Guselkumab provides sustained domain-specific and comprehensive efficacy using composite indices in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of guselkumab for the treatment of active PsA utilizing composite indices. METHODS: Data were pooled from the phase 3 DISCOVER-1 (n = 381) and DISCOVER-2 (n = 739) studies. In both studies, patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W); guselkumab 100 mg at week 0, week 4, then Q8W; or placebo Q4W with crossover to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W at week 24. Composite indices used to assess efficacy through week 52 included Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), minimal disease activity (MDA), and very low disease activity (VLDA). Through week 24, treatment failure rules were applied. Through week 52, non-responder imputation was used for missing data. RESULTS: Greater proportions of guselkumab- than placebo-treated patients achieved DAPSA low disease activity (LDA) and remission, PASDAS LDA and VLDA, MDA, and VLDA at week 24 vs placebo (all unadjusted P < 0.05). At week 52, in the guselkumab Q4W and Q8W groups, respectively, response rates were as follows: DAPSA LDA, 54.2% and 52.5%; DAPSA remission, 18.2% and 17.6%; PASDAS LDA, 45.3% and 41.9%; PASDAS VLDA, 16.9% and 19.5%; MDA, 35.9% and 30.7%; and VLDA, 13.1% and 14.4%. In the placebo-crossover-to-guselkumab group, response rates for all composite indices increased after patients switched to guselkumab, from week 24 through week 52. CONCLUSION: Treatment with guselkumab provided robust and sustained benefits across multiple PsA domains through 1 year, indicating that guselkumab is an effective therapy for the diverse manifestations of PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03162796; NCT03158285.

Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: updates to a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The IL-23 p19-subunit inhibitor guselkumab has been previously compared with other targeted therapies for PsA through network meta-analysis (NMA). The objective of this NMA update was to include new guselkumab COSMOS trial data, and two key comparators: the IL-23 inhibitor risankizumab and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials up to February 2021. A hand-search identified newer agents up to July 2021. Bayesian NMAs were performed to compare treatments on ACR response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, modified van der Heijde-Sharp (vdH-S) score, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: For ACR 20, guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W) and every 4 weeks (Q4W) were comparable (i.e. overlap in credible intervals) to most other agents, including risankizumab, upadacitinib, subcutaneous TNF inhibitors and most IL-17A inhibitors. For PASI 90, guselkumab Q8W and Q4W were better than multiple agents, including subcutaneous TNF and JAK inhibitors. For vdH-S, guselkumab Q8W was similar to risankizumab, while guselkumab Q4W was better; both doses were comparable to most other agents. Most agents had comparable SAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab demonstrates better skin efficacy than most other targeted PsA therapies, including upadacitinib. For vdH-S, both guselkumab doses are comparable to most treatments, with both doses ranking higher than most, including upadacitinib and risankizumab. Both guselkumab doses demonstrate comparable ACR responses to most other agents, including upadacitinib and risankizumab, and rank favourably in the network for SAEs.

PsABIOnd Study and eDaily Substudy Design: Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Guselkumab and IL-17 Inhibitors in Routine Clinical Practice in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised clinical studies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) do not always reflect patients in routine clinical practice. Large-scale data from routine practice are needed to better understand drug persistence, effectiveness and long-term safety of therapeutic agents. METHODS: PsABIOnd is an international, prospective, observational study designed to collect long-term routine care data in patients with PsA who receive guselkumab (an interleukin-23 [IL-23] inhibitor) or an interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of PsA who are starting guselkumab or any approved IL-17 inhibitor as a first, second, third or fourth line of PsA treatment and who provide written informed consent will be eligible to participate. Participants will be followed for a maximum of 36 months (+3 months) from the start of treatment. Study visits will occur in line with the standard of care, approximately every 6 months, plus an additional visit at 3 months after the start of treatment. eDaily by PsABIOnd - aneHealth substudy, will document the impact of these treatments on wellbeing and symptoms in a subgroup of participants over a 24-week (+4 weeks) observation period on treatment. PLANNED OUTCOMES: The primary objective of PsABIOnd is to evaluate treatment persistence with guselkumab and IL-17 inhibitors. Data sources will include validated electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and physician-completed assessments. Safety data will be collected through reporting adverse events. The eDaily by PsABIOnd substudy will use wearable and digital technologies for continuous activity and sleep monitoring, and frequent patient eDiary and ePRO collection to provide a more detailed and comprehensive picture of PsA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05049798.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a type of arthritis associated with inflammation that occurs in almost one-third of patients with the inflammatory skin condition psoriasis. PsA can vary between individuals, and typically causes joint pain, swelling and stiffness, affecting both physical and social well-being. Over the past decade, several new PsA treatments have become available. However, there is currently a lack of agreement about the best treatment options. As PsA is a chronic (long-term) disease, the duration of time a patient continues taking a prescribed treatment (termed "treatment persistence") is important. The randomised clinical trials used to determine if a treatment works use strict rules to select patients. Therefore, large studies from everyday practice are needed to better understand the effectiveness and safety of these PsA treatments for a wider range of patients. PsABIOnd is a real-life study that will compare guselkumab (an interleukin-23 inhibitor) and interleukin-17 inhibitors, which are two relatively new types of PsA treatments. The study will provide information about how long patients remain on these treatments and how effectively and safely they work over a 3-year period. PsABIOnd will also explore the impact of PsA on participants' lives by collecting information about their quality of life, disease activity and treatment satisfaction. In addition, participants also taking part in the eDaily by PsABIOnd substudy will wear a watch-like device and use a smartphone-based app to record measurements including activity, sleep, pain and well-being to give a detailed picture of PsA and its impact on patients' daily lives.

Optimization of heart FailUre medical Treatment after hospital discharge according to left ventricUlaR Ejection fraction: the FUTURE survey.

BACKGROUND: No clinical practice guidelines are available for the treatment of heart failure (HF) in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). AIMS: To determine how cardiologists manage medical treatment in HF patients after hospital discharge, according to LVEF. METHODS: The FUTURE study was a cross-sectional survey conducted in HF outpatients by French private cardiologists between September 2007 and August 2008. Patients had to have been hospitalized within the previous 18 months with a diagnosis of HF. Clinical data and HF treatments (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], beta-blockers, diuretics and aldosterone antagonists) were recorded retrospectively, with precise information on drug doses, at two successive time points (at hospital discharge and at the index consultation). HF treatment was compared in patients with reduced (less than or equal to 40%) versus preserved (more than 40%) LVEF. RESULTS: Completed data were available for 1137 HF patients enrolled by 424 cardiologists. Mean patient age was 72±11 years; LVEF was reduced in 56% and preserved in 44%. The therapeutic approach was similar in the two groups, both at hospital discharge and at the index consultation. At the index consultation, HF treatment was: beta-blocker (74%); ACEI/ARB (83%); loop diuretic (86%); aldosterone antagonist (31%). The majority of patients (62%) received a beta-blocker plus an ACEI or an ARB; 56% reached more than or equal to 50% of the target dose for each treatment. There were no major differences in treatments and dosages between the groups with low and preserved LVEF. In 15% of cases where the drug dose was not increased, fear of adverse events was reported as the reason. CONCLUSION: The FUTURE survey showed a similar approach to HF treatment irrespective of LVEF. Compared with previous studies, we saw an improvement in the use of recommended HF drugs, especially beta-blockers. However, achievement of target doses could be improved.