Clinical Edge Journal Scan

With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).

A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.² The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.

Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.¹ The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.

The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.

An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”³ Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.

Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.⁴ The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,³ helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.

Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.

References

1. Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
2. Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
3. Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
4. Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source

With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).

A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.² The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.

Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.¹ The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.

The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.

An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”³ Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.

Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.⁴ The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,³ helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.

Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.

References

1. Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
2. Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
3. Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
4. Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source

With increasing options for migraine therapy, the right choice for each patient might not be clear. And many individual patients could experience relief from any of the different choices, meaning that there is often more than one “right” answer when it comes to selecting a migraine treatment approach for each patient. Triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which have been around for decades, have shown consistent success in treating migraine episodes. Newer therapies could be safer for patients who have contraindications to triptans or NSAIDs, and these newer medications could be more effective for some patients, but we are still trying to fully understand which types of patients. Studies aimed at reaching conclusions regarding comparisons between triptans, calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors (CGRPi), and other treatments can help us determine which of the different categories of treatments are most effective for certain migraine populations (age or migraine subtype) or indications (acute vs preventive therapy).

A review published in 2023 in Aging and Disease described several markers of aging that are associated with migraine, including epigenetic aging and oxidative stress.² The review authors noted that markers of cellular senescence (ie, irreversible inhibition of cellular division) were increased in association with migraine. Additionally, endothelial progenitor cells, which reflect an increased ability for cell renewal, were decreased among migraine patients compared with the control group.

Telomeres, composed of nucleotides, are part of chromosome structures, serving to protect the molecular integrity of DNA. It has been established that shortened telomeres, often considered a reflection of aging and a marker of high potential for genetic and cellular damage, are a risk factor for physiologic changes that occur with the aging process. The 2024 Scientific Reports cross-sectional study included data from 6169 participants in the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) from 1999 to 2002.¹ The researchers used statistical analysis to determine whether there was an age-influenced telomere length in relation to migraine. They found that “telomere length was inversely associated with migraine risk in those aged 20-50 years, while no relationship was observed in those aged > 50 years.” The significance of this association among the younger group, but not among the older group, is not clear.

The limited research regarding the links between migraine and physiologic markers of aging has not untangled cause-and-effect distinctions. And while there is no evidence that preventing or treating migraine could slow down these pro-aging molecular processes, we do know that the distress of migraine episodes contributes to pain, anxiety, stress, depression, and sleep disruption. Given that we can’t change a patient’s hereditary predisposition to migraines, we can make an effort to alleviate the impact of migraine by using the tools that we have.

An article published in September 2024 in the BMJ described the results of a meta-analysis that included “137 randomized controlled trials with 89,445 participants allocated to 1 of 17 active interventions or placebo.”³ Treatments included NSAIDs, paracetamol, triptans, and CGRPi. The authors observed that triptans “had the best profiles and were more efficacious” than other treatment categories, including CGRPi. Interestingly, they observed that eletriptan and ibuprofen performed better for sustained pain freedom. Efficacy and sustained relief are crucial for patients with migraine, and for those who experience relief with simple over-the-counter ibuprofen, it makes sense to avoid making changes. But for those who are not getting the relief they need with established migraine therapies, trying the newer medications, such as CGRPi, could provide a solution. It is also important to keep in mind that triptans are contraindicated for some patients, such as those with a high-risk cardiovascular profile. Additionally, some patients may have contraindications to NSAIDs.

Prevention is another important aspect of migraine care. A September 2024 article in Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain used a retrospective cohort analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) data, which included 1245 patients using a variety of migraine preventive therapies: antidepressants, antiseizure medications, beta-blockers, and CGRPi.⁴ The researchers reported that patients taking “CGRPi had a statistically significant reduction in pain T-scores (60.4 [standard deviation (SD) 7.4] to 58.4 [SD 8.2], p = 0.003), especially those who switched from other preventative medications to CGRPi.” This, along with the BMJ meta-analysis,³ helps in assessing relative benefits for treatments of acute migraine episodes and for migraine prevention. However, the efficacy of various types of therapy highlights the value of considering all options for each patient.

Individual patient characteristics, particularly contraindications, also play an important role in guiding therapeutic selection. And trial and error remain part of migraine treatment, given that there are no pretesting determinants that can predict treatment success for individual patients. We need to emphasize to patients that effective migraine therapy is obtainable and important — for comfort, quality of life, and possibly overall healthy aging.

References

1. Geng D, Liu H, Wang H, Wang H. Telomere length exhibits inverse association with migraine among Americans aged 20-50 years, without implications beyond age 50: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep. 2024;14:22597. Source
2. Fila M, Pawlowska E, Szczepanska J, Blasiak J. Different aspects of aging in migraine. Aging Dis. 2023;14:6. Source
3. Karlsson WK, Ostinelli EG, Zhuang ZA, et al. Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2024;386:e080107. Source
4. Peasah SK, Soh YH, Huang Y, Nguyen J, Hanmer J, Good C. Patient reported outcomes and real-world use of calcitonin gene-related peptide medications in migraine. Headache. Published online September 30, 202 Source

Smoking is another important modifiable environmental factor. Smoking generally has an adverse impact on treatment. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) or placebo, Ogdie and coworkers assessed the impact of smoking on treatment efficacy and safety. The efficacy rates were generally similar in current/past smokers and never-smokers. The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current/past smokers compared with never-smokers. Thus, in contrast to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, smoking status may not have an impact on tofacitinib efficacy. However, current/past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Secukinumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A antibody, is an established treatment for PsA and is approved for use as fixed-dose (150/300 mg) subcutaneous injections. The efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous (IV) therapy is unknown. Kivitz and colleagues recently reported the results of the phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, in which 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive IV secukinumab or placebo with crossover to IV secukinumab at week 16. They demonstrated that at week 16, IV secukinumab significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (ACR50) compared with placebo (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 and were sustained through week 52. No new safety signals were reported. Thus, IV secukinumab is a safe and efficacious treatment for PsA. This mode of administration of secukinumab is a welcome addition to the PsA therapeutic armamentarium.

There are many targeted therapies available for PsA. However, data on comparative effectiveness is lacking. Kristensen and associates reported the results of an interim analysis of the PRO-SPIRIT real-world study that included 1192 patients with PsA across six countries who initiated or switched to a new biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. They showed that at 3 months, ixekizumab significantly improved clinical disease activity in patients with PsA compared with IL-12/23 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors. The improvements in the joints were similar to those with TNF inhibitors and JAK inhibitors, but the improvement in psoriasis was higher. Thus, ixekizumab leads to rapid response to active skin and musculoskeletal disease activity in PsA. Comparative data on treatment persistence as well as adverse events are required.

Smoking is another important modifiable environmental factor. Smoking generally has an adverse impact on treatment. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) or placebo, Ogdie and coworkers assessed the impact of smoking on treatment efficacy and safety. The efficacy rates were generally similar in current/past smokers and never-smokers. The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current/past smokers compared with never-smokers. Thus, in contrast to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, smoking status may not have an impact on tofacitinib efficacy. However, current/past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Secukinumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A antibody, is an established treatment for PsA and is approved for use as fixed-dose (150/300 mg) subcutaneous injections. The efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous (IV) therapy is unknown. Kivitz and colleagues recently reported the results of the phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, in which 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive IV secukinumab or placebo with crossover to IV secukinumab at week 16. They demonstrated that at week 16, IV secukinumab significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (ACR50) compared with placebo (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 and were sustained through week 52. No new safety signals were reported. Thus, IV secukinumab is a safe and efficacious treatment for PsA. This mode of administration of secukinumab is a welcome addition to the PsA therapeutic armamentarium.

There are many targeted therapies available for PsA. However, data on comparative effectiveness is lacking. Kristensen and associates reported the results of an interim analysis of the PRO-SPIRIT real-world study that included 1192 patients with PsA across six countries who initiated or switched to a new biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. They showed that at 3 months, ixekizumab significantly improved clinical disease activity in patients with PsA compared with IL-12/23 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors. The improvements in the joints were similar to those with TNF inhibitors and JAK inhibitors, but the improvement in psoriasis was higher. Thus, ixekizumab leads to rapid response to active skin and musculoskeletal disease activity in PsA. Comparative data on treatment persistence as well as adverse events are required.

Smoking is another important modifiable environmental factor. Smoking generally has an adverse impact on treatment. In a post hoc analysis of pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (a Janus kinase inhibitor) or placebo, Ogdie and coworkers assessed the impact of smoking on treatment efficacy and safety. The efficacy rates were generally similar in current/past smokers and never-smokers. The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current/past smokers compared with never-smokers. Thus, in contrast to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, smoking status may not have an impact on tofacitinib efficacy. However, current/past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Secukinumab, an anti-interleukin (IL)-17A antibody, is an established treatment for PsA and is approved for use as fixed-dose (150/300 mg) subcutaneous injections. The efficacy and safety of weight-based intravenous (IV) therapy is unknown. Kivitz and colleagues recently reported the results of the phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, in which 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive IV secukinumab or placebo with crossover to IV secukinumab at week 16. They demonstrated that at week 16, IV secukinumab significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (ACR50) compared with placebo (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 and were sustained through week 52. No new safety signals were reported. Thus, IV secukinumab is a safe and efficacious treatment for PsA. This mode of administration of secukinumab is a welcome addition to the PsA therapeutic armamentarium.

There are many targeted therapies available for PsA. However, data on comparative effectiveness is lacking. Kristensen and associates reported the results of an interim analysis of the PRO-SPIRIT real-world study that included 1192 patients with PsA across six countries who initiated or switched to a new biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. They showed that at 3 months, ixekizumab significantly improved clinical disease activity in patients with PsA compared with IL-12/23 inhibitors and IL-23 inhibitors. The improvements in the joints were similar to those with TNF inhibitors and JAK inhibitors, but the improvement in psoriasis was higher. Thus, ixekizumab leads to rapid response to active skin and musculoskeletal disease activity in PsA. Comparative data on treatment persistence as well as adverse events are required.

Key clinical point: The presence of clinical or subclinical dactylitis represented a more active and severe form of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), characterized by increased disease activity, swollen joint counts (SJCs), and tender joint counts (TJCs).

Major finding: PsA with dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) vs without dactylitis was associated with higher median disease activity index in PsA (DAPSA) scores (25.5 vs 16.1; P < .01), SJCs (4 vs 2; P < .001), and TJCs (4 vs 3; P < .01). PsA with subclinical dactylitis vs without dactylitis was associated with even higher DAPSA scores (27.2 vs 16.1; P < .05), SJCs (4.5 vs 2; P < .01), and TJCs (5 vs 3; P < .05).

Study details: This case-control study included 223 patients with PsA who were stratified on the basis of the presence of dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) or its absence at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Youth Clinical Research Project of Peking University First Hospital and other sources. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Song Z, Geng Y, Zhang X, Deng X, Zhang Z. Subclinical dactylitis represents a more active phenotype of psoriatic arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. Published online September 24, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: The presence of clinical or subclinical dactylitis represented a more active and severe form of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), characterized by increased disease activity, swollen joint counts (SJCs), and tender joint counts (TJCs).

Major finding: PsA with dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) vs without dactylitis was associated with higher median disease activity index in PsA (DAPSA) scores (25.5 vs 16.1; P < .01), SJCs (4 vs 2; P < .001), and TJCs (4 vs 3; P < .01). PsA with subclinical dactylitis vs without dactylitis was associated with even higher DAPSA scores (27.2 vs 16.1; P < .05), SJCs (4.5 vs 2; P < .01), and TJCs (5 vs 3; P < .05).

Study details: This case-control study included 223 patients with PsA who were stratified on the basis of the presence of dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) or its absence at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Youth Clinical Research Project of Peking University First Hospital and other sources. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Song Z, Geng Y, Zhang X, Deng X, Zhang Z. Subclinical dactylitis represents a more active phenotype of psoriatic arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. Published online September 24, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: The presence of clinical or subclinical dactylitis represented a more active and severe form of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), characterized by increased disease activity, swollen joint counts (SJCs), and tender joint counts (TJCs).

Major finding: PsA with dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) vs without dactylitis was associated with higher median disease activity index in PsA (DAPSA) scores (25.5 vs 16.1; P < .01), SJCs (4 vs 2; P < .001), and TJCs (4 vs 3; P < .01). PsA with subclinical dactylitis vs without dactylitis was associated with even higher DAPSA scores (27.2 vs 16.1; P < .05), SJCs (4.5 vs 2; P < .01), and TJCs (5 vs 3; P < .05).

Study details: This case-control study included 223 patients with PsA who were stratified on the basis of the presence of dactylitis (clinical or subclinical) or its absence at baseline.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Youth Clinical Research Project of Peking University First Hospital and other sources. No conflicts of interest were reported.

Source: Song Z, Geng Y, Zhang X, Deng X, Zhang Z. Subclinical dactylitis represents a more active phenotype of psoriatic arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. Published online September 24, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab administered every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) yielded better clinical outcomes than placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), without any new safety concerns.

Major findings: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W (60%) and Q8W (51%) vs placebo (30%) achieved a ≥ 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response. The response rates increased through week 52 (69%-78) and were consistent at week 100 (76%-80%) across all the groups. Similar trends were observed for ACR50, with no new safety signals.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 trials DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 included 1002 biologic-naive patients with PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab at weeks 0 and 4 and then Q8W, or placebo through week 24 with crossover to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W.

Disclosure: The study was sponsored by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. Four authors were employees of Johnson & Johnson. Several authors received research grants, consulting fees, or had ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P, Korotaeva T, Shesternya P, et al. Guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis in Russia: A post hoc analysis of the DISCOVER-1 and -2 randomized clinical trials. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab administered every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) yielded better clinical outcomes than placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), without any new safety concerns.

Major findings: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W (60%) and Q8W (51%) vs placebo (30%) achieved a ≥ 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response. The response rates increased through week 52 (69%-78) and were consistent at week 100 (76%-80%) across all the groups. Similar trends were observed for ACR50, with no new safety signals.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 trials DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 included 1002 biologic-naive patients with PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab at weeks 0 and 4 and then Q8W, or placebo through week 24 with crossover to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W.

Disclosure: The study was sponsored by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. Four authors were employees of Johnson & Johnson. Several authors received research grants, consulting fees, or had ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P, Korotaeva T, Shesternya P, et al. Guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis in Russia: A post hoc analysis of the DISCOVER-1 and -2 randomized clinical trials. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Guselkumab administered every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W) yielded better clinical outcomes than placebo in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), without any new safety concerns.

Major findings: At week 24, a higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W (60%) and Q8W (51%) vs placebo (30%) achieved a ≥ 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response. The response rates increased through week 52 (69%-78) and were consistent at week 100 (76%-80%) across all the groups. Similar trends were observed for ACR50, with no new safety signals.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 trials DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 included 1002 biologic-naive patients with PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q4W, 100 mg guselkumab at weeks 0 and 4 and then Q8W, or placebo through week 24 with crossover to 100 mg guselkumab Q4W.

Disclosure: The study was sponsored by Janssen-Cilag Ltd. Four authors were employees of Johnson & Johnson. Several authors received research grants, consulting fees, or had ties with various sources.

Source: Mease P, Korotaeva T, Shesternya P, et al. Guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis in Russia: A post hoc analysis of the DISCOVER-1 and -2 randomized clinical trials. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), tofacitinib demonstrated higher efficacy than placebo, regardless of smoking status; however, current or past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Major finding: At 3 months, 10 mg tofacitinib showed higher rates of a ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response than placebo in current or past smokers (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.43-6.33) and never smokers (OR, 6.53; 95% CI, 3.46-12.33). The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current or past smokers vs never smokers (adjusted incidence rate, 263.2 vs 208.9); 5 mg tofacitinib had comparable outcomes.

Study details: This post hoc analysis pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study, involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (5 or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo, while considering their smoking status.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer. Other authors declared having ties with various sources.

Source: Ogdie A, Kristensen LE, Soriano ER, et al. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis by cigarette smoking status. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), tofacitinib demonstrated higher efficacy than placebo, regardless of smoking status; however, current or past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Major finding: At 3 months, 10 mg tofacitinib showed higher rates of a ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response than placebo in current or past smokers (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.43-6.33) and never smokers (OR, 6.53; 95% CI, 3.46-12.33). The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current or past smokers vs never smokers (adjusted incidence rate, 263.2 vs 208.9); 5 mg tofacitinib had comparable outcomes.

Study details: This post hoc analysis pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study, involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (5 or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo, while considering their smoking status.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer. Other authors declared having ties with various sources.

Source: Ogdie A, Kristensen LE, Soriano ER, et al. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis by cigarette smoking status. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), tofacitinib demonstrated higher efficacy than placebo, regardless of smoking status; however, current or past smokers experienced increased rates of adverse events.

Major finding: At 3 months, 10 mg tofacitinib showed higher rates of a ≥ 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology response than placebo in current or past smokers (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.43-6.33) and never smokers (OR, 6.53; 95% CI, 3.46-12.33). The incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were higher in current or past smokers vs never smokers (adjusted incidence rate, 263.2 vs 208.9); 5 mg tofacitinib had comparable outcomes.

Study details: This post hoc analysis pooled data from phase 2 and 3 trials and a long-term extension study, involving 914 patients with PsA and 372 patients with ankylosing spondylitis who received tofacitinib (5 or 10 mg twice daily) or placebo, while considering their smoking status.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Pfizer. Four authors declared being current or former employees or shareholders of Pfizer. Other authors declared having ties with various sources.

Source: Ogdie A, Kristensen LE, Soriano ER, et al. Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis by cigarette smoking status. Rheumatol Ther. Published online September 25, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), intravenous secukinumab every 4 weeks demonstrated rapid and sustained efficacy, along with a safety profile consistent with that of subcutaneous secukinumab.

Major finding: At week 16, intravenous secukinumab vs placebo significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 (P < .0005) and were sustained through week 52, regardless of whether patients continued intravenous secukinumab (58.0%) or switched from placebo to intravenous secukinumab (64.0%). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: In this phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive intravenous secukinumab or placebo with crossover to intravenous secukinumab at week 16.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. Five authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Kivitz A, Sedova L, Churchill M, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase III INVIGORATE-2 study. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online September 19, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), intravenous secukinumab every 4 weeks demonstrated rapid and sustained efficacy, along with a safety profile consistent with that of subcutaneous secukinumab.

Major finding: At week 16, intravenous secukinumab vs placebo significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 (P < .0005) and were sustained through week 52, regardless of whether patients continued intravenous secukinumab (58.0%) or switched from placebo to intravenous secukinumab (64.0%). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: In this phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive intravenous secukinumab or placebo with crossover to intravenous secukinumab at week 16.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. Five authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Kivitz A, Sedova L, Churchill M, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase III INVIGORATE-2 study. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online September 19, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), intravenous secukinumab every 4 weeks demonstrated rapid and sustained efficacy, along with a safety profile consistent with that of subcutaneous secukinumab.

Major finding: At week 16, intravenous secukinumab vs placebo significantly improved the American College of Rheumatology 50 response rate (31.4% vs 6.3%; adjusted P < .0001). Improvements were observed as early as week 4 (P < .0005) and were sustained through week 52, regardless of whether patients continued intravenous secukinumab (58.0%) or switched from placebo to intravenous secukinumab (64.0%). No new safety signals were reported.

Study details: In this phase 3 INVIGORATE-2 trial, 381 patients with active PsA and either plaque psoriasis or nail psoriasis were randomly assigned to receive intravenous secukinumab or placebo with crossover to intravenous secukinumab at week 16.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Novartis. Five authors declared being employees of and owning stocks in Novartis. Several authors declared having ties with various sources, including Novartis.

Source: Kivitz A, Sedova L, Churchill M, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: Results from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase III INVIGORATE-2 study. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online September 19, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), guselkumab administered every 8 weeks (Q8W) led to consistent patient-level improvements in joint disease activity, which persisted for 2 years.

Major finding: Guselkumab maintained high rates of minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in the clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA; 94%-99%), with improvements of ≥ 5.7 from baseline through week 52 with a dosing of 100 mg guselkumab Q8W. Among those achieving MCII by week 24, maintenance rates were 69.2% for the cDAPSA and 89.0% for the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score at 100 weeks post-achievement.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial included 248 biologic-naive patients with active PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q8W for 100 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Several authors disclosed holding stock or stock options; receiving grants, payment, honoraria, or consulting fees; or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ, Baraliakos X, Chandran V, et al. Persistent patient-level effect of guselkumab at consecutive 8-week dosing visits and over time in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analysis of a 2-year, phase 3, randomized, controlled study. ACR Open Rheumatol. Published online October 4, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), guselkumab administered every 8 weeks (Q8W) led to consistent patient-level improvements in joint disease activity, which persisted for 2 years.

Major finding: Guselkumab maintained high rates of minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in the clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA; 94%-99%), with improvements of ≥ 5.7 from baseline through week 52 with a dosing of 100 mg guselkumab Q8W. Among those achieving MCII by week 24, maintenance rates were 69.2% for the cDAPSA and 89.0% for the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score at 100 weeks post-achievement.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial included 248 biologic-naive patients with active PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q8W for 100 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Several authors disclosed holding stock or stock options; receiving grants, payment, honoraria, or consulting fees; or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ, Baraliakos X, Chandran V, et al. Persistent patient-level effect of guselkumab at consecutive 8-week dosing visits and over time in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analysis of a 2-year, phase 3, randomized, controlled study. ACR Open Rheumatol. Published online October 4, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: In biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), guselkumab administered every 8 weeks (Q8W) led to consistent patient-level improvements in joint disease activity, which persisted for 2 years.

Major finding: Guselkumab maintained high rates of minimal clinically important improvements (MCII) in the clinical Disease Activity Index for PsA (cDAPSA; 94%-99%), with improvements of ≥ 5.7 from baseline through week 52 with a dosing of 100 mg guselkumab Q8W. Among those achieving MCII by week 24, maintenance rates were 69.2% for the cDAPSA and 89.0% for the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score at 100 weeks post-achievement.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 DISCOVER-2 trial included 248 biologic-naive patients with active PsA who received 100 mg guselkumab Q8W for 100 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Several authors disclosed holding stock or stock options; receiving grants, payment, honoraria, or consulting fees; or having other ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Mease PJ, Baraliakos X, Chandran V, et al. Persistent patient-level effect of guselkumab at consecutive 8-week dosing visits and over time in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: Post hoc analysis of a 2-year, phase 3, randomized, controlled study. ACR Open Rheumatol. Published online October 4, 2024. Source

Key clinical point: Secukinumab led to clinical improvements across all psoriatic arthritis (PsA) domains, achieving minimal disease activity and demonstrating a favorable 4-year safety profile in biologic-naive patients, those with previous treatment failure, and those with or without comorbidities.

Major finding: During the 48-month follow-up, secukinumab significantly reduced the proportion of patients with active tender joints, swollen joints, enthesitis, and dactylitis (all P < .01). Overall, 50% of patients achieved remission or low disease activity in PsA, with higher rates of minimal disease activity in biologic-naive vs non-naive patients (76.9% vs 66.2%; P < .01) and in those without comorbidities vs those with over three comorbidities (78.8% vs 48.7%; P < .001). Only 5.9% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

Study details: This 4-year prospective observational study included 685 patients with PsA who received secukinumab; 32.9% were biologic-naive and 74.2% had at least one comorbidity.

Disclosures: This study did not receive financial support from any pharmaceutical company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Chimenti MS, et al. Four-year effectiveness, safety and drug retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis: A real-life Italian multicenter cohort. Arthritis Res Ther. 2024;26:172. Source

Key clinical point: Secukinumab led to clinical improvements across all psoriatic arthritis (PsA) domains, achieving minimal disease activity and demonstrating a favorable 4-year safety profile in biologic-naive patients, those with previous treatment failure, and those with or without comorbidities.

Major finding: During the 48-month follow-up, secukinumab significantly reduced the proportion of patients with active tender joints, swollen joints, enthesitis, and dactylitis (all P < .01). Overall, 50% of patients achieved remission or low disease activity in PsA, with higher rates of minimal disease activity in biologic-naive vs non-naive patients (76.9% vs 66.2%; P < .01) and in those without comorbidities vs those with over three comorbidities (78.8% vs 48.7%; P < .001). Only 5.9% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

Study details: This 4-year prospective observational study included 685 patients with PsA who received secukinumab; 32.9% were biologic-naive and 74.2% had at least one comorbidity.

Disclosures: This study did not receive financial support from any pharmaceutical company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Chimenti MS, et al. Four-year effectiveness, safety and drug retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis: A real-life Italian multicenter cohort. Arthritis Res Ther. 2024;26:172. Source

Key clinical point: Secukinumab led to clinical improvements across all psoriatic arthritis (PsA) domains, achieving minimal disease activity and demonstrating a favorable 4-year safety profile in biologic-naive patients, those with previous treatment failure, and those with or without comorbidities.

Major finding: During the 48-month follow-up, secukinumab significantly reduced the proportion of patients with active tender joints, swollen joints, enthesitis, and dactylitis (all P < .01). Overall, 50% of patients achieved remission or low disease activity in PsA, with higher rates of minimal disease activity in biologic-naive vs non-naive patients (76.9% vs 66.2%; P < .01) and in those without comorbidities vs those with over three comorbidities (78.8% vs 48.7%; P < .001). Only 5.9% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.

Study details: This 4-year prospective observational study included 685 patients with PsA who received secukinumab; 32.9% were biologic-naive and 74.2% had at least one comorbidity.

Disclosures: This study did not receive financial support from any pharmaceutical company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Chimenti MS, et al. Four-year effectiveness, safety and drug retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis: A real-life Italian multicenter cohort. Arthritis Res Ther. 2024;26:172. Source