Enhancing current guidance for psoriatic arthritis and its comorbidities: recommendations from an expert consensus panel.

OBJECTIVES: Existing guidelines for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cover many aspects of management. Some gaps remain relating to routine practice application. An expert group aimed to enhance current guidance and develop recommendations for clinical practice that are complementary to existing guidelines. METHODS: A steering committee comprising experienced, research-active clinicians in rheumatology, dermatology and primary care agreed on themes and relevant questions. A targeted literature review of PubMed and Embase following a PICO framework was conducted. At a second meeting, recommendations were drafted and subsequently an extended faculty comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, primary care clinicians, specialist nurses, allied health professionals, non-clinical academic participants and members of the Brit-PACT patient group, was recruited. Consensus was achieved via an online voting platform when 75% of respondents agreed in the range of 7-9 on a 9-point scale. RESULTS: The guidance comprised 34 statements covering four PsA themes. Diagnosis focused on strategies to identify PsA early and refer appropriately, assessment of diagnostic indicators, use of screening tools and use of imaging. Disease assessment centred on holistic consideration of disease activity, physical functioning and impact from a patient perspective, and on how to implement shared decision-making. For comorbidities, recommendations included specific guidance for high-impact conditions such as depression and obesity. Management statements (which excluded extant guidance on pharmacological therapies) covered multidisciplinary team working, implementation of lifestyle modifications and treat-to-target strategies. Minimising corticosteroid use was recommended where feasible. CONCLUSION: The consensus group have made evidence-based best practice recommendations for the management of PsA to enhance the existing guidelines.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

How do patient reported outcome measures affect treatment intensification and patient satisfaction in the management of psoriatic arthritis? A cross sectional study of 503 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The ASSIST study investigated prescribing in routine psoriatic arthritis (PsA) care and whether the patient reported outcome: PsA Impact of Disease questionnaire (PsAID-12), impacted treatment. This study also assessed a range of patient and clinician factors and their relationship to PsAID-12 scoring and treatment modification. METHODS: Patients with PsA were selected across the UK and Europe between July 2021-March 2022. Patients completed the PsAID questionnaire, with the results shared with their physician. Patient characteristics, disease activity, current treatment methods, treatment strategies, medication changes and patient satisfaction scores were recorded. RESULTS: 503 patients recruited. 36.2% had changes made to treatment, 88.8% of this had treatment escalation. Overall, the mean PsAID-12 score was higher for patients with treatment escalation; the PsAID-12 score was associated with odds of treatment escalation (OR: 1.58; p< 0.0001). However, most clinicians reported PsAID-12 did not impact their decision to escalate treatment, instead supporting treatment reduction decisions. Physician's assessment of disease activity had the most statistically significant effect on likelihood of treatment escalation, (OR = 2.68, per 1-point score increase). Escalation was more likely in patients not treated with biologic therapies. Additional factors associated with treatment escalation included: patient characteristics, physician characteristics, disease activity and disease impact. CONCLUSION: This study highlights multiple factors impacting treatment decision making for individuals with PsA. PsAID-12 scoring correlates with multiple measures of disease severity and odds of treatment escalation. However, most clinicians reported the PsAID-12 did not influence treatment escalation decisions. PsAID scoring could be used to increase confidence in treatment de-escalation.

Impact of Upadacitinib on Laboratory Parameters and Related Adverse Events in Patients with RA: Integrated Data Up to 6.5 Years.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib (UPA) is a Janus kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an acceptable safety profile. We investigated laboratory parameter changes in UPA RA clinical trials. METHODS: Pooled data from six randomized trials in the SELECT phase 3 program were included. Key laboratory parameters and safety data were measured for UPA 15 and 30 mg once daily (QD), adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg every other week + methotrexate (MTX), and MTX monotherapy. Exposure-adjusted event rates (EAERs) of adverse events were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 3209 patients receiving UPA 15 mg QD (10 782.7 patient-years [PY]), 1204 patients receiving UPA 30 mg QD (3162.5 PY), 579 patients receiving ADA + MTX (1573.2 PY), and 314 patients receiving MTX monotherapy (865.1 PY) were included, representing up to 6.5 years of total exposure. Decreases in mean levels of hemoglobin, neutrophils, and lymphocytes, and increases in mean levels of liver enzymes and creatinine phosphokinase were observed with UPA, with grade 3 or 4 changes observed in some patients. Mean low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratios remained stable for patients receiving UPA 15 mg QD. EAERs of anemia and neutropenia occurred at generally consistent rates between UPA and active comparators (3.1-4.3 and 1.7-5.0 events [E]/100 PY across treatment groups, respectively). Rates of hepatic disorder were higher with MTX monotherapy, UPA 15 mg and UPA 30 mg (10.8, 9.7, and 11.0 E/100 PY, respectively) versus ADA + MTX (6.4 E/100 PY). Rates of lymphopenia were highest with MTX monotherapy (3.2 E/100 PY). Treatment discontinuations due to laboratory-related events were rare, occurring in 1.1% and 2.2% of patients treated with UPA 15 and 30 mg QD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this integrated long-term analysis of laboratory parameters continue to support an acceptable safety profile of UPA 15 mg QD for moderate-to-severe RA.

Reprint of "Residual pain in rheumatoid arthritis: Is it a real problem?"

Pain is a significant issue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Despite optimal control of inflammatory disease, residual chronic pain remains a major unmet medical need in RA. Pain in RA can be secondary to inflammation but can also generate neuroendocrine responses that initiate neurogenic inflammation and enhance cytokine release, leading to persistent hyperalgesia. In addition to well-known cytokines such as TNFα and IL-6, other cytokines and the JAK-STAT pathway play a role in pain modulation and inflammation. The development of chronic pain in RA involves processes beyond inflammation or structural damage. Residual pain is often observed in patients even after achieving remission or low disease activity, suggesting the involvement of non-inflammatory and central sensitization mechanisms. Moreover, fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is prevalent in RA patients and may contribute to persistent pain. Factors such as depression, sleep disturbance, and pro-inflammatory cytokines may contribute to the development of fibromyalgia in RA. It is essential to identify and diagnose concomitant FMS in RA patients to better manage their symptoms. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of pain in RA. Finally, recent studies have shown that JAK inhibitors effectively reduce residual pain in RA patients, suggesting pain-reducing effects independent of their anti-inflammatory properties.

Differential properties of Janus kinase inhibitors in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Janus kinases (JAKs) are a family of cytosolic tyrosine kinases that regulate cytokine signal transduction, including cytokines involved in a range of inflammatory diseases, such as RA, psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and IBD. Several small-molecule JAK inhibitors (JAKis) are now approved for the treatment of various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. There are, however, key differences between these agents that could potentially translate into unique clinical profiles. Each JAKi has a unique chemical structure, resulting in a distinctive mode of binding within the catalytic cleft of the target JAK, and giving rise to distinct pharmacological characteristics. In addition, the available agents have differing selectivity for JAK isoforms, as well as off-target effects against non-JAKs. Other differences include effects on haematological parameters, DNA damage repair, reproductive toxicity and metabolism/elimination. Here we review the pharmacological profiles of the JAKis abrocitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, peficitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib.

Start RA treatment - Biologics or JAK-inhibitors?

Janus Kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) for several years. They are the first oral advanced treatment with efficacy similar to, if not greater than, biologic agents. Recently, concerns over their safety was raised by the results from Oral Surveillance trial suggesting that tofacitinib, one of the JAKi, was associated with higher cardiovascular adverse events and malignancies than TNF inhibitors (TNFi). Since then, regulatory authorities have added warnings to the labels of JAKi. On this purpose, whether rheumatologists should use JAKi as first line advance treatment has become a controversial topic. Some rheumatologists have argued that biologics should be first line advance treatment since there are extensive effectiveness and safety data. In addition, with the advent of biosimilar drugs, they are the most cost-effective treatment. On the other hand, JAKi are very efficacious and are generally safe apart from older and high-risk patients. When TNFi are contraindicated and in certain RA patients ,especially when an oral drug is preferable, JAKi have significant advantage providing patients are involved in the decision-making process.

Exploring the complexities of pain phenotypes: OMERACT 2023 chronic pain working group workshop.

OBJECTIVE: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. METHODS: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. RESULTS: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. CONCLUSION: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.

An international multi-centre analysis of current prescribing practices and shared decision-making in psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated to improve patient outcomes in Psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We analysed current prescribing practices and the extent of SDM in PsA across Europe. METHODS: The ASSIST study was a cross-sectional observational study of PsA patients aged ≥18 years attending face-to-face appointments between July 2021-March 2022. Patient demographics, current treatment and treatment decisions were recorded. SDM was measured by the clinician's effort to collaborate (CollaboRATE questionnaire) and patient communication confidence (PEPPI-5 tool). RESULTS: 503 patients were included from 24 centres across the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Physician- and patient-reported measures of disease activity were highest in the UK. Conventional synthetic DMARDs constituted a higher percentage of current PsA treatment in UK than continental Europe (66.4% vs 44.9%), which differed from biologic DMARDs (36.4% vs 64.4%). Implementing treatment escalation was most common in the UK. CollaboRATE and PEPPI-5 scores were high across centres. Of 31 patients with low CollaboRATE scores (<4.5), no patients with low PsAID-12 scores (<5) had treatment escalation. However, of 465 patients with CollaboRATE scores ≥4.5, 59 patients with low PsAID-12 scores received treatment escalation. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of treatment escalation seen in the UK may be explained by higher disease activity and a younger cohort. High levels of collaboration in face-to-face PsA consultations suggests effective implementation of the SDM approach. Our data indicate that, in patients with mild disease activity, only those with higher perceived collaboration underwent treatment escalation. Prospective studies should examine the impact of SDM on PsA patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05171270.

MACE and VTE across upadacitinib clinical trial programmes in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an integrated analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and events of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and associated risk factors across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) phase 2b/3 upadacitinib clinical programmes. METHODS: Data were analysed and summarised from clinical trials of RA, PsA and AS treated with upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (QD) and 30 mg QD (as of 30 June 2021). Data from adalimumab (RA and PsA) and methotrexate (RA) arms were included as comparators. Adjudicated MACEs and VTE events were presented as exposure-adjusted rates per 100 patient-years (E/100 PY). Univariable Cox proportional hazard regression analyses assessed potential associations of risk factors for MACE and VTE. RESULTS: In total, 4298 patients received upadacitinib 15 mg (RA n=3209, PsA n=907 and AS n=182) and 2125 patients received upadacitinib 30 mg (RA n=1204 and PsA n=921). In patients with RA and PsA, rates of MACE (0.3-0.6 E/100 PY) and VTE (0.2-0.4 E/100 PY) were similar across upadacitinib doses; in patients with AS, no MACEs and one VTE event occurred. Most patients experiencing MACEs or VTE events had two or more baseline cardiovascular risk factors. Across RA and PsA groups, rates of MACEs and VTE events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of MACEs and VTE events with upadacitinib were consistent with previously reported data for patients receiving conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and comparable with active comparators adalimumab and methotrexate. Associated patient characteristics are known risk factors for MACEs and VTE events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: RA (SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873, SELECT-CHOICE: NCT03086343), PsA (SELECT-PsA 2: NCT03104374; SELECT-PsA 1: NCT03104400), and AS (SELECT-AXIS 1: NCT03178487).

The Effect of Low-Dose Glucocorticoids Over Two Years on Weight and Blood Pressure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Individual Patient Data From Five Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain and hypertension are well known adverse effects of treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials with 2-year interventions allowing concomitant treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. SETTING: 12 countries in Europe. PATIENTS: Early and established RA. INTERVENTION: Glucocorticoids at 7.5 mg or less prednisone equivalent per day. MEASUREMENTS: Coprimary end points were differences in change from baseline in body weight and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses. Difference in the change of number of antihypertensive drugs after 2 years was a secondary end point. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done to assess the robustness of primary findings. RESULTS: A total of 1112 participants were included (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 14.5]; 68% women). Both groups gained weight in 2 years, but glucocorticoids led, on average, to 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.8 kg; P < 0.001) more weight gain than the control treatment. Mean arterial pressure increased by about 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a between-group difference of -0.4 mm Hg (CI, -3.0 to 2.2 mm Hg; P = 0.187). These results were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Most patients did not change the number of antihypertensive drugs, and there was no evidence of differences between groups. LIMITATION: Body composition was not assessed, and generalizability to non-European regions may be limited. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust evidence that low-dose glucocorticoids, received over 2 years for the treatment of RA, increase weight by about 1 kg but do not increase blood pressure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Residual pain in rheumatoid arthritis: Is it a real problem?

Pain is a significant issue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Despite optimal control of inflammatory disease, residual chronic pain remains a major unmet medical need in RA. Pain in RA can be secondary to inflammation but can also generate neuroendocrine responses that initiate neurogenic inflammation and enhance cytokine release, leading to persistent hyperalgesia. In addition to well-known cytokines such as TNFα and IL-6, other cytokines and the JAK-STAT pathway play a role in pain modulation and inflammation. The development of chronic pain in RA involves processes beyond inflammation or structural damage. Residual pain is often observed in patients even after achieving remission or low disease activity, suggesting the involvement of non-inflammatory and central sensitization mechanisms. Moreover, fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is prevalent in RA patients and may contribute to persistent pain. Factors such as depression, sleep disturbance, and pro-inflammatory cytokines may contribute to the development of fibromyalgia in RA. It is essential to identify and diagnose concomitant FMS in RA patients to better manage their symptoms. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of pain in RA. Finally, recent studies have shown that JAK inhibitors effectively reduce residual pain in RA patients, suggesting pain-reducing effects independent of their anti-inflammatory properties.

A JAK Inhibitor for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Baricitinib Experience.

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, is approved as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate for treating adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and provides improvements in clinical signs, symptoms and patient-reported outcomes. Currently, baricitinib is approved for treating RA in more than 75 countries. In several pivotal Phase II and III RA trials (RA-BALANCE, RA-BEGIN, RA-BEAM, RA-BUILD, RA-BEACON, RA-BEYOND), up to seven years of baricitinib treatment was well tolerated and provided rapid and sustained efficacy, which was confirmed in real-world settings. Safety signals for another JAK inhibitor, tofacitinib, have emerged, as observed in the post-marketing Phase IIIb/IV trial Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance; safety signals were subsequently highlighted in a retrospective study of baricitinib and consequently new recommendations and warnings and precautions for all JAK inhibitors have been issued. Ongoing studies to further characterise and clarify the benefit:risk of JAK inhibitors include registries and controlled trials. This capstone review summarises clinical and real-world data outlining the benefit:risk profile of baricitinib, confirming that the improved disease activity and physical function of patients with RA treated with this JAK inhibitor observed in clinical trials is translated into effectiveness in clinical practice, with a low rate of discontinuations.

Real-World Sarilumab Use and Rule Testing to Predict Treatment Response in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Findings from the RISE Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trial findings may not be generalizable to routine practice. This study evaluated sarilumab effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and tested the real-world applicability of a response prediction rule, derived from trial data using machine learning (based on C-reactive protein [CRP] > 12.3 mg/l and seropositivity [anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, ACPA +]). METHODS: Sarilumab initiators from the ACR-RISE Registry, with ≥ 1 prescription on/after its FDA approval (2017-2020), were divided into three cohorts based on progressively restrictive criteria: Cohort A (had active disease), Cohort B (met eligibility criteria of a phase 3 trial in RA patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi]), and Cohort C (characteristics matched to the phase 3 trial baseline). Mean changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. In a separate cohort, predictive rule was tested based on CRP levels and seropositive status (ACPA and/or rheumatoid factor); patients were categorized into rule-positive (seropositive with CRP > 12.3 mg/l) and rule-negative groups to compare the odds of achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA)/remission and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) over 24 weeks. RESULTS: Among sarilumab initiators (N = 2949), treatment effectiveness was noted across cohorts, with greater improvement noted for Cohort C at 6 and 12 months. Among the predictive rule cohort (N = 205), rule-positive (vs. rule-negative) patients were more likely to reach LDA (odds ratio: 1.5 [0.7, 3.2]) and MCID (1.1 [0.5, 2.4]). Sensitivity analyses (CRP > 5 mg/l) showed better response to sarilumab in rule-positive patients. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world setting, sarilumab demonstrated treatment effectiveness, with greater improvements in the most selective population, mirroring phase 3 TNFi-refractory and rule-positive RA patients. Seropositivity appeared a stronger driver for treatment response than CRP, although optimization of the rule in routine practice requires further data.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a condition that may cause joint damage, if untreated. Sarilumab is an advanced medication, approved for treating moderate-to-severe RA in patients not responding to initial standard medicines. Clinical trials have shown that sarilumab improves RA symptoms; however, some people do not respond. This is a common problem in RA treatment. Physicians measure proteins in people's blood (called biomarkers; e.g., anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [ACPA], C-reactive protein [CRP], and rheumatoid factor [RF]) to predict a medicine's response. A previous study showed that people with positive blood tests for ACPA and CRP (> 12.3 mg/l) responded well to sarilumab; this study was based on machine learning (a branch of science using computers) and identified factors that could be linked to treatment benefits. The present study analyzed routine data of 2949 people from the ACR-RISE Registry and showed an improvement in RA symptoms after 6 and 12 months of sarilumab, with a greater improvement noted in patients previously treated with other medicines. Biomarkers were tested in 205 people to check whether they could predict treatment response in day-to-day life. People were called rule-positive if they tested positive for RF and/or ACPA with CRP > 12.3 mg/l, and otherwise rule-negative. After 24 weeks of treatment, rule-positive people had a greater chance of disease improvement than rule-negative people. These results showed the benefits of sarilumab in RA in routine care and suggested the usefulness of machine learning in identifying biomarkers that physicians can use to make treatment decisions.

Comparative effectiveness of TNF inhibitor vs IL-6 receptor inhibitor as monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate in biologic-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis from the CorEvitas RA Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity. METHODS: Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported. RESULTS: Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy). CONCLUSION: This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.