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

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 naive 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

Early administration of tofacitinib in COVID-19 pneumonitis: An open randomised controlled trial

Background: Controversies on sub-populations most sensitive to therapy and the best timing of starting the treatment still surround the use of immunomodulatory drugs in COVID-19. Objectives: We designed a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to test the effect of prompt adding of tofacitinib to standard therapy for hospitalised patients affected by mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonitis. Methods: Patients admitted to three Italian hospitals affected by COVID-19 pneumonitis not requiring mechanical ventilation were randomised to receive standard treatment alone or tofacitinib (10 mg/bid) for 2 weeks, starting within the first 24 h from admission. Results: A total of 116 patients were randomised; 49 in the experimental arm completed the 14-day treatment period, 9 discontinued tofacitinib as the disease worsened and were included in the analysis, and 1 died of respiratory failure. All 58 control patients completed the study. Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar between the study groups. In the tofacitinib group, 9/58 (15.5%) patients progressed to noninvasive ventilation (CPAP) to maintain SO2  > 93%, invasive mechanical ventilation or death by day 14 was 15.5%, significantly less than in the control group (20/58, 34.4%, RR 0,45, RRR -55%, NNT 5; p = .018). No differences in severe adverse effect incidence had been observed across the groups. Conclusion: High-dose tofacitinib therapy in patients with COVID pneumonitis is safe and may prevent deterioration to respiratory failure

The ATTRACT study: screening for the early identification of axial psoriatic arthritis in a cohort of Italian psoriatic patients

Objective: There is growing interest in the early identification of patients with axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA). We aimed to evaluate whether a dermatology-based screening strategy could help to identify axPsA patients. Methods: The dermatologist-centered screening (DCS) questionnaire was administrated by Dermatologists to consecutive patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria (1. age ≥ 18 years and 2. clinical diagnosis of psoriasis made by a dermatologist) to identify patients eligible (affirmative answers 1-3c of the DCS) for rheumatological evaluation. Clinical, laboratory, genetic, and imaging data were collected from all referred patients. Results: Among the 365 patients screened, 265 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and 124/265 (46.8%) were eligible for rheumatological referral. Diagnosis of axPsA, with or without peripheral PsA (pPsA), was made in 36/124 (29.0%) patients; pPsA without axial involvement was found in 21/124 (16.9%) patients. Back pain at screening was recorded in 174 (66%) patients, with 158 (60%) reporting a back pain duration longer than 3 months, and 140 (53%) reporting back pain onset before the age of 45. Active inflammatory and/or structural post-inflammatory changes in the sacroiliac joints and/or spine were observed in all axPsA patients.Patients with PsA showed a numerically longer duration of back pain and higher CRP levels in comparison with patients with Pso without PsA. Conclusion: The DCS tool proved to be a valuable screening strategy for detecting and characterizing patients with axPsA in a real-life cohort of psoriasis patients in a dermatological setting and helped to identify a substantial number of patients affected by undiagnosed pPsA

Additional file 1 of Upadacitinib effectiveness and factors associated with minimal disease activity achievement in patients with psoriatic arthritis: preliminary data of a real-life multicenter study

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