Skip to main content
Download PDF

Upadacitinib effectiveness and factors associated with minimal disease activity achievement in patients with psoriatic arthritis: preliminary data of a real-life multicenter study

Arthritis Research & Therapy volume 25, Article number: 196 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective JAK inhibitor recently approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In this post-approval study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UPA over 24 weeks and identify clinical predictors of response, in a multicentric cohort of patients affected by PsA.

Methods

One hundred and twenty-six patients with PsA treated with UPA were enrolled in 10 Italian centres. UPA effectiveness outcomes, such as the proportion of patients with MDA status, DAPSA remission, and low disease activity, ASDAS-CRP inactive and low disease activity, and change from baseline in DAPSA and ASDAS-CRP scores, were evaluated every 12 weeks until week 24. The proportion of DAPSA minor, moderate, and major improvement, and ASDAS clinically important improvement (CII) and major improvement (MI) were considered as well. All treatment-related adverse events were collected during the observation period. Clinical predictors of MDA response at week 24 were evaluated through multivariate analysis.

Results

At baseline, 124/126 (98%) and 54/126 (43%) patients showed peripheral and axial involvement, respectively; 110 (87%) patients were intolerant or resistant to biologic DMARDs. 

At 24 weeks, MDA status, DAPSA remission, and ASDAS-CRP inactive disease were achieved in 47%, 23%, and 48% of patients, respectively. Minor, moderate, and major DAPSA improvement was observed in 67%, 39%, and 23%, respectively; while 65% and 35% achieved ASDAS-CRP CII and MI, respectively. The mean change from baseline was 15.9 ± 13.5 (p < 0.001) for DAPSA and 1.21 ± 0.97 (p < 0.001) for ASDAS-CRP. Thirteen patients (10%) discontinued UPA due to a lack of efficacy or non-serious adverse events. No serious adverse events were observed. Male gender (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03–6.25 p = 0.043), being naïve to biological DMARDs (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.34–12.71, p = 0.013) and elevated baseline CRP (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.02–6.12, p = 0.046) were associated with MDA response at week 24.

Conclusions

This is one of the first real-life studies supporting the effectiveness of UPA and its safety profile in PsA patients. Furthermore, the study identifies predictors of MDA response to UPA treatment at 6 months.

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory musculoskeletal disease that affects up to 30% of patients with psoriasis [1,2,3,4,5]. PsA encompasses various phenotypes, including skin and nail psoriasis, peripheral synovitis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and axial involvement. Managing PsA requires considering all these phenotypes based on the 2021 GRAPPA (Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis) recommendations [6].

Despite the available therapies, only approximately one-third of patients achieve and maintain minimal disease activity [7]. Thus, there is a significant need for novel therapies effective on as many disease domains as possible, providing personalized treatment for each patient’s phenotypes.

Two oral Janus Kinase (JAK) inhibitors, tofacitinib, and upadacitinib, have been recently approved for use in PsA, with their therapeutic efficacy consistently demonstrated in randomized controlled trials [8,9,10,11].

Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible JAK inhibitor with higher selectivity for JAK1. The SELECT 1–2 trials have reported its efficacy in various PsA domains, along with significant improvements in pain, fatigue, and quality of life. Safety concerns include opportunistic upper respiratory tract infections and Herpes Zoster Virus (HZV) reactivations [8, 9].

Since real-world data regarding UPA treatment in PsA clinical practice are lacking, we conducted a multicenter observational study to assess its effectiveness and safety over 24 weeks in a cohort of patients with both peripheral and axial PsA.

Methods

Study design and objectives

The study coined UPREAL-PsA (UPadacitinib therapy in the REAL-life of patients with PsA) included 10 Italian PsA referral centres and was designed as a prospective cohort study that aims to evaluate clinical responses, adverse events, and laboratory parameters in patients receiving UPA, 15 mg once a day, prescribed according to clinical judgment. The objectives of the study were to (i) describe the characteristics of the patients receiving UPA in daily practice, (ii) evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the treatment over 24 weeks and (iii) identify clinical and demographic predictors of response to UPA.

The data presented here are preliminary, and the study is designed to have at least 1 year of follow-up.

Subjects

From March 2022, consecutive adult PsA patients with peripheral and/or axial involvement were enrolled in the study if they were prescribed UPA and satisfied the following inclusion criteria: 1) active PsA, defined by the absence of Minimal Disease Activity (MDA) criteria; 2a) failure or intolerance towards at least one conventional synthetic (cs-) disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for bio-naïve patients, or 2b) failure of at least one biological (b-) or targeted synthetic (ts-) DMARD (bio-failure). Patients were excluded if: women of childbearing potential not willing to use adequate contraceptive methods or pregnant; recent history of malignant neoplasia; active infections, including chronic hepatitis B or latent tuberculosis; severe kidney or liver failure; uncontrolled cardiovascular disease and/or medical history of major cardiovascular adverse events.

PsA diagnosis was based on the investigators’ judgment and by fulfilment of the ClASsification criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria [12]. Axial involvement of PsA was diagnosed based on investigators’ judgment and by fulfilment of the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) [13]; patients with exclusive spine involvement, defined by active lesions on MRI fulfilling OMERACT criteria [14, 15], were considered to be affected by axial PsA as well.

The study protocol was approved by the CERM (Comitato Etico Regionale delle Marche, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche, Ancona, Italy) and fell under good clinical practice.

Clinical and laboratory features

For all patients, we gathered data on gender, age, body mass index (BMI), time of diagnosis of PsA and disease duration, previous conventional and biologic / targeted synthetic DMARD. A full list of comorbidities was collected at UPA initiation, including: a. cardiovascular diseases, such as hypertension, ischemic cardiomyopathy, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias (any), valvular disease (any), stroke, venous thromboembolism, pericardial disease, and other cardiomyopathies; b. metabolic diseases, such as obesity, diabetes type I and II, dyslipidaemia, and osteoporosis; c. depression and/or anxiety disorders; d. neoplastic diseases, including solid cancer, haematological cancer, and non-melanoma skin cancer; e. other comorbidities not listed above (see Additional Table 2).

Clinical data were obtained at baseline, week 12, and week 24 in all patients, including tender joint count 68 and swollen joint count 66 (TJC68/SJC66), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS pain), Patient and Physician Global Assessment (PtGA and PGA).

Patients with confirmed axial involvement of PsA were also clinically assessed using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score With C-Reactive Protein (ASDAS-CRP).

Laboratory data, including complete blood count, liver and kidney function test, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP), were collected at the same time points. Any adverse events, either assessed by the physician or reported by the patient, were recorded and classified using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.

Outcomes

The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved MDA [16] and Very Low Disease Activity (VLDA) [17] status at week 24. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of serious adverse events (SAE) during the observation period.

The secondary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved a clinically relevant response in DAPSA and ASDAS-CRP scores. Regarding DAPSA: minor, moderate, and major responses were defined as a 50%, 75%, and 85% change from baseline, respectively [18]. Regarding ASDAS-CRP: clinically important improvement (CII) and major improvement (MI) was defined as a decrease of at least 1.1 and 2.0 points from baseline, respectively [19]. Furthermore, the proportions of patients achieving DAPSA remission and low disease activity, as well as ASDAS-CRP inactive disease or low disease activity, were evaluated as well [18, 19].

Data analysis

Study data were collected and managed using the REDCap electronic data capture tool hosted at “Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche” (www.project-redcap.org). REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a web-based software platform designed to support data capture for research studies [20, 21].

For descriptive analyses, categorical variables were reported as absolute number and frequency, continuous variables as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range according to their distribution. The normality of distribution was assessed by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

The effectiveness of UPA was assessed by the proportion of patients achieving MDA at week 12 and week 24, and by the proportion of patients achieving a clinically relevant response in DAPSA and ASDAS composites scores, as defined in the “Outcomes” section. The differences between DAPSA and ASDAS scores at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 were also evaluated, using the Student t-test for paired samples.

The safety of UPA was assessed by the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events, particularly SAE, during the observation period.

The correlations between variables were analyzed using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient. A multivariate regression analysis with stepwise selection was performed to identify predictors of MDA at week 24. The results of the regression analysis were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval.

All statistical analyses were performed using the STATA software, version 14.0. The GraphPad Prism software, version 9.5.1, was used to generate the Figures. A p-value ​​less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Baseline characteristics

A total of 126 patients were enrolled, including 86 (68%) women. Mean age was 57 ± 11 years, mean BMI 26.7 ± 5.1 kg/m2, and median duration (InterQuartile Range, IQR) of the disease was 92 (45–177) months.

Most patients (124/126, 98%) had peripheral joint involvement, with 39 (31%) and 85 (68%) oligoarticular and polyarticular patterns, respectively. Axial involvement was found in 54 (43%) patients: however, only two patients showed isolated axial involvement whereas the others were also affected by peripheral joint disease.

Baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1, and in Additional Fig. 1—Additional Tables 1a-b, and 2.

Table 1 Characteristics of the UPREAL-PsA study patients at baseline
Full size table

Most patients (109/126, 87%) were bio-failure with 19 (17%) having failed one line, 27 (25%) two lines, and 63 (58%) three or more lines of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs. The most common previous biological DMARD failed was adalimumab (70%), followed by etanercept (53%) and secukinumab (53%), as illustrated in Additional Table 3.

Among the whole cohort, 34 patients (27%) were taking a csDMARD at baseline (25 methotrexate, 7 sulfasalazine, 2 leflunomide) and continued the same dose throughout the observation period.

At baseline, all patients showed a high disease activity with mean DAPSA of 27.7 ± 10.0. Patients with axial PsA showed mean ASDAS-CRP of 2.65 ± 0.69. Skin psoriasis was active in 52/126 (41%) patients at baseline, generally with low PASI scores (mean 1.34 ± 4.17) (Tables 1 and 2 – Additional Table 1a-b).

Table 2 Clinical parameters, clinimetric test, and clinical response to the therapy in UPREAL-PsA study patients
Full size table

Comparison of patient subgroups showed that cardiovascular disease was significantly associated with axial involvement while metabolic disease was associated with polyarticular involvement; patients with axial involvement had longer disease duration than peripheral involvement (Additional Table 1a-b).

Furthermore, patients with polyarticular involvement, metabolic comorbidities, higher body-mass index, and elevated CRP showed significantly higher disease activity scores at baseline, as assessed by DAPSA (Additional Table 1a-b).

Follow up

The study is ongoing and, at the time of the analysis, 97/126 (77%) and 66/126 (52%) patients have reached the week 12 and week 24 assessments, respectively. Currently, no patients have been lost to follow-up.

During the study, 7 (6%) patients discontinued UPA due to secondary ineffectiveness: 3 at week 12 and 4 at week 24. Additionally, 6 (5%) patients discontinued UPA due to adverse events (see below).

Effectiveness of UPA at 12 and 24 weeks

The MDA and VLDA status were achieved respectively in 29/97 (31%) and 9/97 (10%) patients at week 12, and respectively in 31/66 (47%) and 9/66 (14%) patients at week 24 (Table 2 and Fig. 1B-3).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Clinical responses to the therapy in the UPREAL-PsA study. A from left to right: change from baseline in the DAPSA (Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis), ASDAS-CRP (Ankylosis Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein), LEI (Leeds Enthesitis Index), and PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) numerical values in response to the therapy with upadacitinib. B from left to right: 1) Proportion (%) of the patients achieving DAPSA minor, moderate, and major response and DAPSA LDA (Low Disease Activity) and remission status; 2) Proportion of patients achieving ASDAS CII (Clinical Important Improvement) and MI (Major Improvement), and ASDAS LDA and inactive disease status; 3) Proportion of patients achieving MDA or VLDA (Minimal or Very Low Disease Activity, respectively) in response to the therapy with upadacitinib. The results are shown at baseline, week 12 (w12), and week 24 (w24). Statistical analysis was conducted using the “Stata” software. Statistical significance: p < 0.05*; p < 0.01**; p < 0.001***

Full size image

At both timepoints, change from baseline was significant for DAPSA (13.6 ± 11.5 and 15.9 ± 13.5, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons) and for ASDAS-CRP (0.94 ± 0.73 and 1.22 ± 0.97, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons), as illustrated in Table 2, and Fig. 1A.

DAPSA minor, moderate and major response were achieved respectively in 44/66 (67%), 26/66 (39%), and 15/66 (23%) patients at week 24. DAPSA low disease activity and remission status were achieved respectively in 35/66 (53%) and 15/66 (23%) at week 24 (Table 2, Fig. 1B-1).

ASDAS clinically important improvement and major improvement were achieved respectively in 15/23 (65%) and 8/23 (35%) patients with axial involvement at week 24. ASDAS low disease activity and inactive disease status were achieved respectively in 9/23 (39%) and 11/23 (48%) at week 24 (Table 2, Fig. 1B-2).

In parallel with the composite clinical scores, all clinical indices (i.e., TJC, SJC, LEI, PASI, PtGA, PGA, VAS pain), functional status (assessed by HAQ) and CRP showed a significant amelioration at week 24 (Table 2, and Fig. 1A).

Subgroup analysis

When analysing patients’ subgroups in terms of DAPSA response, the normal CRP group experienced a rapid clinical improvement starting from week 12, and this improvement was maintained at week 24 (DAPSA 13.6 ± 7.8 and 13.0 ± 11.6, respectively: p = n.s.;). The high CRP group, which showed significantly higher DAPSA at baseline, also experienced a clinical improvement at week 12. However, unlike the normal CRP group, they continued to show a further significant improvement from week 12 to week 24 (DAPSA 14.5 ± 11.1 and 10.3 ± 9.7, respectively: p < 0.0001;), reaching numerically lower scores to the normal CRP group (Fig. 2, Additional Table 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

DAPSA subgroups responses to Upadacitinib in the UPREAL-PsA study. DAPSA (Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis) in the UPREAL-PsA (Upadacitinib therapy in the real-life in patients with psoriatic arthritis) study at week 12 (w12) and 24 (w24) in different patients’ subgroups: Bio-Naïve and Bio-Failure: naïve to or treated with biological drugs; AxPsA and PerPsA: axial (prevalent) or peripheral inflammation; Poli and Oligo: polyarticular or oligoarticular involvement; PsO: Psoriasis; Norm-CRP vs High-CRP: C-Reactive Protein normal or upper the normal limit (0.05 mg/dl); High- vs normal-BMI: body mass index > 30 o < 30, respectively; CVD: cardiovascular diseases; MTB: metabolic diseases. Statistical analisys was performed between DAPSA at week 12 and baseline and between DAPSA at week 24 and week 12. Statistical analysis was conducted by “Stata” software (Paired Student’s t test). Statistical significance: n.s.: not significant; p: < 0.05*, < 0.01**, < 0.001***, < 0.0001****

Full size image

Similar results also emerged for the oligoarticolar and bio-naïve groups, compared to the polyarticular and bio-failure groups, with the latter showing significant further clinical improvement from weeks 12 to 24.

When considering patients with cardiovascular or metabolic comorbidities, these groups showed clinical improvement at week 12, which was maintained at week 24. On the other hand, patients without comorbidities continued to clinically improve from week 12 to week 24 (Fig. 2, Additional Table 4).

Regarding gender subgroups, both female and male patients showed significant clinical improvement at week 12 and continue to experience further significant improvement from week 12 to week 24 (Fig. 2, Additional Tables 4 and 5). Furthermore, all the subgroups of axial PsA patients showed a significant reduction from baseline in the ASDAS score, except for the Bio-Naïve group, where the differences were not statistically significant due to the small sample size (Additional Table 5).

Finally, we observed that patients who have failed two or more lines of previous biologic DMARDs have similar differences from baseline in DAPSA score at both timepoints (13.7 ± 12.7 and 16.3 ± 14.1, respectively, p < 0.001 for both comparisons), compared with the whole cohort. However, in this subgroup of patients, the MDA and VLDA response were achieved in a numerically lesser proportion of patients compared to the whole cohort (22.8% vs 30.9% and 5.7% vs 9.6% at week 12; 34.1% vs 47.0% and 11.4% vs 13.6% at week 24, respectively; p not significant for all the comparisons); statistical analysis was not significant due to the small size of the sample.

To identify predictors of MDA response, we conducted a multivariate logistic regression analysis, which showed that male gender (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03–6.25 p = 0.043), bio-naïve status (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.34–12.71, p = 0.013) and high baseline CRP (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.02–6.12, p = 0.046) were associated with achieving MDA at week 24 (Table 3).

Table 3 Multivariate logistic regression analysis
Full size table

Safety of UPA at 12 and 24 weeks

The overall period of observation accounted for 52.5 patient years. During this period, no life-threatening serious adverse event was observed. In total, there were 21 adverse events observed in 17 patients (14%), with the most common being gastrointestinal (2 diarrhea, 1 nausea, 1 dyspepsia) and infections (2 HSV reactivations, 2 urinary tract infections, 2 COVID-19, 1 sinusitis).

Minor laboratory abnormalities included liver enzymes elevation in 2 patients, thrombocytopenia in 2 patients, neutropenia in 1 patient, and creatine kinase elevation in 2 patients.

UPA therapy was stopped for adverse events in 6 (5%) patients, 2 for moderate thrombocytopenia, 2 for creatine phosphokinase elevation, 1 for severe hypertension, 1 for diarrhea, nausea, and dyspepsia with mild hypotension (Additional Table 6); in none of these cases, patients required hospital admission.

Discussion

PsA is a chronic immune-mediated musculoskeletal disease that is considered a systemic disease for its heterogenic clinical presentation and for being tightly correlated to several comorbid diseases like cardiovascular, metabolic, infective, psychological, and neoplastic ones [22,23,24,25]. As such, growing evidence shows that disease activity and therapeutic response vary considerably among patients with peripheral and/or axial involvement and with the number and/or type of extra-articular domains involved [25,26,27,28,29,30].

Two JAK inhibitors have been recently licensed for use in PsA, following the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that demonstrated their efficacy in several disease domains [8,9,10,11, 31,32,33,34,35]. However, the discrepancy between RCTs and real-world evidence can be significant, in some cases, given the use of new medications in patients that would not be eligible for phase III studies.

Herein, we reported preliminary results from an ongoing multicenter prospective cohort study that aims to illustrate the real-life efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) therapy in patients with PsA (UPREAL-PsA study) and determine factors influencing clinical outcomes at 6 months.

Our data show that UPA is effective already at 12 weeks and maintains activity at 24 weeks, both in the composite and in the single domains scores (peripheral, enthesis, and skin ones), in agreement with the results of RTCs.

Notably, UPA demonstrated consistent efficacy in patients with axial involvement up to the 24-week follow-up. In this regard, it should be underlined that there is growing interest in the assessment of axial symptoms in PsA patients, and an interesting debate is ongoing on whether axial-PsA should be considered only axial-SpA with psoriasis or a separate clinical entity [36,37,38]. Therefore, we believe that an important added value of our cohort is that patients were defined as having axial PsA when both the CASPAR criteria and the ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA were met [12, 13], and this allowed us to evaluate the benefits of UPA in this unique PsA phenotype.

In comparison to the UPA 15 mg arm of the SELECT 1 RCT [8], our study shows a higher proportion of female patients (68.3% vs. 55.5%), a slightly higher mean age (56.5 ± 11.4 vs. 51.6 ± 12.2), and a longer duration of disease (10.0 ± 8.3 vs. 6.2 ± 7.4 years). Furthermore, our study included a significant proportion of patients who were bio-experienced, which were excluded from the SELECT 1 trial. Lastly, the proportion of patients achieving MDA is comparable between the two studies.

Very recently, another real-life study on the effectiveness of UPA in PsA patients from Germany and Canada was published [39]. The results of this study are similar to those of our own conducted in Italy, and the data from these different populations mutually support each other.

Our study also showed results comparable to a real-life study on the effectiveness of Tofacitinib in PsA [40]. The reduction in DAPSA score at 24 weeks aligns with our study, showing similar outcomes. A notable difference is that none of our patients received steroid therapy during the study.

Of note, patients having a worse global health state at baseline (such as elevated BMI with metabolic comorbidities; debilitating long-lasting PsA such as those with more involved skin and/or higher number of inflamed joints) were also more likely to present higher PsA disease activity at baseline. Interestingly, UPA was effective in reducing clinical activity, as assessed by DAPSA and ASDAS-CRP, in all the patient subgroups, but the results of the multivariate analysis suggested that bio-naïve patients and those with higher CRP at baseline were more likely to achieve the dichotomous MDA response at week 24.

Finally, the regression analysis also showed that males were more likely to achieve MDA at week 24 compared to females. These data corroborate similar recent findings supporting the need for a gender-specific evaluation and therapeutic strategy adjustment in PsA patients [41,42,43,44]. In this regard, it should be emphasized that subjective parameters (i.e., PtGA, VAS pain, TJC, HAQ) tend to be worse than the objective ones (i.e. PhGA, SJC, LEI, PASI, CRP), suggesting that the inadequate response of some subgroups of patients could be related, at least in part, to a negative perception of their global health status and central pain processing mechanisms, i.e. nociplasticity [45].

In this study, the safety profile of UPA was reassuring, based on the limited number of adverse events of any type, the absence of serious adverse events (including thromboembolic or major cardiovascular events), and the low number of patients lost at the 24-week follow-up.

In our opinion, this study has several strengths. First, this is one of the first real-life studies conducted in a large cohort of heterogeneous PsA patients and provides a comprehensive assessment of PsA patients initiating UPA in real-life. Second, we identified clinical and demographic parameters associated with a better response to UPA therapy in a real-life cohort of PsA patients.

We are also aware of the limitations of our study. First, the study is observational, and it has been conducted only in tertiary referral centers in a single country (Italy), thus it may not fully represent the entire spectrum of the disease.Second, due to the ongoing nature of the study and the preliminary nature of the data, the short-term observation period may lead to an underestimation of the incidence of adverse events or patient dropouts. Additionally, it does not allow for the assessment of survival. Third, the proportion of bio-naïve patients with early-stage disease is relatively small: most patients have previously failed at least one b-DMARD, and half of them have failed more than three biological lines, which can affect drug responsiveness. In this context, it is important to note that regulatory restrictions in our country limit the use of JAK inhibitors in bio-naïve patients, and these limitations may introduce a slight bias in the composition of our real-life study cohort. Fourth, we acknowledge that certain confounding factors, such as the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or the dose of methotrexate, were not specifically recorded and therefore not accounted for in our analysis.

Conclusions

The 24-week results from the UPREAL-PsA study confirm the remarkable efficacy and good safety profile of upadacitinib therapy in real-life PsA, with the higher efficacy of UPA demonstrated in males, bio-naïve patients, and those with elevated baseline CRP.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

PsA:

Psoriatic arthritis

UPA:

Upadacitinib

JAK:

Janus Kinase

GRAPPA:

Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis

UPREAL-PsA:

(UPadacitinib therapy in the REAL-life of patients with PsA) study

CASPAR:

ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis criteria

ASAS:

Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society

DMARDs:

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

TJC:

Tender joint count

SJC:

Swollen joint count

LEI:

Leeds Enthesitis Index

PASI:

Psoriasis Area Severity Index

DAPSA:

Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis

ASDAS-CRP:

Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score With C-Reactive Protein

HAQ:

Health Assessment Questionnaire

VAS-pain:

Visual Analogue Scale for pain

PtGA:

Patient Global Assessment

PhGA:

Physician Global Assessment

MDA:

Minimal Disease Activity

VLDA:

Very Low Disease Activity

ESR:

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate

CRP:

C-reactive protein

References

  1. Gelfand JM, Gladman DD, Mease PJ, Smith N, Margolis DJ, Nijsten T, et al. Epidemiology of psoriatic arthritis in the population of the United States. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;53:e573.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson FC, Crowson CS, McEvoy MT, Gabriel SE, Kremers M. Incidence and clinical predictors of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis: a population-based study. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61:233–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson FC, Icen M, Crowson CS, McEvoy MT, Gabriel SE, Kremers HM. Time trends in epidemiology and characteristics of psoriatic arthritis over 3 decades: a population-based study. J Rheumatol. 2009;36:361–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Eder L, Haddad A, Rosen CF, Lee KA, Chandran V, Cook R, et al. The incidence and risk factors for psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis: a prospective cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68:915–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zabotti A, De Lucia O, Sakellariou G, Batticciotto A, Cincinelli G, Giovannini I, et al. Predictors, Risk Factors, and Incidence Rates of Psoriatic Arthritis Development in Psoriasis Patients: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:1519–34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Coates LC, Soriano ER, Corp N, Bertheussen H, Callis Duffin K, Campanholo CB, et al. Group for research and assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18:465–79.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Hagège B, Tan E, Gayraud M, Fautrel B, Gossec L, Mitrovic S. Remission and low disease activity in psoriatic arthritis publications: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Rheumatology. 2020;59:1818–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McInnes IB, Kato K, Magrey M, Merola JF, Kishimoto M, Pacheco-Tena C, et al. Upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to non-biological therapy: 56-week data from the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 1 study. RMD Open. 2021;7:e001838.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mease PJ, Lertratanakul A, Papp KA, van den Bosch FE, Tsuji S, Dokoupilova E, et al. Upadacitinib in patients with psoriatic arthritis and inadequate response to biologics: 56-week data from the randomized controlled phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study. Rheumatol Ther. 2021;8:903–19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Strand V, de Vlam K, Covarrubias-Cobos JA, Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Chen L, et al. Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL beyond. RMD Open. 2019;5:e000808.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Strand V, de Vlam K, Covarrubias-Cobos JA, Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Graham D, et al. Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden—a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic diseasemodifying antirheumatic drugs. RMD Open. 2019;5:e000806.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, Marchesoni A, Mease P, Mielants H. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2665–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rudwaleit M, Van Der Heijde D, Landewé R, Listing J, Akkoc N, Brandt J, et al. The development of assessment of spondyloarthritis international society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:777–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sieper J, Rudwaleit M, Baraliakos X, Brandt J, Braun J, Burgos-Vargas R, et al. The Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) handbook: a guide to assess spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(Suppl):2.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baraliakos X, Østergaard M, Lambert RGW, Eshed I, Machado PM, Pedersen SJ, et al. MRI lesions of the spine in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: an update of lesion definitions and validation by the ASAS MRI working group. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:1243–51.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coates LC, Fransen J, Helliwell PS. Defining minimal disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a proposed objective target for treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:48–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Coates LC, Helliwell PS. Defining low disease activity states in psoriatic arthritis using novel composite disease instruments. J Rheumatol. 2016;43:371–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schoels MM, Aletaha D, Alasti F, Smolen JS. Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75:811–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Machado P, Landewé R, Lie E, Kvien TK, Braun J, Baker D, et al. Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:47–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42:377–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta S, Syrimi Z, Hughes DM, Zhao SS. Comorbidities in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Int. 2021;41:275.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao SS, Miller N, Harrison N, Duffield SJ, Dey M, Goodson NJ. A systematic review of mental health comorbidities in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2020;39:217–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Vaengebjerg S, Skov L, Egeberg A, Loft ND. Prevalence, incidence, and risk of cancer in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156:421–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Gladman DD, Antoni C, Mease P, Clegg DO, Nash O. Psoriatic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:14–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Gossec L, Baraliakos X, Kerschbaumer A, De Wit M, McInnes I, Dougados M, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:700–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sritheran D, Leung YY. Making the next steps in psoriatic arthritis management: current status and future directions. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2015;7:173.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Queiro R, Seoane-Mato D, Laiz A, GalindezAgirregoikoa E, Montilla C, Park HS, et al. Severe disease in patients with recent-onset psoriatic arthritis. Prediction model based on machine learning. Front Med. 2022;9:1192.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ogdie A, Hur P, Liu M, Rebello S, McLean RR, Dube B, et al. Effect of multidomain disease presentations on patients with psoriatic arthritis in the Corrona psoriatic arthritis/spondyloarthritis registry. J Rheumatol. 2021;48:698–706.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bagel J, Schwartzman S. Enthesitis and dactylitis in psoriatic disease: a guide for dermatologists. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:839.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Costa L, Del Puente A, Peluso R, Tasso M, Caso P, Chimenti MS, et al. Small molecule therapy for managing moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18:1557–67.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chiricozzi A, Faleri S, Saraceno R, Bianchi L, Buonomo O, Chimenti S, et al. Tofacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2015;11:443–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fleischmann R, Mysler E, Bessette L, Peterfy CG, Durez P, Tanaka Y, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of upadacitinib or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results through 3 years from the SELECT-COMPARE study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002012.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Danese S, Vermeire S, Zhou W, Pangan AL, Siffledeen J, Greenbloom S, et al. Upadacitinib as induction and maintenance therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: results from three phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomized trials. Lancet. 2022;399:2113–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Guttman-Yassky E, Teixeira HD, Simpson EL, Papp KA, Pangan AL, Blauvelt A, et al. Once-daily upadacitinib versus placebo in adolescents and adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2): results from two replicate double-blind, randomized controlled phase 3 trials. Lancet. 2021;397:2151–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Giovannini I, Zabotti A, Cicciò C, Salgarello M, Cereser L, De Vita S, et al. Axial Psoriatic Disease: Clinical and Imaging Assessment of an Underdiagnosed Condition. J Clin Med. 2021;10:2845.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Poddubnyy D, Jadon DR, Van den Bosch F, Mease PJ, Gladman DD. Axial involvement in psoriatic arthritis: an update for rheumatologists. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2021;51:880.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Michelena X, López-Medina C, Erra A, Juanola X, Font-Ugalde P, Collantes E, et al. Original research: Characterising the axial phenotype of psoriatic arthritis: a study comparing axial psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis from the RESPONSE registry. RMD Open. 2022;8:2513.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Werner SG, Baraliakos X, Reckert S, Bohl-Bühler M, Laliberté MC, Girard T, et al. Treatment with Upadacitinib in Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Efficacy and Safety Data of the First 192 Patients from the UPJOINT Study, a Multicentre, Observational Study in Clinical Practice. Rheumatol Ther. 2023;s40744-023:00589–3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Galíndez-Agirregoikoa E, Prieto-Peña D, Martín-Varillas JL, Joven B, Rusinovich O, Melero-González RB, et al. Treatment With Tofacitinib in Refractory Psoriatic Arthritis: A National Multicenter Study of the First 87 Patients in Clinical Practice. J Rheumatol. 2021;48(10):1552–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Højgaard P, Ballegaard C, Cordtz R, Zobbe K, Clausen M, Glintborg B, et al. Gender differences in biologic treatment outcomes—a study of 1750 patients with psoriatic arthritis using Danish Health Care Registers. Rheumatology. 2018;57:1651–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Orbai AM, Perin J, Gorlier C, Coates LC, Kiltz U, Leung YY, et al. Determinants of patient-reported psoriatic arthritis impact of disease: an analysis of the association with sex in 458 patients from fourteen countries. Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72:1772–9.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Passia E, Vis M, Coates LC, Soni A, Tchetverikov I, Gerards AH, et al. Sex-specific differences and how to handle them in early psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lubrano E, Scriffignano S, Fatica M, Triggianese P, Conigliaro P, Perrotta FM et al. Psoriatic arthritis in males and females: differences and similarities. Rheumatol Ther. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-023-00535-3. published on 16 Feb 2023.

  45. Sunzini F, Schrepf A, Clauw DJ, Basu N. The Biology of Pain - Through the Rheumatology Lens. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.42429. was published on 4 January 2023.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all the patients who were included in the study.

Funding

No specific funding was received from public, commercial, or not-for-profit bodies to carry out the work described in this article.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michele Maria Luchetti Gentiloni, Valentino Paci, Antonio Carletto and Alen Zabotti are first co-authors.

  2. Carlo Selmi and Gianluca Moroncini share equal contribution in senior authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CLINICA MEDICA, Department of Molecular and Biological Sciences, Marche Polytechnic University, and Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Michele Maria Luchetti Gentiloni, Valentino Paci, Devis Benfaremo & Gianluca Moroncini

  2. Internal Medicine Residency Program, Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy

    Valentino Paci

  3. Department of Medicine, Rheumatology Operative Unit, AOUI Verona, Verona, Italy

    Antonio Carletto & Anna Piccinelli

  4. Department of Medicine, Rheumatology Institute, University of Udine, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale, Udine, Italy

    Alen Zabotti & Ivan Giovannini

  5. Department of Medicine-DIMED, Rheumatology Unit, University of Padova, Padua, Italy

    Roberta Ramonda & Giovanni Striani

  6. Rheumatology, Allergology and Clinical Immunology, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy

    Maria Sole Chimenti

  7. Unit of Immunology, Allergy and Rare Diseases (UnIRAR), IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Lorenzo Dagna & Nicola Boffini

  8. Division of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy

    Nicoletta Luciano

  9. Department of Maternal, Infantile and Adult Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

    Gilda Sandri & Carlo Salvarani

  10. Rheumatology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS Di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy

    Niccolò Possemato & Carlo Salvarani

  11. Department of Precision Medicine, Rheumatology Unit, University Della Campania L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy

    Ilenia Pantano & Francesco Ciccia

  12. Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, and Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy

    Carlo Selmi

Authors
  1. Michele Maria Luchetti Gentiloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valentino Paci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Carletto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alen Zabotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberta Ramonda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Sole Chimenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lorenzo Dagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nicoletta Luciano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anna Piccinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ivan Giovannini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Giovanni Striani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Nicola Boffini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Gilda Sandri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Niccolò Possemato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ilenia Pantano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Devis Benfaremo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Carlo Salvarani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Francesco Ciccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Carlo Selmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Gianluca Moroncini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MMLG, VP, AC, and AZ designed the study, examined and collected the patients’ clinical data, analyzed, and interpreted the patient data, and gave a substantial contribution to the writing of the manuscript. RR, MSC, LD, NL, AP, IG, GS, NB, GS, NP, IP, DB, CS, and FC examined, collected, and analyzed the patients’ clinical data. CS and GM analyzed, interpreted the patient data, and gave a substantial contribution to the writing of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Maria Luchetti Gentiloni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study is observational, and the patients were treated following current medical practice. The study was performed according to the Helsinki Declaration, patients provided written informed consent for data collection and analysis. The study was performed following the approval of the ethical committee of the Marche Polytechnic University and the Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria delle Marche”, Ancona, Italy (n. 3067).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Additional Table 1a.

Characteristics of the UPREAL-PsA study patients subgroups at baseline. Additional Table 1b. Characteristics of the UPREAL-PsA study patients subgroups at baseline. Additional Table 2. List of the comorbidities considered as Other in patients of the UPREAL-PsA study. Additional Table 3. List of the previous bDMARDs used in bio-failure patients. Additional Table 4. DAPSA responses in patients’ subgroups of the UPREAL-PsA study. Additional Table 5. ASDAS-CRP responses in patients’ subgroups of the UPREAL-PsA study. Additional Table 6. List of all the adverse events observed in patients of the UPREAL-PsA study.

Additional file 2: Additional Figure 1.

Characteristics of the UPREAL-PsA patients at baseline. Graphical representation of the most representative clinical features of the patient’s cohort of the UPREAL-PsA (Upadacitinib therapy in the REAL life of patients with psoriatic arthritis) study. Bio-naïve: patients treated>3 months with conventional synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (csDMARDs); Bio-Failure: patients refractory to at least one biologic DMARDs; PsO: Psoriasis; Norm- or High-CRP: C- Reactive Protein normal or upper the normal limit (0.05 mg/dl); High-BMI and normal BMI: patients with body mass index>30 o <30, respectively; CVD: cardiovascular comorbidities and MTB: Metabolic Diseases: see the full list in Table 1.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luchetti Gentiloni, M.M., Paci, V., Carletto, A. et al. Upadacitinib effectiveness and factors associated with minimal disease activity achievement in patients with psoriatic arthritis: preliminary data of a real-life multicenter study. Arthritis Res Ther 25, 196 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-023-03182-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-023-03182-9

Keywords

Arthritis Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1478-6362

Contact us