nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 13.01.2024 | REVIEW ARTICLE

The Saudi consensus recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis (2023)

verfasst von: Ibrahim Abdulrazag Al-Homood, Nayef Al Ghanim, Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad Fatani, Albader Hamza Hussein, Abdulaziz Mohammed Alolaiwi, Abdullah Abualiat, Eman Alqurtas, Bedor Abdullah Abdulrahman Alomari, Amr Mohammad Khardaly, Khalidah Ahmed Owdetallah Alenzi, Rayan G. Albarakati, Hajer Yousef Almudaiheem, Ahmed Al-Jedai, Maysa Tariq Yousef Eshmawi

Erschienen in: Clinical Rheumatology | Ausgabe 3/2024

Abstract

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex inflammatory disease characterized by musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations. It is a distinct disease entity at the interface between rheumatology and dermatology, making it challenging to manage. The diverse clinical presentation and severity of PsA require a multidisciplinary approach for optimal care. Early diagnosis and management are necessary to improving quality of life for patients. In Saudi Arabia, there is currently no unified national consensus on the best practices for managing PsA. This lack of consensus leads to debate and uncertainty in the treatment of the disease, resulting in over or under prescribing of biological agents. To address this issue, a multidisciplinary work group was formed by the Saudi Ministry of Health. This group, consisting of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and pharmacists, aimed to develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for he use and monitoring of biological therapy in PsA management. The work group conducted five consensus workshops between December 2021 to March 2022. Using the nominal group technique, they discussed various aspects of PsA management, including eligibility criteria for biological treatment, monitoring of disease activity, treatment goals, screening, precautions, and management of PsA with biologic therapies. The group also considered special considerations for patients with comorbidities, pregnant and lactating women, as well as pediatric and adolescent populations. The resulting consensus document provides recommendations that are applicable to the Saudi setting, taking into account international guidelines and the specific needs of PsA patients in the country. The consensus document will be regularly updated to incorporate new data and therapeutic agents as they become available.

Key Points

• In Saudi Arabia, there is a lack of unified national consensus on the optimal management of PsA, therefore, this article aims to provide up-to-date evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal use and monitoring of biologic therapy in the management of PsA in Saudi Arabia.

• The consensus development process was undertaken by a multidisciplinary work group of 13 experts, including two dermatologists, six rheumatologists, and five pharmacists.

• There is more than one disease activity tool used in PsA disease, depending on the disease domain – peripheral arthritis Disease Activity Index in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) or Minimal Disease Activity (MDA), axial PsA Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), and dactylitis and enthesitis MDA.

• The main goal of therapy in all patients with PsA is to achieve the target of remission, or alternatively, low disease activity in all disease domains and improve quality of life (QoL).

Publisher's Note

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

Introduction

Background and definition

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex inflammatory disease characterized by both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations, representing a distinct disease entity at the intersection of rheumatology and dermatology [1].

PsA is distinguished from other types of inflammatory arthritis by the fact that it is often preceded by psoriasis, observed in approximately 80% of cases [2]. The global annual incidence of PsA is 83 per 100,000 with no discernible gender predominance, and a prevalence of 133 per 100,000, reflecting consistent geographic variability [3].

Despite its importance, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, including Saudi Arabia, lack adequate epidemiological data, reflecting a gap in understanding the specific characteristics of this population [4]. Within the region, managing PsA presents significant challenges due to the absence of local registries, reliable diagnostic methods, and effective reporting [4]. This has led to the misconception that PsA is relatively rare in MENA, although the actual burden remains unknown [4]. Existing insights are sporadic, arising from isolated studies [5‐7].

The manifestations of PsA extend beyond peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, spondylitis, psoriatic skin, nail disease, and uveitis, encompassing the gastrointestinal system, often associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [8‐10]. A recent study by Alunizi et. al., provided valuable insights into PsA presentation and therapeutic interventions specific to the Saudi population [7]. The study reported percentages of 92.3%, 28.2%, 15%, and 12.5% for peripheral arthritis, axial involvement, enthesitis, and dactylitis, respectively [7]. PsA patients also suffer from sleep disturbance, decreased work capacity, and social isolation [11]. These myriads of symptoms collectively impact the quality of life (QoL), inducing fatigue in 22% of patients [12]. The clinical diversity of PsA demands a multidisciplinary approach for effective management [13, 14].

The pivotal 2006 International Classification of Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) study introduced standardized classification criteria for PsA [15]. Since then, additional guidelines have been developed to facilitate the management of PsA [16‐18].

Due to the impairment of the QoL, early diagnosis and management of PsA are necessary for optimal care and good disease prognosis [19]. The management becomes more challenging in the MENA region due to the limited knowledge and awareness of this disease entity [4]. Consequently, the development of a specific guideline tailored to the Saudi Arabian population becomes imperative for addressing these challenges and enhancing PsA care in the region.

Purpose, aim, and scope

In Saudi Arabia, there is a lack of unified national consensus on the optimal management of PsA. As a result, there is often a debate among healthcare providers about how to make clinical decisions when managing the disease, which can result in either over-prescribing or under-prescribing biological agents. Al Rayes, et al.’s recently published consensus-based recommendations addressed the aspects of diagnosis, referral and clinical management of patients with PSA [20]. Therefore, this paper aims to deliver evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal use and monitoring of biological therapy in managing PsA. Due consideration was given to the specific characteristics of the patient population in Saudi Arabia. These recommendations are intended to aid physicians in managing their patients and should therefore be viewed as informative rather than prescriptive.

Target population, audience/end-users

The target population for the present consensus document are people in Saudi Arabia with PsA. This consensus statement is for rheumatologists, dermatologists, and other healthcare providers involved in managing people with PsA in the secondary care setting.

Materials & methods

A multidisciplinary work group consisting of two dermatologists, six rheumatologists, and five pharmacists were convened by the Saudi Ministry of Health (MOH) based on their expertise in managing PsA. Throughout the process of developing the consensus recommendations, one method expert was invited and consulted. Over a period of four months (December 2021 – March 2022), five in-person consensus workshops were conducted to accomplish three main objectives: 1) discuss the need for national consensus recommendations for PsA management, 2) review existing international guidelines, and 3) create recommendations suitable for the Saudi context.

Before the first workshop, a literature search was conducted using PubMed to identify relevant articles on PsA guidelines. Based on their reputation and relevance, three international guidelines were chosen as the starting point for developing the current recommendations: The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA), the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and the British Society of Rheumatology (BSR) guidelines [16, 21‐26]. To ensure the recommendations were based on the latest evidence, the reference lists of these guidelines were evaluated and additional articles on emerging evidence were sought.

The workgroup assigned tasks to its members to develop evidence-based recommendations on various PsA management topics, taking into considering both the evidence and its applicability to real-world practice. During the workshops, a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to reach agreements on the recommendations [27]. The NGT was chosen as the consensus methodology as it is a well-established and formal process that ensures a fair, inclusive, and rigorous consensus development process [27]. It allows for the integration of diverse perspectives and expertise, which was important given the multidisciplinary nature of the work group [27]. A recommendation was considered agreed upon if at least 75% of the members voted in favor. The strength of the recommendations was not indicated. A draft document containing all the consensus recommendations was compiled and shared with the expert workgroup and MOH experts for a 30-day feedback period. During the final workshop, the received comments were discussed, and further agreements were reached.

Results

Eligibility criteria for biological treatment

The following criteria are accepted as appropriate for initiating therapy with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) [16, 28‐39]:

Peripheral arthritis: patients who have failed, developed side effects, or have contraindications to conventional DMARDs.

Axial PsA: patients who have failed, developed side effects, or have contraindications to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) treatment.

Enthesitis and dactylitis: patients who have failed, developed side effects, or have contraindications to NSAIDs treatment.

Monitoring for disease activity and assessment tools

Patients with PsA should be monitored regularly to assess the degree of disease activity and the need for therapy adjustment [16]. It is recommended to monitor patients with active disease more often, ranging from monthly to every three months. However, the data is lacking regarding the best interval for monitoring [23].

It has been suggested to use a treat-to-target (T2T) approach for patients treated for PsA, in which treatment is adjusted at frequent periods if the treatment goal, defined as inactive disease or minimal disease activity (MDA), was not met [16].

The best tool to monitor disease activity is not established. However, monitoring patients with PsA should focus on patient-reported measures and cover all domains of the disease; peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, and dactylitis by comprehensive history and physical examination. Moreover, assessment should be supplemented with appropriate laboratory tests and imaging studies [22, 23]. Validated and quantified measurements should be considered when considering the use of assessment tools. Multiple validated assessment tools are available for patients with PsA [40]. Examples of available measurements are Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA); minimal disease activity criteria (MDA); Disease Activity Score (DAS and DAS 28); the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI); the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI); Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI); and the Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS) [23, 40].

In peripheral arthritis, we recommend using either DAPSA or MDA as tools for disease activity monitoring in patients since both support T2T management in PsA [40].

DAPSA score is calculated by the sum of the following:

swollen joint count of 66 joints,
tender joint count of 68 joints,
patient’s global assessment on a 10 cm visual analogue score (VAS) (in cm): (0 for not active, up to 10 for very active)
patient’s pain score on a 10 cm VAS (in cm): (0 for none up to 10 for very severe), and
CRP (mg/dL).

On the other hand, a patient is classified as achieving MDA when meeting 5 of the 7 criteria shown in Table 1. Moreover, patients can be further classified as achieving very low disease activity (VLDA) when they meet all the criteria [40]. The interpretation of DAPSA scores and MDA criteria for PsA are shown in Table 1 [40].

Table 1

Interpretation of Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis scores and Minimal Disease Activity criteria for psoriatic arthritis

DAPSA		MDA
Score	Interpretation	Criteria	Score
≤ 4	Remission	Tender joint count	≤ 1
> 4 and ≤ 14	Low disease activity	Swollen joint count	≤ 1
> 14 and ≤ 28	Moderate disease activity	PASI or BSA	≤ 1 or ≤ 3
> 28	High disease activity	Patient pain VAS	≤ 15
		Patient global activity VAS	≤ 20
		HAQ	≤ 0.5
		Tender entheseal points	≤ 1

DAPSA, Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis; MDA, minimal disease activity criteria; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; BSA, Body Surface Area; VAS, Visual Analogue Score; HAQ, Health assessment questionnaire

In patients with axial disease, disease activity assessment with measures used for axial spondylarthritis is recommended [23, 41]. Examples of commonly used measures in axial spondylarthritis are the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) [41‐43]. For the purposes of these consensus recommendations, the ASDAS tool is utilized as it combines acute phase reactants and patient- reported outcomes. The ASDAS disease activity score is classified as shown in Fig. 1 [44].

The recently updated T2T recommendations propose at least 50% improvement of the composite measure within 3 months and target achievement within 6 months from therapy initiation. Therefore, it is recommended to use a continuous measure of disease activity to follow patients longitudinally and reflect their perceptions [16].

Treatment goals

The main goal of therapy in all patients with PsA is to achieve the target of remission, or alternatively, low disease activity in all disease domains and improve QoL [16, 22, 23].

Any of the following criteria should be achieved for the treatment goal of PsA:

Peripheral arthritis: at least 50% improvement of the DAPSA score within 3 months and reaching the target within 6 months from therapy initiation by either achieving complete remission (DAPSA ≤ 4) or low disease activity (DAPSA > 4 and ≤ 14) [45].

Axial PsA: a change of 1.1 or more in the ASDAS score within 3 months and reaching the target within 6 months from therapy initiation by either achieving complete remission (ASDAS < 1.3) or low disease activity (ASDAS < 2.1) [42, 46].

Enthesitis and dactylitis: meeting at least 5 of the 7 MDA criteria within 6 months from therapy initiation [45].

Screening, precautions, and monitoring of biologics

Baseline assessment should include complete blood count (CBC), liver enzymes test (alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST)), creatinine, serum albumin, hepatitis B and C serology, tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) as appropriate, and a chest X-ray (Table 2) [47‐56]. Hepatitis B serology includes HBsAg, HBcAb, and HBsAb [50]. HIV screening is recommended for high-risk group patients [53]. Patients initiated on JAKi should have a baseline lipid profile including total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) [52].

Table 2

Baseline screening before initiation of bDMARDs and JAKi therapy

Parameter	Baseline	Follow-up^a
CBC with differential	✓	3 to 6 months
Creatinine	✓	3 to 6 months
Liver Enzymes (ALT, AST)	✓	3 to 6 months
Lipid profile^b	✓	3 to 6 months
HBV/HCV HIV^c	✓ ✓	-
TST or IGRA^d	✓	-
Chest X-ray	✓	-

^aOr if clinically indicated; ^bLipid profile is only recommended as a screening and follow-up test for patients on JAK inhibitor; ^cHIV screen is recommended as a baseline test for a high-risk group of patients; ^dIn immunocompromised patients, both TST and IGRA tests are recommended; CBC, complete blood count; ALT, alanine transaminase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase, HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; TST, tuberculin skin test; IGRA, interferon-gamma release assay

Screening for Tuberculosis (TB)

The use of bDMARDs and JAKi therapy is associated with a higher likelihood of developing active TB and experiencing reactivation of latent TB, making it imperative to conduct screening for both active and latent TB before starting the treatment [53, 54]. The risk is higher with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) treatment than with other bDMARDs [53]. The screening for TB should include a chest X-ray and either TST or IGRA. Immunocompromised patients have lower sensitivity and specificity for TST, and to a lesser extent, IGRA test [55, 56]. Therefore, it is recommended to do both TST and IGRA tests in immunocompromised patients [57]. A patient with a positive TST or IGRA test should be diagnosed with latent TB and treated accordingly [57].

bDMARDs and JAKi therapies for the treatment of severe PsA

Table 3 lists all bDMARDs and JAKi therapies that are currently registered and approved by the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) for the treatment of severe PsA. It provides a summary of the dosing scheme (loading and maintenance), evaluation of the efficacy, and half-life [34, 38, 58‐71].

Table 3

bDMARDs and JAKi therapies available in Saudi Arabia for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis, dosing scheme, efficacy, and half-life

Pharmacologic Category	Agent Name	Authority approval	Dosing in adults		Efficacy							Half life
Pharmacologic Category	Agent Name	Authority approval	Loading	Maintenance	ACR50	PASI 75	MDA	Resolution of enthesitis	Resolution of dactylitis	vdHS	HAQ-DI^e	Half life
TNFi	Adalimumab^a [63]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	40 mg SQ every other week		32.6%^e	42.8%^e	38.7%^e	38%^e	77.8%^e	0.30^e	-0.40	14 days
	Certolizumab pegol [64]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	400 mg SQ at week 0, 2and 4	200 mg SQ every 2 weeks or 400 mg every 4 weeks	44%^c	62%^c	33.3%^e	64%^e	NA	0.41^c	0.41	14 days
	Etanercept [65]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	50 mg SQ once weekly		25mg: 38.7%^e	25mg: 21.4%^e	NA	53%^e	NA	25mg:0.13^e	NA	3.5 days
	Infliximab^b [66]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	5 mg/kg IV for 2 h at 0, 2, and 6 weeks	5 mg/kg IV for 2 h every 8 weeks	39.8%^d	60%^d	58^e	53%^c	12^e	-0.83^c	-0.51	10 – 15 days
IL-17i	Secukinumab [67]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	150 mg SQ at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4	150mg or 300 mg SQ every 4 weeks as needed	150mg: 35%^e 300mg: 39%^e	150mg:51.7%^e 300mg:59.1%^e	150mg: 28%^e 300mg:33%^e	150mg:54.6%^e 300mg: 61%^e	150mg:63.7%^e 300mg: 63.4%	150 mg: 0.10^e 300 mg: 0.27^e	150 mg: -0.48 300 mg: -0.56	27 days
IL-17i	Ixekizumab [68]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	160 mg SQ once at weeks 0	80 mg SQ every 4 weeks	40%^e	61.3%^e	29.9%^e	42.6%^e	79.5%^e	0.37^e	-0.44	13 days
IL-12/23i	Ustekinumab [69]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	100 kg or less:45 mg SQ at 0 and 4 weeks Greater than 100 kg: 90 mg SQ at 0 and 4 weeks	100 kg or less:45 mg SQ every 12 weeks Greater than 100 kg: 90 mg SQ every 12	45mg:20.2%^e 90mg: 23.8%^e	45mg: 52.6%^e 90mg: 57.3%^e	NA	36.2%^e	42.9^e	NA	45mg: -0.21 90mg: -0.22	21 days
IL23i	Guselkumab [70]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: No	100 mg SQ at weeks 0 and 4	100 mg SQ every 8 weeks	33%^e	76.8%^e	25%^e	54%^e	59.4%^e	0.26^e	-0.40	18 days
IL23i	Risankizumab [34]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	150 mg at weeks 0, 4	150 mg every 12 weeks	33.4%^e	88.8%^c	25%^e	48.4^e	68.1%^e	NA	-0.31	28 days
JAKi	Tofacitinib	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	5 mg orally twice daily (IR tablet) or 11mg once daily (ER tablet)		25%^c	32.2%^c	26%^d	33.3%^e	34.4%^e	NA	-0.56	ER: 6 – 8 h. IR: 3 h
JAKi	Upadacitinib	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	15 mg once daily		52.4%^e	62.6%^d	37%^e	53.7%^e	76.5%^e	-0.04^e	-0.47	8 – 14 h
PDE4i	Apremilast [71]	SFDA: Yes FDA: Yes EMA: Yes	Day 1: 10 mg orally in AM Day 2: 10 mg twice daily Day 3: 10 mg in AM, 20 mg in PM Day 4: 20 mg twice daily Day 5: 20 mg in AM, 30 mg in PM	30 mg orally twice daily^f	13.7%^d	21.2%^d	NA	NA	NA	NA	-0.26	6 – 9 h

^aAvailable biosimilars in Saudi Arabia: Amjevita (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Amgen), Idacio (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Fersenius Kabi), Hyrimoz (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Sandoz), Abrilada (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Pfizer); ^bAvailable biosimilars in Saudi Arabia: as Ixifi (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Pfizer), Remsima (SFDA registered, manufacturer: Jazeera Pharmaceutical Industries); ^cat week 12; ^dat week 16; ^eat week 24;^fShould not be crushed or chewed

Treatment algorithm

Figure 2 represents the treatment algorithm proposed for the management of the following domains of PsA: peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, and axial PsA.

Peripheral arthritis

The treatment choice in patients with peripheral arthritis should be based on poor prognostic factors [28]. In the absence of poor prognostic factors, patients can be treated with NSAIDs [29]. If disease activity persists after four weeks of NSAIDs treatment, DMARDs should be initiated with methotrexate (MTX) being the preferred choice [30]. However, leflunomide can also be used [30]. Patients with one or more poor prognostic factors should start with MTX as the first line of treatment [30]. Poor prognostic factors include polyarthritis, joint damage, high sedimentation rate or CRP, and clinically relevant extra-articular features [72].

In patients with inadequate response or intolerance to NSAIDs and MTX, treatment with bDMARDs and JAKi is recommended [16]. Inadequate response to treatment is defined as a lack of symptom improvement within three months (50% or greater reduction in the DAPSA), or failure to achieve treatment target after six months (low disease activity or complete remission). Patients with inadequate treatment response to conventional DMARDs should be started on interleukin 17 inhibitors (IL-17i) [31, 32]. This recommendation is supported by research indicating that IL-17i optimize more disease domains, provide better skin responses, and demonstrate effective musculoskeletal efficacy in patients with skin psoriasis [73]. IL-17i also have better persistence and fewer safety concerns compared to TNFi [73]. Patients with inadequate response to treatment with IL-17i should be switched to JAKi, as the SELECT-PSA trial has shown that JAKi are superior to TNFi [36, 37]. Patients with inadequate response to IL-17i and JAKi can be started on IL-23i or TNFi [33‐35]. The recommendation to prioritize IL-23i after inadequate response to IL-17i and JAKi is based on limited clinical practice experience in Saudi Arabia at present.

Phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor is recommended for patients with mild peripheral arthritis who have failed conventional DMARDs and have a contraindication or intolerance to bDMARDs or JAKi [39]. Mild peripheral arthritis is defined as oligoarthritis or low disease activity by composite scores (DAPSA > 4–14).

Dactylitis and enthesitis

In patients with enthesitis and dactylitis, it is recommended to begin treatment with NSAIDs [16, 38]. IL-17i are recommended for patients with persistent enthesitis/dactylitis symptoms or intolerance to NSAIDs [31, 32]. Patients with inadequate response to IL-17i should be switched to IL-23i [33, 34, 74]. Patients with inadequate response to IL-23i can be switched to JAKi and TNFi, due to the shorter retention rate of TNFi [35‐37].

Axial PsA

In patients with axial disease, we recommend using NSAID as the first line of treatment [16]. For patients with an inadequate response (ASDAS ≥ 2.1) within 4–12 weeks of treatment or have side effects or contraindications to NSAIDs treatment, IL-17i should be started [31, 32]. This is because IL-17i has shown efficacy in treating axial PsA in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), whereas there is current no RCT data available for TNFi in axial PsA [75]. If patient symptoms do not improve after three months of treatment (decrease of ≥ 1.1 points on ASDAS) or do not achieve the treatment target at six months (ASDAS < 2.1), we recommend switching to a TNFi. JAKi or IL-23i can be used if the patient fails TNFi treatment [33, 34, 36, 37].

Recommendations for the treatment of PsA with biological therapies

Adjusting/maintenance biological therapy

In patients with a well-controlled disease, there is insufficient consensus on whether their bDMARDs dose should be maintained, tapered, or discontinued altogether. There are limited data suggesting a particular risk of relapse with treatment tapering [76‐81]. Therefore, physicians should explain the risk of relapse to the patient before tapering their medications. Tapering the treatment is considered appropriate for patients with the following criteria [16]: complete remission of peripheral arthritis (DAPSA ≤ 4), complete remission of axial PsA (ASDAS < 1.3), absence of extra-articular features, at least six consecutive months of complete remission, and normal acute phase reactants.

The total dose can be initially reduced by 20–50% by either decreasing the dose or increasing the dosing interval [81, 82]. Following tapering, the patient should be evaluated after eight weeks. If the patient remains in remission, follow-up visits may be scheduled every 12–16 weeks. Patients can contact the clinic coordinator for an early appointment if they feel their disease activity increases. Disease activity should be assessed every visit through clinical examination and inflammatory markers. Imaging studies can be utilized for further evaluation [83]. When remission is lost, the bDMARDs should be restored to the previous dose. Corticosteroids or NSAIDs can be used for symptomatic relief during this period.

Combination

There is little evidence that combining MTX with bDMARDs improves the efficacy of bDMARDs in PsA patients. However, some data suggest that combining MTX with TNFi is beneficial in terms of treatment maintenance and level of response, especially in patients using monoclonal antibodies [84, 85].

Biologic therapy discontinuation

Discontinuation of bDMARDs is not recommended as it is almost always associated with disease relapse [16, 78‐81]. There are certain factors that can predict if loss of remission after discontinuing treatment, such as high disease activity, smoking, male gender, skin involvement, and synovial hypertrophy [81]. However, patient preference for stopping the medication should be acknowledged. If a patient is undergoing tapering, bDMARD discontinuation may be considered if they are at a minimal dose, have achieved the therapeutic goal for 6–12 months after the last dosage decrease, and there is no evidence of significant radiographic progression or active disease on ultrasound [82].

The minimal tapered dose is defined as 25% of the medication dose shown in the summary of product characteristics (SPC) [82]. Once the bDMARD is discontinued, the patient should be monitored closely by the physician.

Management of inadequate response

Switching therapy among patients who have failed a biological agent should preferably be to another agent with a different mechanism of action. Evidence has shown that the mean TNFi survival rate is reduced significantly after shifting to another TNFi agent (first TNFi 2.2 years, second TNFi 1.3 years and third TNFi 1.1 years) [86]. Moreover, an abstract published in EULAR 2021 indicates that if patients failed secukinumab and then shifted to ixekizumab (both agents are IL-17i), 65% will fail after a median time of eight months [87]. There were no head-to-head trials evaluating the best agents to be used in such patients’ population. This offers flexibility for the clinician to choose from the agents. Comorbidities, extra-articular manifestations, and active disease domains should be taken into consideration during the switching process, while some biological agents could be contraindicated or less/non-effective as compared with others. Moreover, a patient-centered approach could assist in selecting the agent, such as the preference of oral route or frequency of injections.

Use of bDMARDs and JAKi in special patient populations

With the increased introduction of biologics in PsA management, reaching disease remission is becoming a possible and desirable goal. Despite their efficacy in PsA, biologics carry some risks that clinicians should be aware of, especially in patients with special situations or comorbidities [47, 88].

Table 4 presents recommendations for treatment choices for people with the following comorbidities: infection, TB, HBV, HCV, HIV, malignancy, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, uveitis, demyelinating disease, connective tissue diseases, obesity, patients undergoing surgery, and IBD. It also covers the choice of therapy in pediatrics and adolescents, and pregnant and lactating women [16, 21, 23, 47, 53, 72, 76, 88‐143].

Table 4

Use of bDMARDs and JAKi in special patient populations

Patient Population / Comorbidity	Recommendations
Infection	In the presence of serious active infections (defined as the need of intravenous antibiotics or hospitalization excluding TB, biologics should be avoided [47, 88] Biologics should be used with caution in patients at risk for severe infection after discussing the risks and benefits with the patients [47, 88] IL-23i can be considered as a treatment option in patients at high risk of infection [89, 90] IL-17i may be considered, however, it is associated with increased risk of infection, particularly mucocutaneous Candida infection [72] Apremilast can also be considered a therapeutic option in patients at high risk of infection [76, 91‐95]
Latent or reactivated TB	Patients with LTBI should be treated with anti-TB treatment at least 1 month before initiating biologic therapy and are to be monitored every 3 months during the treatment course [47, 88, 96‐98] The risk of LTBI reactivation is present with all TNFi but may be greater with monoclonal antibodies (infliximab and adalimumab) than etanercept. Hence, etanercept is the preferred option in patients who require TNFi therapy and are at high risk for TB reactivation [47, 53, 88, 98‐103] IL-17i, IL-23i may be used for patients with LTBI after 1 month treatment with anti-TB [47, 88, 98] Apremilast can also be considered as a therapeutic option in patients with LTBI [76, 104, 105] Referral to a TB expert is indicated in case of LTBI [47, 88]
Active TB	Patients should be started on anti TB treatment for at least three months with evidence of clinical improvement and negative cultures before starting biologics [47, 88] Patients who develop TB while on biologics should start full treatment course for TB and the decision to continue biologics, if indicated, should be discussed with a TB expert after evaluating risks & benefits [47, 88]
HBV and HCV	Biologics may be used safely in HBV positive after risk-benefit discussion made with a hepatologist and if appropriate antiviral treatment is given [47, 88, 106‐113] The use of TNFi in patients with HBV infection is not recommended due to risk of infection reactivation in comparison to other biologics (IL-12/23i, IL-17i, and IL-23i) [114] IL-17i, IL-23i, and JAKi appear to have a favorable safety profile with HBV, but the available data are limited [115, 116] Studies to date continue to show that biologics do not seem to have a detrimental effect on HCV infection (especially TNFi). However, a risk-benefit decision should be discussed with a hepatologist [117‐120] TNFi and IL-12/23i appear to be well tolerated in patients with HCV infection. However, IL-17i and IL-23i should be used with caution in patients with HCV due to the lack of available data [116] Apremilast can be considered as a treatment option for HBV and HCV [116]
HIV	Decisions regarding start of biologics in HIV positive patients should be discussed with an HIV specialist [47, 88] The benefit of TNFi might outweigh the risks in such patients if appropriate anti-retroviral treatment was initiated and HIV is well controlled (CD4 + count > 200 cells/mm3 and viral load undetectable) [47, 88] Data are limited on use of non-TNFi biologics in patients with HIV infection [21, 47, 88]
Malignancy	In patients with concurrent malignancy, all biologic therapy should be avoided [47, 88] In patients with a history of malignancy, it is recommended to discuss the decision to initiate immunosuppressive therapies, biologics, JAKi, and apremilast with the treating oncologist. The time of starting biologics post malignancy depends on multiple factors (type and stage of malignancy, risk of metastasis and patient’s characteristics) [47, 88] Although data shows that a considerable percentage of malignancy survivors initiated biologic therapy within 3 to 5 years post malignancy, risk and benefit should be discussed with the treating oncologist [121]
Cardiovascular diseases	Biologics can be used in patients with history of myocardial infarction or other cardiovascular events [47, 88]. The use of TNFi, IL-17i and IL-12/23i does not seem to increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes [47, 88] TNFi, IL-17i, and IL12/23i are associated with improved cardiovascular risk in patients with PsA and therefore, they are suggested to be used in patients with concomitant ischemic heart disease [122] TNFi should be avoided in people with severe (NYHA class III and IV) cardiac failure [72, 122, 123] After ruling out other potential causes, discontinuation of TNFi is considered in patients with worsening heart failure with the cardiologist decision [47, 88]. JAKi may increase risk of cardiovascular disease in high-risk population and should be avoided in this population [124]
Respiratory diseases	Biologics should be used with caution in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) with poor respiratory reserve with a close follow up with the pulmonologist [47, 88]. In patients with ILD who receive biologics, regular pulmonology follow up is advisable and lung function test should be considered regularly if clinically indicated [47, 88]. While on biologics, if patients develop worsening ILD or new ILD, biologic discontinuation should be considered in agreement with the pulmonologist [47, 88].
Uveitis	Monoclonal TNFi can be considered for the treatment of uveitis Etanercept is not advisable in patients with uveitis and should be switched to monoclonal TNFi if uveitis is developed while on treatment [47, 88].
Demyelinating disease	Use of TNFi is contraindicated in patients with demyelinating diseases including Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Other non-TNFi biologics should be considered [47, 88]. In patients with a first degree relative with MS or other demyelinating disease, it is suggested to not use TNFi if other suitable treatment options are available [104, 123] Once demyelination develops while on TNFi, they should be discontinued and rechallenging with other TNFi is not recommended [16, 23] IL-17i can be considered in patients with demyelinating disease [125]. Data are limited for the IL-23i and JAKi, but there are no reports of MS worsening with these agents Patients with a history of concomitant MS might benefit from IL-12/23i therapy [72]
Connective tissue disease	TNFi therapy should be discontinued if a lupus-like syndrome or other significant connective tissue diseases develops, and other non- TNFi biological agent should be considered [47, 88] There are not enough data regarding the use of IL-17i, IL-23i, and JAKi in this patient population [47, 88] IL-12/23i could be considered as a treatment option in patients with SLE [126]
Obesity	Obesity can reduce TNFi efficacy, but a higher BMI has not been associated with a poor treatment response with IL-17i, IL12/23i, IL23i, or JAKi [127] Obese patients are less likely to respond to TNFi in comparison to lower weight patients. However, this effect is eliminated with Infliximab since it is dosed based on weight [72, 123]
Surgery	For high-risk procedures, biologic therapy should be withheld 3–5 half-lives before surgeries [47, 88] Biologics may be restarted after surgery if there is no evidence of infection and once healing is satisfactory [47, 88]
IBD	Patients with a history of concomitant IBD might benefit from monoclonal TNFi and IL-12/23i since they are effective in IBD. Moreover, IL-23i, and JAKi are suggested to be used in patients with PsA and IBD [72, 122] IL-17i are not used in patients with active IBD [89, 128] Decisions regarding optimal therapeutic agent should be discussed with a gastroenterologist [122]
Pregnancy and lactation	Rheumatologists are expected to be familiar with drug safety during pregnancy and lactation to ensure that the disease is well controlled and to minimize the risks to both the mother and the infant. However, since the data regarding this field are derived from case reports, small series, and observational studies only, this area is still challenging to the treating clinicians The decision to initiate biologic therapy and treatment option should be determined on an individual basis based on risk management plans. TNFi could be considered as a treatment option in pregnancy [143] Certolizumab pegol has shown no/minimal placental transfer. It is compatible with all three trimesters of pregnancy [129, 130]
Paediatrics/adolescents	Juvenile psoriatic arthritis (JPsA) can have a diverse clinical presentation, with peripheral arthritis, dactylitis, enthesitis, as well as axial spondylitis. Disease activity is mainly measured clinically, as laboratory and radiographic tests might not be a timely indicator of disease progression [131, 132]. Disease pattern in younger age groups and females, usually has an oligoarticular pattern with or without dactylitis, while in older youth and males, enthesitis related disease and axial involvement is more common [133]. Uveitis has been more commonly reported with JPsA in comparison to psoriasis skin limited disease, which warrants regular screening [134, 135] Treatment recommendations for this group are pooled from JIA guidelines, although the subcategory of JPsA might require a more aggressive treatment [136]. Evidence for treatment choice is also gathered from adult clinical trials, while treatment choice is based on disease involvement similar to adults DMARDs are preferred over NSAIDs which can only be used temporarily, as they are not known to halt disease progression and achieve remission [137] MTX is recommended over leflunomide, specifically for arthritis, yet it has not shown good response for dactylitis. Similar to other JIA subtypes, Intra-articular corticosteroids injection can be considered for mono-arthritis and dactylitis [131, 138] Biological DMARDs are recommended in case of continued disease activity, where choice of biological therapy depends on disease involvement. TNFi are recommended for PsA, sacroiliitis, and dactylitis [139, 140] Secukinumab is indicated for the treatment of active PsA in patients 2 years of age and older. Tofacitinib^a is used for the treatment of active JIA and JPsA in patients two years of age and older IL-23i and other JAKi are not yet approved for the use in pediatrics population but can be a promising option in peripheral and axial PsA [141]
Vaccination	Timing of DMARD therapy with live vaccines should be taken in consideration [142]

^athe safety and efficacy of Tofacitinib extended release (11mg) formulation in children aged 0 to less than 18 years have not been established. TB, tuberculosis; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; MS, multiple sclerosis

Conclusion

In conclusion, these evidence-based consensus recommendations offer valuable guidance for the management of PsA in Saudi Arabia. They are rooted in the most up-to-date evidence and global consensus statements. The recommendations emphasize the importance of involving patients in shared decision-making and adopting a patient-centered approach to care. They also highlight the rational use of medications and advocate for a step-care approach in treatment, along with more frequent monitoring of active disease. Additionally, it is important for the treating physician to review the properties of SFDA-approved biologic agents, such as their efficacy, half-life, dosing scheme, and patient preference, before selecting a treatment option treatment selection. As more research develops, these recommendations may be subject to amendment and adjustment.

Acknowledgements

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

This article is based on previously published papers and on the results from consensus workshops and does not contain any new clinical studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Medical writing, editorial, and other assistance

Medical writing and editorial assistance in the preparation of this article was provided by Sahar Shami, Lina Fakih, and Lynn Hajjar of Itkan Consulting Group. Support for this assistance was funded by Ministry of Health, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Competing interests

All authors declare no competing or financial interests regarding the publications of these recommendations.

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/.

Publisher's Note

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

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

Savage L, Tinazzi I, Zabotti A, Laws PM, Wittmann M, McGonagle D (2020) Defining pre-clinical psoriatic arthritis in an integrated dermato-rheumatology environment. J Clin Med 9(10):3262. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9103262CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brockbank J, Gladman D (2002) Diagnosis and management of psoriatic arthritis. Drugs 62(17):2447–2457PubMedCrossRef

Scotti L et al (2018) Prevalence and incidence of psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 48(1):28–34PubMedCrossRef

Bedaiwi M et al (2019) Disease burden and treatment challenges of psoriatic arthritis in Africa and the Middle East. Rheumatol Int 39(8):1321–1329PubMedCrossRef

Alrubaiaan MT, Alsulaiman SA, Alqahtani A, Altasan AN, Almehrij FO, Alrashid A, Mohamed OL (2023) Prevalence and clinical predictors of psoriatic arthritis in saudi patients with psoriasis: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Cureus 15(10):e46632. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.46632

Elnady B et al (2019) Subclinical synovitis and enthesitis in psoriasis patients and controls by ultrasonography in Saudi Arabia; incidence of psoriatic arthritis during two years. Clin Rheumatol 38(6):1627–1635PubMedCrossRef

Alunizi SR, AlShanqeeti A, Alenzi KA, Al-Homood IA (2022) Psoriatic arthritis: Saudi retrospective observational study of manifestations and treatments. Ann Rheumatol Autoimmun 2(2):53–57. https://doi.org/10.4103/ara.ara_14_22CrossRef

Cassell SE et al (2007) The modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index: validation of an instrument to assess psoriatic nail involvement in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 34(1):123–129PubMed

Abbouda A et al (2017) Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis-related uveitis: different ophthalmological manifestations and ocular inflammation features. Semin Ophthalmol 32(6):715–720PubMedCrossRef

10.

FitzGerald O et al (2021) Psoriatic arthritis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 7(1):59PubMedCrossRef

11.

Orbai AM et al (2017) International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 76(4):673–680PubMedCrossRef

12.

Eder L et al (2016) The incidence and risk factors for psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis: a prospective cohort study. Arthritis Rheumatol 68(4):915–923PubMedCrossRef

13.

Ritchlin CT et al (2009) Treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 68(9):1387–1394PubMedCrossRef

14.

Abdulghani M et al (2011) Management of psoriasis in Africa and the Middle East: a review of current opinion, practice and opportunities for improvement. J Int Med Res 39(5):1573–1588PubMedCrossRef

15.

Taylor W et al (2006) Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum 54(8):2665–2673PubMedCrossRef

16.

Gossec L et al (2020) EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis 79(6):700–712PubMedCrossRef

17.

Coates LC, Fransen J, Helliwell PS (2010) Defining minimal disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: a proposed objective target for treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 69(1):48–53PubMedCrossRef

18.

Rohekar S et al (2015) 2014 Update of the Canadian Rheumatology Association/spondyloarthritis research consortium of Canada treatment recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis. Part I: principles of the management of spondyloarthritis in Canada. J Rheumatol 42(4):654–64PubMedCrossRef

19.

Freites Nuñez D et al (2021) Factors associated with health-related quality of life in psoriatic arthritis patients: A longitudinal analysis. Rheumatol Ther 8(3):1341–1354PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

20.

Al Rayes H et al (2022) Consensus-based recommendations on the diagnosis, referral and clinical management of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Int 42(3):391–401PubMedCrossRef

21.

Coates LC et al (2016) Group for research and assessment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis 2015 treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 68(5):1060–1071PubMedCrossRef

22.

Kavanaugh A et al (2020) GRAPPA treatment recommendations: updates and methods. J Rheumatol Suppl 96:41–45PubMedCrossRef

23.

Gossec L et al (2016) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Ann Rheum Dis 75(3):499–510PubMedCrossRef

24.

Coates LC et al (2013) The 2012 BSR and BHPR guideline for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biologics. Rheumatology 52(10):1754–1757 (Oxford)PubMedCrossRef

25.

Flint J et al (2016) BSR and BHPR guideline on prescribing drugs in pregnancy and breastfeeding-Part I: standard and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and corticosteroids. Rheumatology 55(9):1693–1697 (Oxford)PubMedCrossRef

26.

Flint J et al (2016) BSR and BHPR guideline on prescribing drugs in pregnancy and breastfeeding—Part I: standard and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and corticosteroids. Rheumatology 55(9):1693–1697PubMedCrossRef

27.

Horton JN (1980) Nominal group technique. A method of decision-making by committee. Anaesthesia 35(8):811–4PubMedCrossRef

28.

Ogdie A, Coates LC, Gladman DD (2020) Treatment guidelines in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 59(Suppl 1):i37–i46 (Oxford)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

29.

Sarzi-Puttini P et al (2001) The role of NSAIDs in psoriatic arthritis: evidence from a controlled study with nimesulide. Clin Exp Rheumatol 19(1 Suppl 22):S17-20PubMed

30.

Kingsley GH et al (2012) A randomized placebo-controlled trial of methotrexate in psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 51(8):1368–1377 (Oxford)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

31.

McInnes IB et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriatic arthritis: a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II proof-of-concept trial. Ann Rheum Dis 73(2):349–356PubMedCrossRef

32.

Mease PJ et al (2017) Ixekizumab, an interleukin-17A specific monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active (adalimumab)-controlled period of the phase III trial SPIRIT-P1. Ann Rheum Dis 76(1):79–87PubMedCrossRef

33.

Deodhar A et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study. Lancet 391(10136):2213–2224PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kristensen LE et al (2022) Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 81(2):225–231PubMedCrossRef

35.

Gladman DD et al (2007) Adalimumab for long-term treatment of psoriatic arthritis: forty-eight week data from the adalimumab effectiveness in psoriatic arthritis trial. Arthritis Rheum 56(2):476–488PubMedCrossRef

36.

Paik J, Deeks ED (2019) Tofacitinib: A Review in Psoriatic Arthritis. Drugs 79(6):655–663PubMedCrossRef

37.

Mease PJ et al (2021) 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 8(2):903–919PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

38.

Mourad A, Gniadecki R (2020) Treatment of Dactylitis and Enthesitis in Psoriatic Arthritis with Biologic Agents: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. J Rheumatol 47(1):59–65PubMedCrossRef

39.

Schafer PH et al (2010) Apremilast, a cAMP phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, demonstrates anti-inflammatory activity in vitro and in a model of psoriasis. Br J Pharmacol 159(4):842–855PubMedCrossRef

40.

Gladman DD, Ritchlin C (2021) Treatment of psoriatic arthritis. In: Sieper J, editor. UpToDate [Internet]. [cited 2021 Dec 24]. Available from: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-of-psoriatic-arthritis?search=psoriatic%20arthritis%20treatment&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1

41.

Mease PJ (2011) Measures of psoriatic arthritis: Tender and Swollen Joint Assessment, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI), Modified Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (mNAPSI), Mander/Newcastle Enthesitis Index (MEI), Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI), Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC), Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesis Score (MASES), Leeds Dactylitis Index (LDI), Patient Global for Psoriatic Arthritis, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Psoriatic Arthritis Quality of Life (PsAQOL), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC), Psoriatic Arthritis Joint Activity Index (PsAJAI), Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI). Arthritis Care Res 63(Suppl 11):S64-85 (Hoboken)

42.

van der Heijde D et al (2017) 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 76(6):978–991PubMedCrossRef

43.

Carneiro S et al (2021) Brazilian Society of Rheumatology 2020 guidelines for psoriatic arthritis. Adv Rheumatol 61(1):69PubMedCrossRef

44.

Machado PM, Landewé R, Heijde DV (2018) Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): 2018 update of the nomenclature for disease activity states. Ann Rheum Dis 77(10):1539–1540PubMedCrossRef

45.

Grappanetwork.org (2022) Home. [online] Available at: <https://www.grappanetwork.org/>. Accessed 12 Jan 2022

46.

Braun J et al (2003) International ASAS consensus statement for the use of anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 62(9):817–824PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

47.

Holroyd CR et al (2019) The British Society for Rheumatology biologic DMARD safety guidelines in inflammatory arthritis-Executive summary. Rheumatology 58(2):220–226 (Oxford)PubMedCrossRef

48.

Thrastardottir T, Love TJ (2018) Infections and the risk of psoriatic arthritis among psoriasis patients: a systematic review. Rheumatol Int 38(8):1385–1397PubMedCrossRef

49.

Haddad A et al (2016) The incidence and predictors of infection in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: results from longitudinal observational cohorts. J Rheumatol 43(2):362–366PubMedCrossRef

50.

Cantini F et al (2014) HBV Reactivation in Patients Treated with Antitumor Necrosis Factor-Alpha (TNF-α) Agents for Rheumatic and Dermatologic Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Rheumatol 2014:926836PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

51.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2016) HIV testing: increasing uptake among people who may have undiagnosed HIV. NICE Guideline 60. London: NICE. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng60. (May 2018, date last accessed)

52.

Wolk R et al (2017) Effect of tofacitinib on lipid levels and lipid-related parameters in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. J Clin Lipidol 11(5):1243–1256PubMedCrossRef

53.

Tubach F et al (2009) Risk of tuberculosis is higher with anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody therapy than with soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor therapy: The three-year prospective French Research Axed on Tolerance of Biotherapies registry. Arthritis Rheum 60(7):1884–1894PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

54.

Maiga M et al (2012) Risk of tuberculosis reactivation with tofacitinib (CP-690550). J Infect Dis 205(11):1705–1708PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

55.

Bélard E et al (2011) Prednisolone treatment affects the performance of the QuantiFERON gold in-tube test and the tuberculin skin test in patients with autoimmune disorders screened for latent tuberculosis infection. Inflamm Bowel Dis 17(11):2340–2349PubMedCrossRef

56.

Ruan Q et al (2016) Screening of latent tuberculosis infection by interferon-γ release assays in rheumatic patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol 35(2):417–425PubMedCrossRef

57.

Sterling TR et al (2020) Guidelines for the Treatment of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC, 2020. MMWR Recomm Rep 69(1):1–11PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

58.

Antoni C et al (2005) Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis 64(8):1150–1157PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

59.

Dressler C et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE evaluation. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 33(7):1249–1260PubMedCrossRef

60.

Mease P (2020) Enthesitis in psoriatic arthritis (Part 3): clinical assessment and management. Rheumatology 59(Supplement_1):i21–i28PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

61.

Mease PJ et al (2021) Comparative effectiveness of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis: results from systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Rheumatology 60(5):2109–2121 (Oxford)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

62.

McInnes IB et al (2019) Efficacy of ustekinumab in biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis by prior treatment exposure and disease duration: data from PSUMMIT 1 and PSUMMIT 2. RMD Open 5(2):e000990PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

63.

AbbVie Inc (2015) HUMIRA subcutaneous injection, adalimumab subcutaneous injection Prescribing Information. North Chicago, IL. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/125057s410lbl.pdf

64.

UCB Inc (2019) CIMZIA subcutaneous injection, Certolizumab pegol subcutaneous injection Prescribing Information. Smyrna, GA. Available at: https://www.cimzia.com/themes/custom/cimzia/docs/CIMZIA_full_prescribing_information.pdf

65.

Amgen Inc (2015) ENBREL subcutaneous injection solution, etanercept subcutaneous injection solution Prescribing Information. Thousand Oaks, CA. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/103795s5503lbl.pdf

66.

Janssen Biotech Inc ( 2011) REMICADE lyophilized concentrate for intravenous injection, infliximab lyophilized concentrate for intravenous injection prescribing information. Horsham, PA. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/103772s5359lbl.pdf

67.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation (2018) COSENTYX subcutaneous injection, secukinumab subcutaneous injection Prescribing Information. East Hanover, NJ. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/125504s001s002lbl.pdf

68.

Eli Lilly and Company ( 2019) TALTZ subcutaneous injection, ixekizumab subcutaneous injection Prescribing Information. Indianapolis, IN. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/125521s016lbl.pdf

69.

Janssen Biotech Inc (2019) STELARA subcutaneous injection, intravenous injection, ustekinumab subcutaneous injection, intravenous injection Prescribing Information. Horsham, PA. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/761044lbl.pdf

70.

Janssen Biotech Inc (2019) TREMFYA subcutaneous injection, guselkumab subcutaneous injection Prescribing Information. Horsham, PA. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2019/761061s001lbl.pdf

71.

Amgen Inc (2014) OTEZLA oral tablets, apremilast Prescribing Information. Thousand Oaks, CA. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/205437s011lbl.pdf

72.

Menter A et al (2019) Joint AAD-NPF guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis with biologics. J Am Acad Dermatol 80(4):1029–1072PubMedCrossRef

73.

Jadon DR, Kavanaugh A, Leung YY (2022) Clinical controversies in psoriatic disease: the use of IL-17i/IL-23i versus TNFi as first-line advanced therapy in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol 49(6 Suppl 1):26–31. https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.211325CrossRefPubMed

74.

Ayan G et al (2023) Pharmacologic treatment strategies in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Ther 45(9):826–840PubMedCrossRef

75.

Baraliakos X et al (2021) Secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial manifestations: results from the double-blind, randomised, phase 3 MAXIMISE trial. Ann Rheum Dis 80(5):582–590PubMedCrossRef

76.

Moverley A et al (2015) A feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial of treatment withdrawal in psoriatic arthritis (REmoval of treatment for patients in REmission in psoriatic ArThritis (RETREAT (F)). Clin Rheumatol 34(8):1407–1412PubMedCrossRef

77.

Cantini F et al (2008) Frequency and duration of clinical remission in patients with peripheral psoriatic arthritis requiring second-line drugs. Rheumatology 47(6):872–876 (Oxford)PubMedCrossRef

78.

Araujo EG et al (2015) High incidence of disease recurrence after discontinuation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis in remission. Ann Rheum Dis 74(4):655–660MathSciNetPubMedCrossRef

79.

Chimenti MS et al (2013) Remission of psoriatic arthritis after etanercept discontinuation: analysis of patients’ clinical characteristics leading to disease relapse. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 26(3):833–838PubMedCrossRef

80.

Janta I et al (2015) Comparison between full and tapered dosages of biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis patients: clinical and ultrasound assessment. Clin Rheumatol 34(5):935–942PubMedCrossRef

81.

Ye W, Tucker LJ, Coates LC (2018) Tapering and discontinuation of biologics in patients with psoriatic arthritis with low disease activity. Drugs 78(16):1705–1715PubMedCrossRef

82.

González-Álvaro I et al (2015) Spanish Rheumatology Society and Hospital Pharmacy Society Consensus on recommendations for biologics optimization in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology 54(7):1200–1209 (Oxford)PubMedCrossRef

83.

Mandl P et al (2015) EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 74(7):1327ADSPubMedCrossRef

84.

Fagerli KM et al (2014) The role of methotrexate co-medication in TNF-inhibitor treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from 440 patients included in the NOR-DMARD study. Ann Rheum Dis 73(1):132–137PubMedCrossRef

85.

Mease PJ et al (2019) Etanercept and Methotrexate as Monotherapy or in Combination for Psoriatic Arthritis: Primary Results From a Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial. Arthritis Rheumatol 71(7):1112–1124PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

86.

Glintborg B et al (2013) Clinical response, drug survival, and predictors thereof among 548 patients with psoriatic arthritis who switched tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor therapy: results from the Danish Nationwide DANBIO Registry. Arthritis Rheum 65(5):1213–1223PubMedCrossRef

87.

Berman J et al (2021) AB0551 TREATMENT WITH IXEKIZUMAB FOLLOWING SECUKINUMAB FAILURE IN PATIENTS WITH PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS: REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCE FROM A RESISTANT POPULATION. Ann Rheum Dis 80(Suppl 1):1309–1310CrossRef

88.

Holroyd CR et al (2018) The British Society for Rheumatology biologic DMARD safety guidelines in inflammatory arthritis. Rheumatology 58(2):e3–e42CrossRef

89.

Patel S, Kumthekar A (2022) Psoriatic arthritis: the influence of co-morbidities on drug choice. Rheumatol Ther 9(1):49–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-021-00397-7CrossRefPubMed

90.

Yang K, Oak ASW, Elewski BE (2021) Use of IL-23 inhibitors for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: a comprehensive review. Am J Clin Dermatol 22(2):173–192PubMedCrossRef

91.

Mease PJ (2014) Apremilast: a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 1(1):1–20PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

92.

Gladman DD et al (2018) Therapeutic benefit of apremilast on enthesitis and dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: a pooled analysis of the PALACE 1–3 studies. RMD Open 4(1):e000669PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

93.

Nash P et al (2018) Early and sustained efficacy with apremilast monotherapy in biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: a phase IIIB, randomised controlled trial (ACTIVE). Ann Rheum Dis 77(5):690–698PubMedCrossRef

94.

Wells AF et al (2018) Apremilast monotherapy in DMARD-naive psoriatic arthritis patients: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled PALACE 4 trial. Rheumatology 57(7):1253–1263 (Oxford)PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

95.

Kavanaugh A et al (2019) Long-term experience with apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 5-year results from a PALACE 1–3 pooled analysis. Arthritis Res Ther 21(1):118PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

96.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2016) Tuberculosis Clinical Guideline. London: NICE. Updated 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng33/resources/tuberculosis-pdf-1837390683589 (Feb 2022, date last accessed)

97.

British Thoracic Society Standards of Care Committee (2005) BTS recommendations for assessing risk and for managing Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and disease in patients due to start anti-TNF-alpha treatment. Thorax 60(10):800–805. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.2005.046797CrossRef

98.

Patel S, Kumthekar A (2022) Psoriatic arthritis: the influence of co-morbidities on drug choice. Rheumatol Ther 9(1):49–71PubMedCrossRef

99.

Askling J et al (2005) Risk and case characteristics of tuberculosis in rheumatoid arthritis associated with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in Sweden. Arthritis Rheum 52(7):1986–1992PubMedCrossRef

100.

Dixon WG et al (2010) Drug-specific risk of tuberculosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with anti-TNF therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). Ann Rheum Dis 69(3):522–528PubMedCrossRef

101.

Fonseca JE et al (2006) Tuberculosis in rheumatic patients treated with tumour necrosis factor alpha antagonists: the Portuguese experience. Acta Reumatol Port 31(3):247–253PubMed

102.

Gómez-Reino JJ et al (2003) Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors may predispose to significant increase in tuberculosis risk: a multicenter active-surveillance report. Arthritis Rheum 48(8):2122–2127PubMedCrossRef

103.

Keane J et al (2001) Tuberculosis associated with infliximab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha-neutralizing agent. N Engl J Med 345(15):1098–1104PubMedCrossRef

104.

Nast A et al (2017) European S3-Guideline on the systemic treatment of psoriasis vulgaris - Update Apremilast and Secukinumab - EDF in cooperation with EADV and IPC. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 31(12):1951–1963PubMedCrossRef

105.

Evangelatos G et al (2020) Tuberculosis and targeted synthetic or biologic DMARDs, beyond tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 12:1759720X20930116

106.

Lee YH, Bae SC, Song GG (2013) Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in rheumatic patients with hepatitis core antigen (HBV occult carriers) undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Clin Exp Rheumatol 31(1):118–121PubMed

107.

Lee YH, Bae SC, Song GG (2013) Hepatitis B virus reactivation in HBsAg-positive patients with rheumatic diseases undergoing anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy or DMARDs. Int J Rheum Dis 16(5):527–531PubMedCrossRef

108.

Pérez-Alvarez R et al (2011) Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-targeted therapy: analysis of 257 cases. Medicine 90(6):359–371 (Baltimore)PubMedCrossRef

109.

Urata Y et al (2011) Prevalence of reactivation of hepatitis B virus replication in rheumatoid arthritis patients. Mod Rheumatol 21(1):16–23PubMedCrossRef

110.

Chen YM et al (2015) A comparison of safety profiles of tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors and rituximab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic hepatitis C. Ann Rheum Dis 74(3):626–627PubMedCrossRef

111.

EASL clinical practice guidelines (2012) Management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 57(1):167–185CrossRef

112.

Reddy KR et al (2015) American Gastroenterological Association Institute guideline on the prevention and treatment of hepatitis B virus reactivation during immunosuppressive drug therapy. Gastroenterology 148(1):215–9; quiz e16–7

113.

Chiu HY et al (2013) The safety profile of ustekinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriasis and concurrent hepatitis B or C. Br J Dermatol 169(6):1295–1303PubMedCrossRef

114.

Armstrong AW (2020) Treatment selection for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in special populations. UpToDate. Retrieved February 11, 2022, from. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/treatment-selection-for-moderate-to-severe-plaque-psoriasis-in-special-populations?source=history_widget

115.

Akiyama S, Cotter TG, Sakuraba A (2021) Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in patients with autoimmune diseases undergoing non-tumor necrosis factor-targeted biologics. World J Gastroenterol 27(19):2312–2324PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

116.

Duncan JR, Orlowski TJ, Elewski BE (2019) Safety of guselkumab in hepatitis B virus infection. Dermatol Online J 25(10):13030/qt47h636rx

117.

Iannone F et al (2014) Safety of etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C virus infection: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. J Rheumatol 41(2):286–292PubMedCrossRef

118.

Costa L et al (2014) Long-term safety of anti-TNF-α in PsA patients with concomitant HCV infection: a retrospective observational multicenter study on 15 patients. Clin Rheumatol 33(2):273–276PubMedCrossRef

119.

Temel T et al (2015) The long-term effects of anti-TNF-α agents on patients with chronic viral hepatitis C and B infections. Int J Rheum Dis 18(1):40–45PubMedCrossRef

120.

Cavazzana I et al (2008) Treatment with etanercept in six patients with chronic hepatitis C infection and systemic autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev 8(2):104–106PubMedCrossRef

121.

Pappas DA et al (2019) Therapy with biologic agents after diagnosis of solid malignancies: results from the corrona registry. J Rheumatol 46(11):1438–1444PubMedCrossRef

122.

Nast A et al (2021) EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 35(2):281–317PubMedCrossRef

123.

Smith CH et al (2017) British Association of Dermatologists guidelines for biologic therapy for psoriasis 2017. Br J Dermatol 177(3):628–636PubMedCrossRef

124.

Álvaro-Gracia JM et al (2021) Update on the safety profile of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis from clinical trials to real-world studies: a narrative review. Rheumatol Ther 8(1):17–40PubMedCrossRef

125.

Havrdová E et al (2016) Activity of secukinumab, an anti-IL-17A antibody, on brain lesions in RRMS: results from a randomized, proof-of-concept study. J Neurol 263(7):1287–1295PubMedCrossRef

126.

van Vollenhoven RF et al (2018) Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, an IL-12 and IL-23 inhibitor, in patients with active systemic lupus erythematosus: results of a multicentre, double-blind, phase 2, randomised, controlled study. Lancet 392(10155):1330–1339PubMedCrossRef

127.

Micheroli R et al (2017) Impact of obesity on the response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in axial spondyloarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 19(1):164PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

128.

Fujino S et al (2003) Increased expression of interleukin 17 in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 52(1):65–70PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

129.

Clowse ME et al (2017) Minimal to no transfer of certolizumab pegol into breast milk: results from CRADLE, a prospective, postmarketing, multicentre, pharmacokinetic study. Ann Rheum Dis 76(11):1890–1896PubMedCrossRef

130.

Mariette X et al (2018) Lack of placental transfer of certolizumab pegol during pregnancy: results from CRIB, a prospective, postmarketing, pharmacokinetic study. Ann Rheum Dis 77(2):228–233PubMedCrossRef

131.

Ringold S et al (2019) 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis: therapeutic approaches for non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, and enthesitis. Arthritis Care Res 71(6):717–734 (Hoboken)CrossRef

132.

Huemer C et al (2002) Patterns of joint involvement at onset differentiate oligoarticular juvenile psoriatic arthritis from pauciarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 29(7):1531–1535PubMed

133.

Lewkowicz D, Gottlieb AB (2004) Pediatric psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Dermatol Ther 17(5):364–375PubMedCrossRef

134.

Osier E et al (2017) Pediatric psoriasis comorbidity screening guidelines. JAMA Dermatol 153(7):698–704PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

135.

Menter A et al (2020) Joint American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation guidelines of care for the management and treatment of psoriasis in pediatric patients. J Am Acad Dermatol 82(1):161–201PubMedCrossRef

136.

Guzman J et al (2015) The outcomes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in children managed with contemporary treatments: results from the ReACCh-Out cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 74(10):1854–1860PubMedCrossRef

137.

Sobel RE et al (2014) Safety of celecoxib and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results of the Phase 4 registry. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 12:29PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

138.

van Rossum MA et al (2007) Long-term outcome of juvenile idiopathic arthritis following a placebo-controlled trial: sustained benefits of early sulfasalazine treatment. Ann Rheum Dis 66(11):1518–1524PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

139.

Ruperto N et al (2021) Tofacitinib in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet 398(10315):1984–1996PubMedCrossRef

140.

Ruperto N et al (2021) LB0004 efficacy and safety of secukinumab in enthesitis-related arthritis and juvenile psoriatic arthritis: primary results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treatment withdrawal, phase 3 study (junipera). Ann Rheum Dis 80(Suppl 1):201–202CrossRef

141.

van der Heijde D et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (SELECT-AXIS 1): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet 394(10214):2108–2117PubMedCrossRef

142.

Heijstek MW et al (2013) Effects of the live attenuated measles-mumps-rubella booster vaccination on disease activity in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomized trial. JAMA 309(23):2449–2456PubMedCrossRef

143.

De Felice KM, Kane S (2021) Safety of anti-TNF agents in pregnancy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 148(3):661–667PubMedCrossRef

Titel: The Saudi consensus recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis (2023)
verfasst von: Ibrahim Abdulrazag Al-Homood
Nayef Al Ghanim
Mohammad Ibrahim Ahmad Fatani
Albader Hamza Hussein
Abdulaziz Mohammed Alolaiwi
Abdullah Abualiat
Eman Alqurtas
Bedor Abdullah Abdulrahman Alomari
Amr Mohammad Khardaly
Khalidah Ahmed Owdetallah Alenzi
Rayan G. Albarakati
Hajer Yousef Almudaiheem
Ahmed Al-Jedai
Maysa Tariq Yousef Eshmawi
Publikationsdatum: 13.01.2024
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Clinical Rheumatology / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0770-3198
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-9949
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-024-06867-x

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Background and definition

Purpose, aim, and scope

Target population, audience/end-users

Materials & methods

Results

Eligibility criteria for biological treatment

Monitoring for disease activity and assessment tools

Treatment goals

Screening, precautions, and monitoring of biologics

bDMARDs and JAKi therapies for the treatment of severe PsA

Treatment algorithm

Peripheral arthritis

Dactylitis and enthesitis

Axial PsA

Recommendations for the treatment of PsA with biological therapies

Adjusting/maintenance biological therapy

Combination

Biologic therapy discontinuation

Management of inadequate response

Use of bDMARDs and JAKi in special patient populations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Compliance with ethical standards

Medical writing, editorial, and other assistance

Competing interests

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Innere Medizin

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Phenotype of Takayasu-like vasculitis and cardiopathy in patients with Blau syndrome

Impact of subcutaneous belimumab on disease activity, patient satisfaction, and metabolic profile in long-lasting systemic lupus erythematosus

Sex-specific differences in patients with psoriatic arthritis:a nationwide study from the Chinese Registry of Psoriatic Arthritis (CREPAR IV)

Dysregulation of long non-coding RNAs in Takayasu arteritis: A proof-of-concept study

Association between anthropometric indices and hyperuricemia: a nationwide study in China

The risk factors for uveitis among psoriatic arthritis patients: a population-based cohort study

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Triglyzeridsenker schützt nicht nur Hochrisikopatienten

Gibt es eine Wende bei den bioresorbierbaren Gefäßstützen?

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

Wie managen Sie die schmerzhafte diabetische Polyneuropathie?

Update Innere Medizin