PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Unmet needs in psoriatic arthritis patients receiving immunomodulatory therapy: results from a large multinational real-world study

Clinical Rheumatology, ISSN: 1434-9949, Vol: 38, Issue: 6, Page: 1615-1626
2019
  • 21
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 64
    Captures
  • 1
    Mentions
  • 0
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

Most Recent News

Unmet Needs Evaluated in Patients With PsA Receiving Immunomodulatory Therapy

n patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a lack of efficacy associated with the use of immunomodulatory therapy is common, and was the predominant reason for

Article Description

Objective: There are limited data on therapy selection and switching in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This 18 country, real-world study assessed use and switching of immunomodulatory therapy (biologic/apremilast), the extent of treatment failure and its association with reduced physical functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI). Methods: PsA patients under routine care and their treating physicians provided demographics, current therapy, reasons for switching, duration of first therapy, HRQoL, HAQ-DI, and WPAI. Current immunomodulatory therapy was determined as “failing” if, after ≥ 3 months, physician-rated disease severity had worsened, remained severe, was “unstable/deteriorating,” or they were dissatisfied with disease control and/or did not consider treatment a “success.” Results: Included were 3714 PsA patients; 1455 (40.6%) had never received immunomodulatory therapy; 1796 (50.1%) had ever received 1 immunomodulatory therapy and 331 (9.2%) ≥ 1. Lack of efficacy with first immunomodulatory therapy was the most common reason for switching; patients whose physicians indicated “primary lack of efficacy” as the reason, switched after a mean of 9.4 months. Patients currently failing immunomodulator therapies (n = 246) had poorer HRQoL compared with treatment success (n = 1472) measured by EQ-5D-3L (0.60 vs 0.77%; P < 0.0001); SF-36 PCS (40.8% vs 46.1%; P < 0.0001) MCS (41.1% vs 45.3%; P < 0.0001). Physical functioning, activity, and work productivity were also more impaired (HAQ-DI: 0.88 vs 0.56; activity impairment: 46.7% vs 29.7%; overall work impairment: 35.4% vs 26.1%; all P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Poor treatment response in PsA is associated with substantial negative patient impact. In cases of primary treatment failure, timely switching is needed.

Bibliographic Details

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know