Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib led to early and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) having an inadequate response to nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (non-bDMARD).

Major finding: A greater proportion of patients treated with 15 and 30 mg upadacitinib vs. placebo showed clinically meaningful improvement in the patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and health assessment questionnaire disability index as early as week 2 (P < .01) which was maintained or further improved at weeks 12 and 24 (P < .01).

Study details: This was a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 trial, including 1,704 patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD and who were randomly assigned to upadacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This work was funded by AbbVie. K Kato, E McDearmon-Blondell, P Zueger, and CD Saffore reported being employees and stockholders of AbbVie. The other authors reported ties with several sources including AbbVie.

Source: Strand V et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1789-1808 (Oct 12). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00379-9.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: Patients with plaque psoriasis were at risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) even if undergoing treatment with biologics; thus, screening for PsA at each follow-up visit should be strongly implemented.

Major finding: Overall, new-onset PsA developed in 8.5% of patients who were under treatment with any of the biologics including anti-tumor necrosis factor, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23, anti-IL17, and anti-IL23. No significant risk factors were identified for new-onset PsA.

Study details: Findings are from a 1-year prospective study including 118 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis without PsA who underwent treatment with biologics for at least 3 months.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Megna M et al. Biomedicines. 2021;9(10):1482 (Oct 15). Doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9101482.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: COVID-19 pandemic did not increase the occurrence of depressive symptoms among patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared with the period before the pandemic.

Major finding: Majority of patients did not have indications of depressive symptoms during (85.39%) and prior to (83.15%) the pandemic, with 14.61% and 16.85% of patients showing depressive symptoms during and prior to the pandemic, respectively. The prevalence of depressive symptoms was not significantly different before and during the pandemic (P = .803), irrespective of disease activity.

Study details: Findings are from a longitudinal study including 89 patients with PsA from a National Patient Register in Germany.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the German RheumaDatenRhePort Registry (RHADAR GbR). Most of the authors including the lead author declared being members, receiving honoraria, research support, or remuneration from various sources, including RHADAR Gbr.

Source: Engelbrecht M et al. Front Med. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.748262.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab was more effective than adalimumab in treating signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), regardless of severity of concomitant psoriasis.

Major finding: At week 52, a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with ixekizumab vs. adalimumab achieved at least 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria and 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index simultaneously, irrespective of presence (38.8% vs. 17.6%; P = .026) or absence (39.3% vs. 28.1%; P = .014) of moderate-to-severe psoriasis at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of the phase 3b/4 SPIRIT-H2H study including 566 patients who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs-naive with active PsA and concomitant psoriasis. They were randomly assigned to either ixekizumab or adalimumab.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Some of the authors, including the lead author, reported ties with several sources including Eli Lilly and Company. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Source: Kristensen LE et al. Rheumatol Ther. 2021(Oct 28). Doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00388-8.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Key clinical point: The 2-year follow-up results of the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study revealed the robust and sustained efficacy of 100 mg guselkumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) and 100 mg guselkumab every 8 weeks (Q8W) in improving signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in biologic-naive patients along with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 100, at least 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria was achieved by 76%, 74%, and 68% of patients who received guselkumab Q4W, guselkumab Q8W, and placebo, respectively, indicating a durable response. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from the phase 3 DISCOVER 2 study including 739 biologic-naive patients with active PsA, who were randomly assigned to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab Q8W, or placebo. A total of 652 patients completed treatment through week 100.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Six authors declared being employees and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, and the others reported ties with several sources, including Janssen.

Source: McInnes IB et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021(Nov 1). Doi: 10.1002/art.42010.

Key clinical point: Pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly those requiring antirheumatic treatment, are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Major finding: Pregnancy in PsA vs. non-PsA women were associated with increased risk for preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.27-2.24), elective cesarean delivery (CD; aOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.43-2.20), and emergency CD (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.10-1.84) with the risk even more pronounced in pregnancies in women with PsA with exposure to antirheumatic treatment any time before or during pregnancy (preterm birth: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.27-2.86; elective CD: aOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.47-2.63; and emergency CD: aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.18-2.36).

Study details: This was a cohort study including 921 pregnancies in patients with PsA matched with 9,210 pregnancies in non-PsA patients.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. None of the authors declared any conflict of interests.

Source: Remaeus K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1002/art.41985.

Key clinical point: Pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly those requiring antirheumatic treatment, are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Major finding: Pregnancy in PsA vs. non-PsA women were associated with increased risk for preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.27-2.24), elective cesarean delivery (CD; aOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.43-2.20), and emergency CD (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.10-1.84) with the risk even more pronounced in pregnancies in women with PsA with exposure to antirheumatic treatment any time before or during pregnancy (preterm birth: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.27-2.86; elective CD: aOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.47-2.63; and emergency CD: aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.18-2.36).

Study details: This was a cohort study including 921 pregnancies in patients with PsA matched with 9,210 pregnancies in non-PsA patients.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. None of the authors declared any conflict of interests.

Source: Remaeus K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1002/art.41985.

Key clinical point: Pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), particularly those requiring antirheumatic treatment, are at increased risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Major finding: Pregnancy in PsA vs. non-PsA women were associated with increased risk for preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.69; 95% CI 1.27-2.24), elective cesarean delivery (CD; aOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.43-2.20), and emergency CD (aOR 1.42; 95% CI 1.10-1.84) with the risk even more pronounced in pregnancies in women with PsA with exposure to antirheumatic treatment any time before or during pregnancy (preterm birth: aOR 1.98; 95% CI 1.27-2.86; elective CD: aOR 1.96; 95% CI 1.47-2.63; and emergency CD: aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.18-2.36).

Study details: This was a cohort study including 921 pregnancies in patients with PsA matched with 9,210 pregnancies in non-PsA patients.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. None of the authors declared any conflict of interests.

Source: Remaeus K et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2021 (Oct 20). Doi: 10.1002/art.41985.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), joint swelling was more closely related to and better predicted ultrasound-defined inflammation and active synovitis at 1 year than joint tenderness.

Major finding: Swollen joint count correlated better with greyscale and power Doppler (PD) joint scores (correlation coefficient [r] 0.37 and 0.47, respectively) than tender joint count (PD-joint score; r 0.33). Ultrasound verified active synovitis at 12-month follow-up was better predicted by swelling (odds ratio [OR] 6.33; 95% CI 3.70-10.83) vs. tenderness (OR 3.58; 95% CI 2.29-5.58) at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 83 patients with PsA who underwent clinical and ultrasound examinations at 2 visits scheduled 12 months apart.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Bosch P et al. Rheumatology. 2021;keab764 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab764.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), joint swelling was more closely related to and better predicted ultrasound-defined inflammation and active synovitis at 1 year than joint tenderness.

Major finding: Swollen joint count correlated better with greyscale and power Doppler (PD) joint scores (correlation coefficient [r] 0.37 and 0.47, respectively) than tender joint count (PD-joint score; r 0.33). Ultrasound verified active synovitis at 12-month follow-up was better predicted by swelling (odds ratio [OR] 6.33; 95% CI 3.70-10.83) vs. tenderness (OR 3.58; 95% CI 2.29-5.58) at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 83 patients with PsA who underwent clinical and ultrasound examinations at 2 visits scheduled 12 months apart.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Bosch P et al. Rheumatology. 2021;keab764 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab764.

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), joint swelling was more closely related to and better predicted ultrasound-defined inflammation and active synovitis at 1 year than joint tenderness.

Major finding: Swollen joint count correlated better with greyscale and power Doppler (PD) joint scores (correlation coefficient [r] 0.37 and 0.47, respectively) than tender joint count (PD-joint score; r 0.33). Ultrasound verified active synovitis at 12-month follow-up was better predicted by swelling (odds ratio [OR] 6.33; 95% CI 3.70-10.83) vs. tenderness (OR 3.58; 95% CI 2.29-5.58) at baseline.

Study details: Findings are from a prospective study including 83 patients with PsA who underwent clinical and ultrasound examinations at 2 visits scheduled 12 months apart.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Pfizer. The authors declared no conflict of interests.

Source: Bosch P et al. Rheumatology. 2021;keab764 (Oct 21). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab764.

Key clinical point: The risk for serious infections (SI) was significantly lower in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) vs. patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

Major finding: The crude incidence rate for SI was lower in patients with PsA (2.16; 95% CI 1.66-2.81) vs. those with RA (4.17; 95% CI 3.52-4.95). Patients with PsA vs. RA still had a lower risk of contracting SI even after adjusting for multiple factors (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65; P = .025).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational multicenter study including 1,352 and 1,007 patients with RA and PsA, respectively, from the Norwegian-Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Registry. A total of 3,169 TNFi treatment courses were included in the study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by South-Eastern Health Authority and received partial support from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. The authors report receiving personal fees and grants from the above-mentioned sources and other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Christensen IE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Oct 8). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221007.

Key clinical point: The risk for serious infections (SI) was significantly lower in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) vs. patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

Major finding: The crude incidence rate for SI was lower in patients with PsA (2.16; 95% CI 1.66-2.81) vs. those with RA (4.17; 95% CI 3.52-4.95). Patients with PsA vs. RA still had a lower risk of contracting SI even after adjusting for multiple factors (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65; P = .025).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational multicenter study including 1,352 and 1,007 patients with RA and PsA, respectively, from the Norwegian-Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Registry. A total of 3,169 TNFi treatment courses were included in the study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by South-Eastern Health Authority and received partial support from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. The authors report receiving personal fees and grants from the above-mentioned sources and other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Christensen IE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Oct 8). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221007.

Key clinical point: The risk for serious infections (SI) was significantly lower in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) vs. patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were receiving tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

Major finding: The crude incidence rate for SI was lower in patients with PsA (2.16; 95% CI 1.66-2.81) vs. those with RA (4.17; 95% CI 3.52-4.95). Patients with PsA vs. RA still had a lower risk of contracting SI even after adjusting for multiple factors (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65; P = .025).

Study details: Findings are from a prospective observational multicenter study including 1,352 and 1,007 patients with RA and PsA, respectively, from the Norwegian-Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Registry. A total of 3,169 TNFi treatment courses were included in the study.

Disclosures: This study was funded by South-Eastern Health Authority and received partial support from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB. The authors report receiving personal fees and grants from the above-mentioned sources and other pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Christensen IE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2021 (Oct 8). Doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221007.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib continued to demonstrate improvement in clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through week 56 in patients with inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with no new adverse events.

Major finding: Consistent with week 24, a higher proportion of patients achieved at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria with upadacitinib (15 mg, 74.4%; 30 mg, 74.7%) vs. adalimumab (68.5%; P = .046) at week 56. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,419 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD who completed 56 weeks of treatment in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 study.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie. The authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from or serving as an advisory board member, being an employee, or being shareholders in various companies, including AbbVie.

Source: McInnes IB et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e001838 (Oct 18). Doi:  10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001838.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib continued to demonstrate improvement in clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through week 56 in patients with inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with no new adverse events.

Major finding: Consistent with week 24, a higher proportion of patients achieved at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria with upadacitinib (15 mg, 74.4%; 30 mg, 74.7%) vs. adalimumab (68.5%; P = .046) at week 56. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,419 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD who completed 56 weeks of treatment in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 study.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie. The authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from or serving as an advisory board member, being an employee, or being shareholders in various companies, including AbbVie.

Source: McInnes IB et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e001838 (Oct 18). Doi:  10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001838.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib continued to demonstrate improvement in clinical manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) through week 56 in patients with inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with no new adverse events.

Major finding: Consistent with week 24, a higher proportion of patients achieved at least 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria with upadacitinib (15 mg, 74.4%; 30 mg, 74.7%) vs. adalimumab (68.5%; P = .046) at week 56. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: Findings are from an analysis of 1,419 patients with active PsA and inadequate response to at least 1 non-bDMARD who completed 56 weeks of treatment in the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 study.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by AbbVie. The authors reported receiving research grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from or serving as an advisory board member, being an employee, or being shareholders in various companies, including AbbVie.

Source: McInnes IB et al. RMD Open. 2021;7:e001838 (Oct 18). Doi:  10.1136/rmdopen-2021-001838.

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.

The newly detected Omicron COVID-19 variant may be highly infectious and less responsive to available vaccines than other variants, but it is too early to know how it compares to the Delta variant, top infectious disease official Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said Nov. 30.

Dr. Fauci, speaking at a White House COVID-19 briefing, said there’s a “very unusual constellation of changes” across the COVID-19 genome that indicates it is unlike any variant we have seen so far.

“This mutational profile is very different from other variants of interest and concern, and although some mutations are also found in Delta, this is not Delta,” Dr. Fauci said. “These mutations have been associated with increased transmissibility and immune evasion.”

Omicron is the fifth designated COVID-19 variant of concern.

Detected first in South Africa, Omicron has been found in 20 countries so far. There are no known cases yet in the United States, but it has been detected in Canada.

Omicron has more than 30 mutations to the spike protein, the part of the virus that binds to human cells, Dr. Fauci said.

Cross-protection from boosters

Though the mutations suggest there is increased transmission of this variant, he said it is too soon to know how this compares to the Delta variant. And although the vaccines may not be as effective against Omicron, Dr. Fauci said there will likely be some protection.

“Remember, as with other variants, although partial immune escape may occur, vaccines, particularly boosters, give a level of antibodies that even with variants like Delta give you a degree of cross-protection, particularly against severe disease,” he said.

“When we say that although these mutations suggest a diminution of protection and a degree of immune evasion, we still, from experience with Delta, can make a reasonable conclusion that you would not eliminate all protection against this particular variant,” Dr. Fauci said.

So far, there is no reason to believe Omicron will cause more severe illness than other variants of concern.

“Although some preliminary information from South Africa suggests no unusual symptoms associated with variant, we do not know, and it is too early to tell,” Dr. Fauci said.

He recommended that people continue to wear masks, wash hands, and avoid crowded indoor venues. Most importantly, he recommended that everyone get their vaccines and boosters.

“One thing has become clear over the last 20 months: We can’t predict the future, but we can be prepared for it,” CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said at the briefing. “We have far more tools to fight the variant today than we did at this time last year.”


A version of this story first appeared on Medscape.com.