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

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 DERMATOLOGY
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,&nbsp;Jingya Gao,&nbsp;Furong Li,&nbsp;Luyuan Li,&nbsp;Yue Xiao,&nbsp;Hongxiang Hu,&nbsp;Xiya Peng,&nbsp;Min Yang,&nbsp;Dan Hao,&nbsp;Wei Yan,&nbsp;Dengmei Xia,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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,&nbsp;Jingya Gao,&nbsp;Furong Li,&nbsp;Luyuan Li,&nbsp;Yue Xiao,&nbsp;Hongxiang Hu,&nbsp;Xiya Peng,&nbsp;Min Yang,&nbsp;Dan Hao,&nbsp;Wei Yan,&nbsp;Dengmei Xia,&nbsp;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> &lt; 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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab, Secukinumab, and Upadacitinib in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on PARWCH Cohort

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Dermatology
Journal of Dermatology 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
368
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信