Yiyi Wang, Jingya Gao, Furong Li, Luyuan Li, Yue Xiao, Hongxiang Hu, Xiya Peng, Min Yang, Dan Hao, Wei Yan, Dengmei Xia, Wei Li
{"title":"阿达木单抗、Secukinumab和Upadacitinib治疗银屑病关节炎的比较有效性和安全性:基于PARWCH队列的前瞻性队列研究","authors":"Yiyi Wang, Jingya Gao, Furong Li, Luyuan Li, Yue Xiao, Hongxiang Hu, Xiya Peng, Min Yang, Dan Hao, Wei Yan, Dengmei Xia, Wei Li","doi":"10.1111/1346-8138.17906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease, with prevalence among psoriasis patients ranging from 6% to 42% across populations. Although targeted therapies such as adalimumab (ADA), secukinumab (SEC), and upadacitinib (UPA) have demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials, real-world head-to-head comparisons remain limited. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of ADA, SEC, and UPA in PsA patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from the PARWCH database. PsA patients treated with ADA, SEC, or UPA were included and followed at baseline, Week 4, Week 12, and Week 24. Skin responses were evaluated using PASI75/90. Joint outcomes—including peripheral and axial arthritis—were assessed with ACR, PsARC, and ASAS criteria. Patient-reported pain, disease activity, and HAQ scores were also recorded. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout treatment. MMRM and GLMM were used to analyze continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. A total of 187 PsA patients were included (SEC: 78; ADA: 66; UPA: 43). All three agents demonstrated comparable effectiveness in improving peripheral joint symptoms (ACR20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.62; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.66) and axial involvement (ASAS20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.81; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −1.05, <i>p</i> = 0.23). UPA and SEC showed significantly greater effectiveness than ADA in improving skin lesions (PASI90: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = 1.84, <i>p</i> = 0.006; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = 1.53, <i>p</i> = 0.04). However, ADA was more effective in relieving pain compared to both UPA (Coef = 2.43, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and SEC (Coef = 1.21, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Over 24 weeks, 85 AEs were reported by 48 patients, with fatigue, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus being the most common. No serious AEs occurred. In conclusion, UPA and SEC demonstrated balanced effectiveness across skin and joint domains, while ADA offered superior pain relief. These findings support personalized treatment strategies tailored to the clinical features of PsA patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":54848,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dermatology","volume":"52 10","pages":"1527-1535"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1346-8138.17906","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab, Secukinumab, and Upadacitinib in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on PARWCH Cohort\",\"authors\":\"Yiyi Wang, Jingya Gao, Furong Li, Luyuan Li, Yue Xiao, Hongxiang Hu, Xiya Peng, Min Yang, Dan Hao, Wei Yan, Dengmei Xia, Wei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1346-8138.17906\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease, with prevalence among psoriasis patients ranging from 6% to 42% across populations. Although targeted therapies such as adalimumab (ADA), secukinumab (SEC), and upadacitinib (UPA) have demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials, real-world head-to-head comparisons remain limited. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of ADA, SEC, and UPA in PsA patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from the PARWCH database. PsA patients treated with ADA, SEC, or UPA were included and followed at baseline, Week 4, Week 12, and Week 24. Skin responses were evaluated using PASI75/90. Joint outcomes—including peripheral and axial arthritis—were assessed with ACR, PsARC, and ASAS criteria. Patient-reported pain, disease activity, and HAQ scores were also recorded. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout treatment. MMRM and GLMM were used to analyze continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. A total of 187 PsA patients were included (SEC: 78; ADA: 66; UPA: 43). All three agents demonstrated comparable effectiveness in improving peripheral joint symptoms (ACR20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.62; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, <i>p</i> = 0.66) and axial involvement (ASAS20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.04, <i>p</i> = 0.81; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −1.05, <i>p</i> = 0.23). UPA and SEC showed significantly greater effectiveness than ADA in improving skin lesions (PASI90: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = 1.84, <i>p</i> = 0.006; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = 1.53, <i>p</i> = 0.04). However, ADA was more effective in relieving pain compared to both UPA (Coef = 2.43, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and SEC (Coef = 1.21, <i>p</i> = 0.02). Over 24 weeks, 85 AEs were reported by 48 patients, with fatigue, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus being the most common. No serious AEs occurred. In conclusion, UPA and SEC demonstrated balanced effectiveness across skin and joint domains, while ADA offered superior pain relief. These findings support personalized treatment strategies tailored to the clinical features of PsA patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dermatology\",\"volume\":\"52 10\",\"pages\":\"1527-1535\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1346-8138.17906\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1346-8138.17906\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1346-8138.17906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
银屑病关节炎(PsA)是一种慢性炎症性疾病,银屑病患者的患病率在人群中从6%到42%不等。虽然靶向治疗如阿达木单抗(ADA)、secukinumab (SEC)和upadacitinib (UPA)已经在随机对照试验中证明了疗效,但现实世界的头对头比较仍然有限。本研究旨在比较ADA、SEC和UPA在PsA患者中的实际有效性和安全性。我们使用PARWCH数据库的数据进行了一项前瞻性队列研究。接受ADA、SEC或UPA治疗的PsA患者被纳入研究,并在基线、第4周、第12周和第24周进行随访。采用PASI75/90评价皮肤反应。采用ACR、PsARC和ASAS标准评估关节结局(包括周围和轴向关节炎)。患者报告的疼痛、疾病活动度和HAQ评分也被记录下来。在整个治疗过程中监测不良事件(ae)。MMRM和GLMM分别用于分析连续和二元结果。共纳入187例PsA患者(SEC: 78; ADA: 66; UPA: 43)。这三种药物在改善周围关节症状(ACR20: SEC vs ADA, Coef = -0.29, p = 0.62; UPA vs ADA, Coef = -0.29, p = 0.66)和轴向受累(ASAS20: SEC vs ADA, Coef = -0.04, p = 0.81; UPA vs ADA, Coef = -1.05, p = 0.23)方面均表现出相当的有效性。UPA和SEC在改善皮肤病变方面的有效性显著高于ADA (PASI90: SEC vs ADA, Coef = 1.84, p = 0.006; UPA vs ADA, Coef = 1.53, p = 0.04)。然而,与两种UPA相比,ADA在缓解疼痛方面更有效(Coef = 2.43, p
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab, Secukinumab, and Upadacitinib in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on PARWCH Cohort
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease, with prevalence among psoriasis patients ranging from 6% to 42% across populations. Although targeted therapies such as adalimumab (ADA), secukinumab (SEC), and upadacitinib (UPA) have demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials, real-world head-to-head comparisons remain limited. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of ADA, SEC, and UPA in PsA patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from the PARWCH database. PsA patients treated with ADA, SEC, or UPA were included and followed at baseline, Week 4, Week 12, and Week 24. Skin responses were evaluated using PASI75/90. Joint outcomes—including peripheral and axial arthritis—were assessed with ACR, PsARC, and ASAS criteria. Patient-reported pain, disease activity, and HAQ scores were also recorded. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout treatment. MMRM and GLMM were used to analyze continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. A total of 187 PsA patients were included (SEC: 78; ADA: 66; UPA: 43). All three agents demonstrated comparable effectiveness in improving peripheral joint symptoms (ACR20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, p = 0.62; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −0.29, p = 0.66) and axial involvement (ASAS20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = −0.04, p = 0.81; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = −1.05, p = 0.23). UPA and SEC showed significantly greater effectiveness than ADA in improving skin lesions (PASI90: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = 1.84, p = 0.006; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = 1.53, p = 0.04). However, ADA was more effective in relieving pain compared to both UPA (Coef = 2.43, p < 0.001) and SEC (Coef = 1.21, p = 0.02). Over 24 weeks, 85 AEs were reported by 48 patients, with fatigue, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus being the most common. No serious AEs occurred. In conclusion, UPA and SEC demonstrated balanced effectiveness across skin and joint domains, while ADA offered superior pain relief. These findings support personalized treatment strategies tailored to the clinical features of PsA patients.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Dermatology is the official peer-reviewed publication of the Japanese Dermatological Association and the Asian Dermatological Association. The journal aims to provide a forum for the exchange of information about new and significant research in dermatology and to promote the discipline of dermatology in Japan and throughout the world. Research articles are supplemented by reviews, theoretical articles, special features, commentaries, book reviews and proceedings of workshops and conferences.
Preliminary or short reports and letters to the editor of two printed pages or less will be published as soon as possible. Papers in all fields of dermatology will be considered.