis was limited to patients initiating guselkumab for PsA; thus, no comparisons can be made and findings cannot be generalized to patients starting other biologics. Other limitations of this analysis are the small number of patients included, with even fewer patients with evaluable data for some assessments such as ASDAS-CRP, although this is expected given the recent approval of guselkumab to treat patients with active PsA. It is also possible that drug benefit design and formulary status changes could have limited the number of patients who initiated guselkumab. Additionally, because this sample of patients with PsA is restricted to those who have regular visits with their healthcare provider, these results may not be representative of all US adults with PsA initiating guselkumab. Because of the limited number of biologic-naïve (n = 10) versus biologic-experienced (n = 103) patients, subgroup analyses were not performed. Additionally, if subgroups of patients (i.e., sicker or healthier patients) were routinely enrolled or not enrolled in the registry, selection bias could be introduced, thereby limiting the ability to generalize the results. Furthermore, the registry is not an inception cohort and relies on patient self-reporting or having been with the same clinician for an extended period. Patients may not recall their complete medication history, leading to an incomplete or inaccurate description of prior medication use. Registry participants could also have had undiagnosed or unreported confounding conditions or comorbidities with symptoms that overlap, such as central sensitization. Lastly, potential differences in patient profiles may exist among patients treated with guselkumab off-label prior to US Food and Drug Administration approval for active PsA, although the number of patients in this subset is small (n = 13).
5 Conclusions
Active peripheral joint and skin disease, elevated levels of self-reported pain, impaired physical function, substantial fatigue, and a relatively high proportion of patients with axial disease were observed at guselkumab initiation in this analysis of participants with PsA from the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry. We report an extensive amount of data allowing for a detailed characterization of patients with PsA who initiated guselkumab in routine clinical practice, thereby complementing the data pertaining to the homogenous patient population meeting the rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria of phase III clinical trials. As additional patients initiating guselkumab for PsA continue to enroll in the CorEvitas PsA/SpA Registry, further analyses to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients initiating guselkumab and effectiveness of this therapy over time in this patient population will be conducted.
References
Ogdie A, Weiss P. The epidemiology psoriatic arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2015;41:545–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rdc.2015.07.001.
Coates LC, Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Soriano ER, Acosta-Felquer ML, Armstrong AW, et al. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2015 treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68:1060–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39573.
Gossec L, Baraliakos X, Kerschbaumer A, de Wit M, McInnes I, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:700–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217159.
Kavanaugh A, Coates LC, van der Windt DA, Corp N, Soriano ER. GRAPPA treatment recommendations: updates and methods. J Rheumatol. 2020;96:41–5. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.200126.
Torres T, Barcelos A, Filipe P, Fonseca JE. A systematic review with network meta-analysis of the available biologic therapies for psoriatic disease domains. Front Med. 2021;7: 618163. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.618163.
Gottlieb A, Korman NJ, Gordon KB, Feldman SR, Lebwohl M, Koo JYM, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 2. Psoriatic arthritis: overview and guidelines of care for treatment with an emphasis on the biologics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58:85–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2008.02.040.
Singh JA, Guyatt G, Ogdie A, Gladman DD, Deal C, Deodhar A, et al. 2018 American College of Rheumatology/National Psoriasis Foundation guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.40726.
Ogdie A, Coates LC, Gladman DD. Treatment guidelines in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59:i37-46. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez383.
McGagh D, Coates LC. Assessment of the many faces of PsA: single and composite measures in PsA clinical trials. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020;59:i29-36. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez305.
Coates LC, Soriano E, Corp N, Bertheussen H, Callis-Duffin K, Campanholo CB, et al. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18:465–79. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41584-022-00798-0.
Deodhar A, Helliwell PS, Boehncke W-H, Kollmeier AP, Hsia EC, Subramanian RA, et al. Guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who were biologic-naïve or had previously received TNFα inhibitor treatment (DISCOVER-1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1115–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30265-8.
Mease PJ, Rahman P, Gottlieb AB, Kollmeier AP, Hsia EC, Xu XL, et al. Guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis (DISCOVER-2): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1126–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30263-4.
Ritchlin CT, Helliwell PS, Boehncke W-H, Soriano ER, Hsia EC, Kollmeier AP, et al. Guselkumab, an inhibitor of the IL-23p19 subunit, provides sustained improvement in signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis: 1 year results of a phase III randomised study of patients who were biologic-naïve or TNFα inhibitor-experienced. RMD Open. 2021;7: e001457. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2020-001457.
McInnes IB, Rahman P, Gottlieb AB, Hsia EC, Kollmeier AP, Chakravarty SD, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab, an interleukin-23p19-specific monoclonal antibody, through one year in biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021;73:604–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41553.
McInnes IB, Rahman P, Gottlieb AB, Hsia EC, Kollmeier AP, Xu XL, et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of guselkumab, a monoclonal antibody specific to the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, through 2 years: results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42010.
Coates LC, Gossec L, Theander E, Bergmans P, Neuhold M, Karyekar C, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis are inadequate responders to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: results through one year of a phase IIIb, randomised, controlled study (COSMOS). Ann Rheum Dis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-220991.
Mease PJ, McInnes IB, Tam L-S, Eaton K, Peterson S, Schubert A, et al. Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2021;60:2109–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab119.
Boehncke W-H, Brembilla NC, Nissen MJ. Guselkumab: the first selective IL-23 inhibitor for active psoriatic arthritis in adults. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2021;17:5–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2020.1857733.
Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P, Mielants H, CASPAR Study Group. Classification of criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2006;54:2665–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.21972.
Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, Listing J, Akkoc N, Brandt J, et al. The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:777–83. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.108233.
van der Linden S, Valkenburg HA, Cats A. Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis: a proposal for modification of the New York Criteria. Arthritis Rheumatol. 1984;27:361–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780270401.
Cauli A, Gladman DD, Mathieu A, Olivieri I, Porru G, Tak PP, et al. Physician’s global assessment in psoriatic arthritis: a multicenter GRAPPA study. J Rheumatol. 2018;45:1256–62. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.171183.
Callis Duffin K, Bushmakin AG, Cappelleri JC, Mallbris L, Mamolo C. A multi-item Physician Global Assessment scale to assess psoriasis disease severity: validation based on four phase III tofacitinib studies. BMC Dermatol. 2019;19:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12895-019-0088-2.
Mease PJ. Measures of psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:S64-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20577.
Maksymowych WP, Mallon C, Morrow S, Shojania K, Olszynski WP, Wong RL, et al. Development and validation of the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) Enthesitis Index. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:948–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.084244.
Kiltz U, van der Heijde D, Boonen A, Cieza A, Stucki G, Khan MA, et al. Development of a health index in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (ASAS HI): final result of a global initiative based on the ICF guided by ASAS. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:830–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203967.
Curtis JR, Yang S, Chen L, Pope JE, Keystone EC, Haraoui B, et al. Determining the minimally important difference in the clinical disease activity index for improvement and worsening in early rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67:1345–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22606.
Schoels MM, Aletaha D, Alasti F, Smolen JS. Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:811–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207507.
Smolen JS, Schoels M, Aletaha D. Disease activity and response assessment in psoriatic arthritis using the Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA): a brief review. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33:S48-50.
Coates LC, Fransen J, Helliwell PS. Defining minimal disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a proposed objective target for treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.102053.
Coates LC, Nash P, Kvien TK, Gossec L, Mease PJ, Rasouliyan L, et al. Comparison of remission and low disease activity states with DAPSA, MDA and VLDA in a clinical trial setting in psoriatic arthritis patients: 2-year results from the FUTURE 2 study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50:709–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.03.015.
Coates LC, Gladman DD, Nash P, FitzGerald O, Kavanaugh A, Kvien TK, et al. Secukinumab provides sustained PASDAS-defined remission in psoriatic arthritis and improves health-related quality of life in patients achieving remission: 2-year results from the phase III FUTURE 2 study. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20:272. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-018-1773-y.
Lukas C, Landewé R, Sieper J, Dougados M, Davis J, Braun J, et al. Development of an ASAS-endorsed disease activity score (ASDAS) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.094870.
Machado PMMC, Landewé RBM, van der Heijde DM. Endorsement of definitions of disease activity states and improvement scores for the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score: results from OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1502–6. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.110279.
Pincus T. A multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ) for all patients with rheumatic diseases to complete at all visits in standard clinical care. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2007;65:150–60.
Pincus T, Swearingen CJ, Bergman MJ, Colglazier CL, Kaell AT, Kunath AM, et al. RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data) on an MDHAQ (Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire): agreement with DAS28 (Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index) Activity categories, scored in five versus more than ninety seconds. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62:181–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20066.
Garrett S, Jenkinson T, Kennedy LG, Whitelock H, Gaisford P, Calin A. A new approach to defining disease status in ankylosing spondylitis: the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:2286–91.
Cauli A, Gladman DD, Mathieu A, Olivieri I, Porru G, Tak PP, et al. Patient global assessment in psoriatic arthritis: a multicenter GRAPPA and OMERACT study. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:898–903. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.100857.
Calin A, Garrett S, Whitelock H, Kennedy LG, O’Hea J, Mallorie P, et al. A new approach to defining functional ability in ankylosing spondylitis: the development of the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:2281–5.
Lubrano E, Perrotta FM, Parsons WJ, Marchesoni A. Patient’s global assessment as an outcome measure for psoriatic arthritis in clinical practice: a surrogate for measuring low disease activity? J Rheumatol. 2015;42:2332–8. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.150595.
Kiltz U, van der Heijde D, Boonen A, Braun J. The ASAS Health Index (ASAS HI)—a new tool to assess the health status of patients with spondyloarthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014;32:S105–8.
Poddubnyy D, Jadon DR, Van den Bosch F, Mease PJ, Gladman DD. Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis: an update for rheumatologists. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021;51:880–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.06.006.
Mease PJ, Palmer JB, Liu M, Kavanaugh A, Pandurengan R, Ritchlin CT, et al. Influence of axial involvement on clinical characteristics of psoriatic arthritis: analysis from the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry. J Rheumatol. 2018;45:1389–96. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.171094.
Mease PJ, Helliwell PS, Gladman DD, Poddubnyy D, Baraliakos X, Chakravarty SD, et al. Efficacy of guselkumab on axial involvement in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and sacroiliitis: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 studies. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021;3:E715–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(21)00105-3.
Coates LC, Ritchlin CT, Gossec L, Helliwell PS, Rahman P, Hsia EC, et al. Guselkumab provides sustained domain-specific and comprehensive efficacy using composite indices in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 Jun 29:keac375. https://doi.org/10.1093/rehumatology/keac375.
Pantano I, Mauro D, Romano F, Gambardella A, Valenti M, Simone D, et al. Real-life efficacy of guselkumab in patients with early psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022;61:1217–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keab509.
Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Bird P, Soriano ER, Chakravarty SD, Shawi M, et al. Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active axial psoriatic arthritis: study protocol for STAR a phase 4 randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial. Trials. 2022;23:743. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-022-06589-y.
Acknowledgements
CorEvitas statisticians completed the analyses, and access to analysis data was limited to the authors and other CorEvitas staff. Medical writing support was provided by Linda Cornfield and Holly Capasso-Harris of Certara Synchrogenix under the direction of the authors in accordance with the Good Publication Practice guidelines (Ann Intern Med 2015;163:461–4) and was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
This analysis was sponsored by CorEvitas, LLC, and the analysis was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Access to study data was limited to CorEvitas; CorEvitas statisticians completed all analyses, and all authors contributed to the interpretation of the results. CorEvitas has been supported through contracted subscriptions in the last 2 years by AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer Inc., Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun, and UCB.
Conflict of interest
Philip J. Mease reports research support, consulting fees, and/or speaker bureau support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma, and UCB. Alexis Ogdie reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, CorEvitas, Gilead, Global Health Living Foundation, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB and has received grants to the University of Pennsylvania from AbbVie, Pfizer, and Novartis and to Forward from Amgen. Dr. Ogdie’s spouse has received royalties from Novartis. Soumya D. Chakravarty and Iris Lin are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and shareholders in Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary. Natalie J. Shiff is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, and owns stock in Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, and Gilead. Robert R. McLean and Wendi Malley are employees of CorEvitas, LLC. Rebecca L. Spitzer was employed by CorEvitas, LLC when the work was conducted. Arthur Kavanaugh reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Joseph Merola reports consultant and/or investigator fees from AbbVie, Arena, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, and UCB.
Ethics approval
The study was performed following Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practice. All participating investigators were required to obtain full board approval for conducting noninterventional research involving human subjects with a limited dataset. Sponsor approval and continuing review were obtained through a central institutional review board, the New England Independent Review Board (no. 120160610). For academic investigative sites that did not receive a waiver to use the central institutional review board, full board approval was obtained from the respective governing institutional review boards and documentation of approval was submitted to CorEvitas, LLC prior to the initiation of any study procedures. All patients in the registry were required to provide written informed consent and authorization prior to participating.
Consent to participate
The Principal Investigator or designee at each site will inform patients of the purposes of this registry. Patients who express a willingness to consider participation will be given a consent form to review. If patients have any questions related to participation in the registry, these will be answered by the Principal Investigator or designee. Patients will sign the voluntary consent form. Patients who consent to participate in the registry will receive a signed and dated copy of the consent form. Informed consent must be obtained before any assessments are performed.
Consent for publication
All the results presented in the article are in aggregate form and no personal identifiable information was used for this study.
Availability of data and material
Data are available from CorEvitas, LLC through a commercial subscription agreement and are not publicly available. No additional data are available from the authors.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Author contributions
Conceptualization: SDC, IL, RRM, WM, and RLS; data curation: RRM, WM, and RLS; analysis and interpretation of data: PJM, AO, SDC, IL, RRM, WM, RLS, AK, and JM; writing, original draft: SDC, NJS, IL, LC; writing, review and editing: all authors. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mease, P.J., Ogdie, A., Chakravarty, S.D. et al. Clinical Characteristics of Registry Participants with Psoriatic Arthritis Initiating Guselkumab: An Analysis from the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry. Drugs - Real World Outcomes 9, 617–628 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-022-00326-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40801-022-00326-2