Skip to main content
Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease logoLink to Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease
. 2025 Jan 31;17:1759720X251315138. doi: 10.1177/1759720X251315138

Efficacy and retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis across different clinical phenotypes: insights from the Italian GISEA Registry

Giuseppe Lopalco 1,, Maria Morrone 2, Fabiola Atzeni 3, Chiara Bazzani 4, Francesco Paolo Bianchi 5, Francesco Paolo Cantatore 6, Roberto Caporali 7, Antonio Carletto 8, Alberto Cauli 9, Maria Sole Chimenti 10, Sergio Colella 11, Fabrizio Conti 12, Addolorata Corrado 13, Ennio Giulio Favalli 14, Alberto Floris 15, Marco Fornaro 16, Rosario Foti 17, Roberta Foti 18, Elena Fracassi 19, Bruno Frediani 20, Stefano Gentileschi 21, Roberto Gorla 22, Elisa Gremese 23,24, Emanuela Praino 25, Roberta Ramonda 26, Cinzia Rotondo 27, Marco Sebastiani 28,29, Angelo Semeraro 30, Gianfranco Ferraccioli 31, Giovanni Lapadula 32, Florenzo Iannone 33
PMCID: PMC11783553  PMID: 39897378

Abstract

Background:

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of secukinumab (SECU) in reducing disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), while real-world studies prove a broader perspective on SECU’s usefulness in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives:

To assess the effectiveness of SECU by evaluating drug survival and identifying potential predictors of clinical response and treatment discontinuation in patients with moderate-to-severe PsA, using real-world data from the Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis (GISEA) registry.

Design:

This longitudinal retrospective study included PsA patients treated with SECU, spanning from May 2016 to November 2023.

Methods:

Data from 1045 PsA patients, including 783 with peripheral-only PsA (perPsA) and 262 with peripheral and axial involvement (mixed PsA) were analyzed. Drug survival was estimated by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Clinical outcomes, including Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI), Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS, C-Reactive Protein (CRP)-based), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) measures, were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for discontinuing SECU were determined using multivariate Cox regression models.

Results:

SECU survival at 24 months was 63.24%, significantly higher in mixed PsA compared to perPsA (p = 0.036). In the overall PsA population, DAPSA scores decreased significantly at 6 months, and further at 24 months (all p < 0.0001). In mixed PsA, ASDAS-CRP scores were significantly reduced at 6 months and remained stable through 24 months (all p < 0.0001). VAS pain scores also improved already at 6 months and continued to improve at 24 months (all p < 0.0001). Higher age (aHR = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96–0.99, p = 0.007) and lower baseline DAPSA scores (aHR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03, p = 0.014) were associated with greater persistence of SECU treatment. SECU was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events.

Conclusion:

SECU showed sustained clinical improvements in both peripheral and axial involvement of PsA patients over 24 months, with higher persistence observed in mixed PsA patients. Our findings highlight the favorable clinical and safety profile of SECU in real world.

Keywords: axial disease, interleukin-17A, precision medicine, psoriatic arthritis, secukinumab

Introduction

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, systemic inflammatory disease affecting the joints, skin, and nails, significantly impairing patients’ quality of life. 1 This condition may be characterized by peripheral arthritis, axial involvement, dactylitis, enthesitis, and psoriasis. 2 These different manifestations may contribute to a multifaceted disease burden, marked by pain, stiffness, and functional impairment, which interfere with daily activities and overall well-being. 3 The heterogeneous phenotype of PsA complicates its management, requiring a comprehensive treatment approach to address the wide range of disease manifestations. 4

The advent of biologic therapies has changed the treatment landscape for PsA, especially for patients inadequately responsive to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). 5 Recent studies have shed light on the pivotal role of interleukin-17 (IL-17), a key pro-inflammatory cytokine in PsA pathogenesis. Dysregulation of the immune system, influenced by genetic predisposition and driven by environmental factors, leads to the overproduction of IL-17 mainly produced by Th17 cells. This excess of IL-17 triggers a cascade of inflammatory events, promoting joint inflammation, bone erosion, and new bone formation.6,7 Among biologic DMARDs, secukinumab (SECU), a monoclonal antibody that specifically neutralizes IL-17A, stands out as a highly effective treatment option for PsA. However, a major challenge in managing PsA lies in diagnosing the disease during its subclinical and early phases in patients with psoriasis. Early identification and timely use of IL-17 inhibitors, such as SECU, may help prevent the progression from skin to joint disease, potentially altering the disease course and reducing long-term damage.8,9 In this regard, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of SECU in improving clinical outcomes for PsA patients, with significant reductions in symptoms and disease activity.10,11 While RCTs provide valuable insights, they partially capture the complexities and variabilities of PsA patients encountered in everyday clinical practice. In contrast, real-world studies complement clinical trial data, providing a broader perspective on SECU performance in routine healthcare settings, helping clinicians make informed treatment decisions based on evidence mirroring current clinical practice.12,13 These studies also provide valuable information on patient adherence, satisfaction, and the drug’s overall tolerability.1416 Additionally, real-world data can help identify specific patient profiles that may benefit most from SECU, enabling more personalized treatments, especially in a protean disease like PsA.1216

In this context, the Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis (GISEA) Registry, a large database that tracks long-term outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthropathies treated with biologic DMARDs, provides an invaluable resource for examining real-world characteristics in terms of disease activity, comorbidities, and treatment survival among PsA patients. 17 This observational study leverages the GISEA dataset to assess SECU effectiveness by exploring drug survival and potential predictors of clinical response and treatment discontinuation in moderate-to-severe PsA patients over time.

Materials and methods

Study design and patients’ enrolment

This is a retrospective cohort study performed using data from the GISEA registry, including patients from Italian rheumatology outpatient clinics listed in the registry (for details, see Supplemental Table 1). Patients were consecutively selected, aged 18 years or older, and had a diagnosis of PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. 18 Axial involvement was assessed based on the ASAS criteria for axial spondyloarthritis. 19 Patients were either biologic-naïve or had shown an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs and began treatment with SECU between May 2016 and November 2023. Patients were followed until the end of the observation period (November 30, 2023) or until censored due to remission, pregnancy, or loss to follow-up. All patients received SECU subcutaneously at a dosage of 150 or 300 mg, as per national registration indications and at the discretion of the treating rheumatologist. Most patients presented with moderate-to-severe active PsA at the initiation of SECU treatment. However, SECU was also prescribed for some patients to manage uncontrolled skin symptoms, while others, although in remission, required a switch to SECU due to adverse events (AEs) with prior conventional or biologic DMARDs. Outcomes were evaluated by the rheumatologist at each center where the patients were treated, and not all the authors were directly involved in the assessment of the outcomes. This study conforms to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. 20

Clinical assessment and outcome measures

Data collected included demographic, clinical, biochemical, and metrological information, such as age, gender, weight, height, HLA-B27 status for axial PsA, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), and disease duration. Arthritis was categorized as peripheral, axial, and mixed (peripheral and axial). Extra-articular manifestations (psoriasis, ocular, inflammatory bowel diseases) and comorbidities (classified using ICD-9-CM codes) were also recorded. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated and categorized according to WHO classifications: underweight/normal weight (BMI <25.0 kg/m2), overweight (25.0 kg/m2 ⩽ BMI < 30 kg/m2), and obese (BMI ⩾30.0 kg/m2). Information on previous biologic DMARDs, concomitant csDMARDs, and corticosteroids or NSAIDs therapy was also collected.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included the Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS pain, 0-100), Patient Global Assessment (VAS PtGA, 0-100), Physician Global Assessment (VAS PhGA, 0-100), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI, 0-3), and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI, 0-10). Clinical evaluations encompassed the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI, 0-72), assessment of psoriatic onychopathy (yes/no), tender joint count (TJC, 0-68), and swollen joint count (SJC, 0-66). Patients with peripheral involvement were categorized based on their Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) scores as follows: remission (DAPSA ⩽4), low disease activity (LDA; DAPSA >4 and ⩽14), moderate disease activity (DAPSA >14 and ⩽28), or high disease activity (DAPSA >28). 21 For patients with axial involvement, disease activity was categorized based on their Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS, CRP based) as follows: inactive disease (ID) (<1.3), LDA (1.3 to <2.1), high disease activity (2.1–3.5), and very high disease activity (>3.5).22,23 Enthesitis was assessed using the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI, 0–6), and dactylitis was measured by the number of affected digits (0–20). Minimal disease activity (MDA) or very LDA (VLDA) criteria were met if patients achieved five (MDA) or seven (VLDA) of the following seven outcomes 24 : TJC68 ⩽1, SJC66 ⩽1, LEI ⩽1, PASI score ⩽1, patient VAS pain ⩽15 mm, VAS PtGA ⩽20 mm, and HAQ-DI score ⩽0.5. The proportions of patients achieving DAPSA remission/LDA, MDA, VLDA, and ASDAS-CRP ID/LDA were assessed at each time point. Patient evaluations were performed at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months of SECU treatment.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered into a database created with an Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using Stata MP18 software. Continuous variables are described as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and range, or median and interquartile range (IQR), while categorical variables are described as percentages. The skewness and kurtosis test were used to evaluate the normality of continuous variables. When the data were not normally distributed, a normalization model was applied, when possible. The student’s t-test for independent data or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare continuous variables between two groups. The repeated measures ANOVA or the Friedman test were used to compare continuous variables across detection times, depending on the data distribution. Repeated measures mixed models were used to compare continuous variables between groups and detection times, followed by post hoc analysis using the test of simple effects to estimate the variation of each outcome for each group per detection time. The Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was employed to compare proportions between groups and detection times.

To assess the determinants of several outcomes, univariate logistic regression was used. The variables considered relevant comprised age, sex, axial involvement, disease duration, baseline scores for DAPSA, LEI, HAQ-DI, and VAS pain, csDMARD use (yes/no), steroid use (yes/no), BMI, SECU treatment line, and the presence of comorbidities and fibromyalgia. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. Subsequently, for each outcome, a multivariate logistic regression was built using age, sex, and variables statistically significant related in the univariate regression as determinants. The adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI was calculated. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test was performed to evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the multivariate logistic regression models. SECU persistence was calculated from the first dose to treatment interruption and assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves. Group differences were analyzed with the log-rank test. Patients lost to follow-up or those who stopped therapy for reasons unrelated to SECU (such as pregnancy, relocation, clinical remission, or other reasons) were right censored. Reasons for SECU discontinuation included primary failure (lack of response within 6 months), secondary failure (loss of effectiveness after initial response), AEs, and unknown reasons. Determinants of SECU discontinuation were identified using univariate Cox semiparametric regression, with several variables serving as risk predictors. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI was calculated. Subsequently, a multivariate Cox semiparametric regression was built using age, sex, and variables statistically significant related in the univariate regression as determinants. The adjusted HR (aHR) with 95% CI was calculated. The Schoenfeld and scaled Schoenfeld residuals test was employed to assess the proportionality assumption of the multivariate Cox semiparametric regression model, and the Gronnesby and Borgan test were used to evaluate the model’s goodness-of-fit. A two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests.

Results

Demographic, clinical, and therapeutic characteristics

The study included a total of 1045 PsA patients, of whom 783 had peripheral-only PsA (perPsA) and 262 both axial and peripheral involvement (mixed PsA). For 11 of these patients, data on peripheral involvement were unspecified. As detailed in Table 1, sex, disease duration, and BMI categories did not differ significantly between the perPsA and mixed PsA groups. Similarly, the prevalence of psoriasis or a history of psoriasis, as well as comorbid fibromyalgia, were comparable between the two subgroups. However, the median number of other comorbidities was higher in the mixed PsA group (p = 0.025). Glucocorticoid use was more common in perPsA (p = 0.052). Additionally, csDMARDs were used by 40.6% of perPsA patients and 31.3% of mixed PsA patients (p = 0.007). There were no significant differences in the proportion of biologic-naïve patients or inadequate responders to previous biologic DMARDs between the perPsA and mixed PsA groups (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with psoriatic arthritis stratified by mixed and peripheral-only involvement.

Variable PsA
(n = 1045)
Mixed PsA (n = 262) perPsA
(n = 783)
p-Value
Age (years); mean ± SD
(range)
54.0 ± 11.3
(21–83)
53.5 ± 12.0
(21–82)
54.1 ± 11.1
(21–83)
0.614
Females; n (%)
Males; n (%)
614 (58.8)
431 (41.2)
143 (54.6)
119 (45.4)
471 (60.2)
312 (39.8)
0.113
Smokers; n (%) 0.364
 ■ No 316/476 (66.4) 93/131 (71.0) 223/345 (64.6)
 ■ Yes 99/476 (20.8) 22/131 (16.8) 77/345 (22.4)
 ■ Ex 61/476 (12.8) 16/131 (12.2) 45/345 (13.0)
BMI; n (%) 0.272
 ■ Underweight 9/806 (1.1) 1/208 (0.5) 8/598 (1.3)
 ■ Normal weight 319/806 (39.6) 87/208 (41.8) 232/598 (38.8)
 ■ Overweight 280/806 (34.7) 78/208 (37.5) 202/598 (33.8)
 ■ Obese 198/806 (24.6) 42/208 (20.2) 156/598 (26.1)
Disease duration (months); median (IQR) (range) 83 (36.5–153.5)
(0–588)
76 (26–150)
(0–588)
84 (42–155)
(0–525)
0.334
Psoriasis; n (%) 0.229
 ■ No 125/565 (22.1) 35/152 (23.0) 90/413 (21.8)
 ■ Personal 430/565 (76.1) 112/152 (73.7) 318/413 (77.0)
 ■ Familiar 10/565 (1.8) 5/152 (3.3) 5/413 (1.2)
Fibromyalgia; n (%) 89/352 (25.3) 25/105 (23.8) 64/247 (25.9) 0.678
Comorbidities; median (IQR) (range) 0 (0–2)
(0–17)
1 (0–2)
(0–8)
0 (0–1)
(0–17)
0.025
Concomitant glucocorticoids;
n (%)
237 (22.7) 48 (18.3) 189 (24.1) 0.052
Prednisone equivalent dose at baseline; mean ± SD (range) 1.4 ± 3.5
(0.0–50.0)
1.4 ± 4.1
(0.0–25.0)
1.4 ± 3.3 (0.0–50.0) 0.136
Concomitant cDMARDs; n (%) 400 (38.3) 82 (31.3) 318 (40.6) 0.007
SECU line of treatment; n (%) 0.618
 ■ First line 431 (41.2) 113 (43.1) 318 (40.6)
 ■ Second line 241 (23.1) 62 (23.7) 179 (22.9)
 ■ Third or more line 373 (35.7) 87 (33.2) 286 (36.5)
SECU discontinuations n (%) 346 (33.1) 74 (28.2) 272 (34.7) 0.053
Reasons for SECU discontinuation 0.518
 ■ Primary failure 61 (5.8) 12 (4.5) 49 (6.2)
 ■ Secondary failure 123 (11.7) 27 (10.3) 96 (12.2)
 ■ Adverse events 24 (2.2) 5 (1.9) 19 (2.42)
 ■ Unknown reasons 138 (13.2) 30 (11.4) 108 (13.7)

BMI, body mass index; cDMARDs, conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; IQR, interquartile range; perPsA, peripheral psoriatic arthritis; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; SD, standard deviation; SECU, secukinumab.

Drug persistence and risk predictors for SECU discontinuation

The overall drug survival for SECU was 63.24% at 24 months (Figure 1(a)). SECU persistence varied slightly by treatment line (Figure 1(b)), with first-line therapy showing a higher, though not statistically significant persistence (p = 0.083). Drug persistence did not significantly differ among patients with none, one, or multiple comorbidities (p = 0.573; Figure 1(c)). However, patients with mixed PsA had significantly higher SECU persistence compared to those with perPsA (p = 0.036; Figure 1(d)). A Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the potential baseline predictors of SECU discontinuation. Greater age was found to be associated with a lower likelihood of stopping SECU (aHR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96–0.99, p = 0.007), while higher baseline DAPSA scores were linked to an increased risk of drug discontinuation (aHR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03, p = 0.014). The use of SECU as a third-line or later treatment increased the risk of discontinuation compared to first-line treatment (aHR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.11–2.33, p = 0.013). Although axial involvement appeared to be a protective factor in the univariate analysis, it was not significant in the multivariate model (aHR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.67–1.34, p = 0.758; Table 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Persistence on SECU treatment in the entire cohort (a), SECU line of treatment (b), comorbidities (c), mixed PsA (d).

PsA, psoriatic arthritis; SECU, secukinumab.

Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate Cox semiparametric regression analyses of the risk predictors for SECU discontinuation.

Factor HR (95% CI) p-Value aHR (95% CI) p-Value
Age (years) 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.110 0.98 (0.96–0.99) 0.007
Sex (male vs female) 0.85 (0.68–1.06) 0.148 0.88 (0.62–1.24) 0.464
Axial involvement (yes/no) 0.76 (0.59–0.99) 0.038 0.95 (0.67–1.34) 0.758
Duration of the disease (months) 1.01 (0.99–1.01) 0.789
Index DAPSA at baseline 1.02 (1.01–1.03) <0.0001 1.02 (1.01–1.03) 0.014
Index LEI at baseline 1.03 (0.91–1.16) 0.647
Index HAQ at baseline 1.25 (1.04–1.50) 0.019 0.97 (0.75–1.25) 0.798
Index VAS pain at baseline 1.01 (1.01–1.02) <0.0001 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.471
cDMARDs (yes/no) at baseline 0.96 (0.78–1.20) 0.719
Steroids (yes/no) at baseline 1.25 (0.99–1.57) 0.061
Comorbidities
 1 vs 0 1.07 (0.83–1.38) 0.621
 2+ vs 0 0.91 (0.70–1.18) 0.485
BMI
 Underweight vs normal weight 1.44 (0.53–3.90) 0.474
 Overweight vs normal weight 0.97 (0.75–1.27) 0.842
 Obese vs normal weight 0.95 (0.71–1.26) 0.721
SECU
 2st line vs 1st line 1.09 (0.81–1.46) 0.589 1.38 (0.89–2.16) 0.152
 3rd+ line vs 1st line 1.30 (1.02–1.66) 0.033 1.60 (1.11–2.33) 0.013
Fibromyalgia (yes/no) 0.72 (0.43–1.20) 0.203

Goodness-of-fit p-value = 0.805.

aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; DAPSA, disease activity index for psoriatic arthritis; DMARDs, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; HAQ, Health Assessment Questionnaire; LEI, Leeds Enthesitis Index; HR, hazard ratio; SECU, secukinumab; VAS pain, Visual Analog Scale for pain.

Therapeutic effectiveness of SECU in the overall PsA population

Compared to baseline, a significant decrease in disease activity was observed over time. At 6 months, the composite DAPSA score dropped from 19.1 to 13.9 (p < 0.0001), continuing to improve to 12.0 at 24 months (p < 0.0001). PASI scores improved from 2.0 to 0.7 at 6 months (p < 0.0001), remaining low at 24 months (p < 0.0001). Joint involvement showed similar improvements, with TJC68 and SJC66 decreasing significantly at 6 and 24 months (p < 0.0001; Table 3). VAS pain scores reduced from 57.6 to 46.8 at 6 months (p < 0.0001) and to 40.7 at 24 months (p < 0.0001). There was also a simultaneous reduction in VAS PtGA scores from 57.2 to 47.1 at 6 months (p < 0.0001) and to 39.3 at 24 months (p < 0.0001), and in VAS PhGA scores from 41.0 to 30.4 at 6 months (p < 0.0001) and to 22.4 at 24 months (p < 0.0001; Table 3). Overall, SECU effectively managed both skin and joint symptoms in PsA, providing sustained benefits across treatment lines, especially for articular involvement (Supplemental Tables 2 and 3).

Table 3.

Therapeutic effectiveness of SECU in the overall PsA population.

Variable Baseline 6 months 12 months 24 months p-Value
DAPSA; mean ± SD
(range)
19.1 ± 11.6
(0.01–70.2)
13.9 ± 10.5
(0.06–64.4)
12.3 ± 10.1
(0.02–61.0)
12.0 ± 9.8
(0.06–58.2)
<0.0001
PASI; mean ± SD (range) 2.0 ± 3.6
(0.0–29.2)
0.7 ± 1.7
(0.0–15.3)
0.4 ± 0.9
(0.0–8.7)
1.0 ± 3.5
(0.0–37.2)
<0.0001
TJC68; mean ± SD
(range)
5.7 ± 6.8
(0.0–47.0)
3.7 ± 5.9
(0.0–47.0)
3.5 ± 6.2
(0.0–54.0)
2.3 ± 3.8
(0.0–20.0)
<0.0001
SJC66; mean ± SD
(range)
1.5 ± 3.0
(0.0–30.0)
0.8 ± 2.1
(0.0–16.0)
0.7 ± 2.2
(0.0–19.0)
0.6 ± 1.9
(0.0–18.0)
<0.0001
CRP (mg/L); mean ± SD (range) 5.4 ± 9.9
(0.0–118.0)
4.9 ± 12.3
(0.0–172.0)
4.0 ± 5.5
(0.0–57.0)
4.2 ± 7.2
(0.0–75.4)
0.013
ESR (mm/h); mean ± SD (range) 19.1 ± 17.1
(0.0–117.0)
17.3 ± 15.6
(0.0–99.0)
16.5 ± 14.3
(1.0–88.0)
16.1 ± 15.3
(0.5–127.0)
0.004
VAS pain; mean ± SD
(range)
57.6 ± 26.2
(0.0–100.0)
46.8 ± 28.0
(0.0–100.0)
42.0 ± 27.8
(0.0–100.0)
40.7 ± 25.7
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001
VAS PtGA; mean ± SD
(range)
57.2 ± 25.0
(0.0–100.0)
47.1 ± 26.5
(0.0–100.0)
41.2 ± 25.7
(0.0–100.0)
39.3 ± 24.5
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001
VAS PhGA; mean ± SD
(range)
41.0 ± 24.9
(0.0–100.0)
30.4 ± 23.2
(0.0–100.0)
25.6 ± 22.0
(0.0–100.0)
22.4 ± 20.5
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001

CRP, C-reactive protein; DAPSA, Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis; ESR, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; SD, Standard Deviation; SECU, Secukinumab; SJC66, Swollen Joint Count (66 joints); TJC68, Tender Joint Count (68 joints); VAS pain, Visual Analog Scale for pain; VAS PhGA, Visual Analog Scale for Physician’s Global Assessment; VAS PtGA, Visual Analog Scale for Patient’s Global Assessment.

Disease targets

At 6 months, 14.1% of patients achieved DAPSA remission, and 43.5% reached LDA (p < 0.0001). At 12 months, these rates increased to 19.2% for DAPSA remission and to 44% for LDA (p < 0.0001 from baseline). At 24 months, the percentages remained approximately stable with 18.3% for DAPSA remission and 47% for LDA (p < 0.0001 from baseline). Moreover, the percentage of patients achieving MDA rose significantly to 17.2% at 6 months (p < 0.0001 compared to baseline), peaking at 22.7% at 12 months (p < 0.0001 compared to baseline). Although the percentage slightly decreased to 19.5% at 24 months, it remained significantly improved from baseline (p < 0.0001; Figure 2(a)).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Percentage of patients in DAPSA remission, DAPSA LDA, and MDA (a). Percentage of patients in ASDAS-CRP ID and ASDAS-CRP LDA (b).

ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; CRP, C-reactive protein; DAPSA, Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis; ID, inactive disease; LDA, low disease activity; MDA, minimal disease activity; PsA, psoriatic arthritis.

Predictors of DAPSA remission/LDA and MDA

Key predictors for achieving DAPSA remission, LDA (Supplemental Table 4), and MDA (Supplemental Table 5) were evaluated at 6 months. The variables considered relevant for building the multivariate logistic regression models are reported in the “Materials and methods” section under Statistical analysis. Male sex significantly increased the likelihood of achieving DAPSA remission or LDA (aOR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.06–3.52, p = 0.031). Lower baseline DAPSA scores were also associated with a higher probability of these favorable outcomes (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.99, p = 0.015). However, no significant predictors for achieving MDA were identified in the multivariate analysis (Supplemental Table 5).

Therapeutic effectiveness of SECU in the mixed PsA group

All clinical changes reported over time were compared to baseline values. The mean ASDAS-CRP score decreased from 2.6 to 2.0 at 6 months (p < 0.0001) and remained stable at 24 months (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the BASDAI score improved from 5.0 to 4.0 at 6 months (p < 0.0001), steadying at 4.2 at 24 months (p < 0.0001). SECU also significantly reduced disease activity in peripheral joints within the mixed PsA group (Table 4). For psoriasis severity, the PASI score decreased from 1.6 to 0.4 at 6 months (p < 0.0001), with a slight increase to 0.6 at 24 months (p < 0.0001). Notably, both patient and physician-reported outcomes showed consistent improvements during SECU treatment (Table 4). Overall, SECU effectively reduced disease activity and improved clinical outcomes in mixed PsA patients, particularly when used as a first-line treatment (Supplemental Tables 6 and 7).

Table 4.

Therapeutic effectiveness of SECU in the mixed PsA group.

Variable Baseline 6 months 12 months 24 months p-Value
DAPSA; mean ± SD (range) 18.6 ± 12.6 (0.01–57.7) 12.4 ± 9.4 (0.15–43.0) 11.7 ± 9.6 (0.2–59.4) 11.4 ± 9.6 (0.08–58.0) <0.0001
PASI; mean ± SD (range) 1.6 ± 2.4 (0.0–12.0) 0.4 ± 0.6 (0.0–3.1) 0.3 ± 0.5
(0.0–2.0)
0.6 ± 1.8 (0.0–11.6) <0.0001
TJC68; mean ± SD (range) 5.4 ± 7.1 (0.0–34.0) 2.9 ± 5.0
(0.0–23.0)
2.2 ± 3.8
(0.0–21.0)
1.5 ± 3.1 (0.0–18.0) <0.0001
SJC66; mean ± SD (range) 1.6 ± 3.4 (0.0–19.0) 0.8 ± 2.1 (0.0–11.0) 0.8 ± 3.0
(0.0–19.0)
0.6 ± 2.4 (0.0–18.0) 0.001
CRP (mg/L); mean ± SD (range) 5.5 ± 10.1
(0.0–80.0)
3.3 ± 4.1 (0.03–26.0) 4.2 ± 6.2
(0.05–57.0)
5.6 ± 11.2
(0.03–75.4)
0.516
ESR (mm/h); mean ± SD (range) 19.5 ± 17.8 (2.0–117.0) 15.8 ± 13.0
(0.0–72.0)
17.7 ± 15.4 (2.0–77.0) 18.2 ± 20.3 (2.0–127.0) 0.367
VAS pain; mean ± SD (range) 57.0 ± 26.1 (0.0–100.0) 43.6 ± 26.2
(0.0–100.0)
41.9 ± 25.7
(0.0–100.0)
37.8 ± 25.6
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001
VAS PtGA; mean ± SD (range) 58.8 ± 23.8
(0.0–100.0)
46.7 ± 25.0
(0.0–100.0)
44.2 ± 23.7
(0.0–100.0)
38.7 ± 24.0
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001
VAS PhGA; mean ± SD (range) 43.5 ± 25.2
(0.0–100.0)
31.4 ± 22.8
(0.0–100.0)
27.9 ± 22.5
(0.0–100.0)
17.9 ± 17.4
(0.0–100.0)
<0.0001
ASDAS-CRP; mean ± SD (range) 2.6 ± 1.0
(0.3–6.0)
2.0 ± 0.9 (0.2–4.3) 2.1 ± 1.0
(0.5–4.9)
2.0 ± 1.0
(0.3–5.3)
<0.0001
BASDAI; mean ± SD (range) 5.0 ± 2.4
(0.0–11.6)
4.0 ± 2.3
(0.0–9.1)
3.9 ± 2.4
(0.0–9.1)
4.2 ± 2.5
(0.0–9.3)
<0.0001

ASDAS-CRP, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein; BASDAI, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index; CRP, C-reactive protein; DAPSA, Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; PASI, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PsA, Psoriatic Arthritis; SD, standard deviation; SECU, secukinumab; SJC66, Swollen Joint Count (66 joints); TJC68, Tender Joint Count (68 joints); VAS pain, Visual Analog Scale for pain; VAS PtGA, Visual Analog Scale for Patient’s Global Assessment; VAS PhGA, Visual Analog Scale for Physician’s Global Assessment.

Achievement of ID/LDA and BASDAI < 4

Significant increases were observed in the proportions of patients achieving ASDAS-CRP ID or LDA over time. For ID, the percentage increased from baseline to 18.8% at 6 months (p = 0.001), further to 21.6% at 12 months (p < 0.0001), and 22.6% at 24 months (p = 0.023). Similarly, for LDA the percentage rose from baseline to 32.3% at 6 months (p = 0.001), then slightly decreased to 29.7% at 12 months (p < 0.0001) and 28.3% at 24 months (p = 0.023; Figure 2(b)). The percentage of patients with a BASDAI score < 4 increased significantly from baseline to 48.6% at 6 months (p < 0.0001), improved further to 49.5% at 12 months (p < 0.0001), and slightly decreased to 43.4% at 24 months, though it remained significantly higher than baseline (p = 0.002; data not shown).

Predictors of achieving ASDAS-CRP ID or LDA

A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential baseline predictors for achieving ASDAS-CRP ID and LDA (the relevant variables included in the models are reported in the “Materials and methods” section under Statistical analysis). VAS pain scores were identified as the only factor significantly associated with a higher likelihood of achieving ASDAS-CRP ID or LDA at the 6-month follow-up (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.99, p = 0.011; Supplemental Table 8).

Summary of SECU effectiveness in PsA management

SECU demonstrated broad effectiveness in managing PsA, with marked improvements in joint symptoms, pain, and overall disease activity that were sustained up to 24 months. Many patients reached LDA or remission, particularly in the articular domains. In patients with axial involvement, SECU also effectively reduced disease activity and improved PROs, showing particular benefit as a first-line treatment. Figure 3 depicts a flow diagram showing patient cohort selection, treatment persistence, and effectiveness outcomes for SECU.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Flow diagram showing patient cohort selection, treatment persistence, and clinical outcomes for SECU in PsA.

ASDAS, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score; cDMARDs, conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; CRP, C-reactive protein; ID, inactive disease; LDA, low disease activity; MDA, minimal disease activity; perPsA, peripheral-only PsA; PsA, psoriatic arthritis; SECU, secukinumab.

SECU discontinuation and safety profile

SECU treatment was generally well tolerated across the PsA cohort. Of the 1045 patients, 346 eventually discontinued therapy. Among these, 5.8% of all patients (17.6% of those who discontinued) stopped due to primary ineffectiveness, while 11.7% of the total cohort (35.6% of those who discontinued) suspended treatment due to secondary ineffectiveness. AEs led to treatment cessation in 2.2% of the entire cohort (6.9% of those who discontinued), with specific cases including three instances of paradoxical psoriasis, two cases of gastrointestinal discomfort, and one case of Crohn’s disease. Additionally, 13.2% of all patients (39.9% of those who discontinued) stopped SECU for reasons that were unknown. Notably, no serious AEs was reported, and there were no significant differences in reasons for discontinuation between patients with perPsA and those with mixed PsA (Table 1 and Figure 3).

Discussion

This study aimed to assess the real-world effectiveness of SECU in patients with PsA, with a focus on clinical outcomes for both peripheral and axial involvement. Our findings revealed a higher prevalence of comorbidities among mixed PsA patients compared to perPsA patients. Notably, the ASAS-COMOSPA study, which included SpA patients with and without psoriasis, found that SpA patients with peripheral involvement and psoriasis had higher rates of cardiovascular comorbidities compared to those with axial involvement. However, within the group with axial involvement, those with psoriasis had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes compared to those without psoriasis. This suggests that psoriasis is a factor strongly associated with comorbidities, regardless of the articular pattern. 25 These differences might also be attributed to the diverse ethnicities represented in the ASAS-COMOSPA study, which included participants from 22 countries across four continents (Africa, America, Asia, and Europe). 25

Regarding BMI, our analysis found no significant differences between groups, although a substantial proportion of patients were overweight or obese. This aligns with results from the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry, which compared 1153 patients with axial PsA to 1478 with perPsA 26 and highlighted the prevalence of obesity in PsA 27 and its role in disease development. 28 This is particularly meaningful when considering that adipokines, especially leptin, may play a noteworthy role in the inflammatory processes of both obesity and PsA. 29 Obesity may negatively impact the efficacy of biologic DMARDs, particularly TNF inhibitors 30 ; however, we did not find any influence of BMI on SECU survival, whose rate was 63.24%, with higher persistence observed in mixed PsA patients.

Our research revealed a high likelihood of SECU survival, consistent with earlier studies,3134 though, 12-month SECU persistence was generally higher in European registries33,34 compared to our cohort. Noteworthy, the percentage of patients receiving SECU as a second or subsequent line of treatment was higher in our cohort than the EuroSpA cohort (59% vs 55%). This could still be one of several factors influencing the observed persistence rates. 33 However, variations in patient demographics and comorbidities may provide further insight into the observed differences in SECU persistence. 33

A significant finding was that mixed PsA patients had higher drug survival rates than perPsA patients, suggesting greater perceived effectiveness or tolerability in this subgroup. Axial PsA has become a focus of increased interest in recent years. The prevalence of axial involvement in PsA patients varies widely, ranging from 25% to 70%, depending on the criteria used.3540 Axial involvement typically presents with higher disease activity than peripheral arthritis, leading patients with axial PsA to suffer from more intense symptoms such as chronic back pain and stiffness. This greater disease burden may motivate patients to adhere more closely to treatment as they experience a rapid reduction in the severity of clinical manifestations and an improvement in clinical outcomes. 41 Furthermore, recent studies have highlighted the effectiveness of SECU in managing comorbid conditions such as psoriasis,4244 which may be more severe in axial PsA. 40 This dual benefit not only contributes to the overall improvement in patient outcomes and quality of life but also reduces the need for NSAIDs and other conventional treatments such as methotrexate, emphasizing SECU comprehensive impact on disease management.4244

Interestingly, our findings revealed that patients with increasing age and those with lower baseline DAPSA scores were more likely to continue SECU treatment. SECU was effective in both bio-naïve patients and those previously treated with other biologic DMARDs, although those using SECU as a third or further line of treatment had a higher risk of discontinuation. Similarly, exploratory subgroup analyses from various RCTs demonstrated that SECU provides benefits regardless of prior treatment with TNF inhibitors.4549 Significant improvements were observed in several clinical parameters, including DAPSA, PASI, ASDAS-CRP, and VAS pain assessments, which are consistent with previous studies.5052 These results underscore the coherent and robust effectiveness of SECU in improving clinical outcomes for PsA patients in real-world. Intriguingly, we found that for mixed PsA patients, a lower baseline VAS pain score was the only significant predictor for achieving ASDAS-CRP ID or LDA. This finding is aligned with data from the Corrona Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry, which shows that higher pain levels are associated with worse disease outcomes, including a lower likelihood of reaching MDA and ASDAS-CRP LDA in patients with axial PsA. 40 The safety profile of SECU observed in our study demonstrates that it is generally well-tolerated, with only 6.9% of patients discontinuing due to AEs. Notably, no serious AEs were reported, and the most common AEs leading to discontinuation were paradoxical psoriasis, gastrointestinal discomfort, and one case of Crohn’s disease. These findings are consistent with earlier data, where SECU has shown a favorable long-term safety profile in patients with psoriasis and PsA. 53 In summary, our study highlights SECU’s role in effectively managing PsA, with notable reductions in disease activity and pain, alongside improved PROs sustained over 24 months in both disease peripheral and axial involvement. Key findings include a marked decrease in disease activity indices and greater SECU persistence in patients with mixed PsA compared to those with perPsA. Future studies should focus on larger, prospective cohorts to validate predictors of treatment response. Additionally, exploring biomarkers associated with treatment outcomes could enable a more individualized approach, further enhancing SECU effectiveness in the comprehensive management of PsA.

Conclusion

Our study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of SECU in managing both peripheral and axial involvement of PsA, suggesting sustained improvement in patient outcomes and quality of life. SECU was also effective in patients previously treated with biologic DMARDs. Our results underscore SECU usefulness aligning with findings from prior studies.15,31,33,34,52,54,55 Limitations of our study include its retrospective design, which may introduce biases. The potential presence of incomplete data could have affected the results, although appropriate statistical methodologies were applied to ensure reliable and generalizable conclusions. Additionally, the presence of a mixed PsA cluster (axial and peripheral) and the lack of precise information on the exact number of patients with exclusively axial involvement, even if small, may have impacted the findings specific to this group. However, the strengths of the study are the real-world setting, which provides evidence reflecting routine clinical practice. The large cohort of PsA patients and comprehensive clinical assessments enable a thorough evaluation of SECU effectiveness across different phenotypes. Moreover, the 24-month follow-up offers robust data on drug persistence and patient outcomes. Future studies, examining specific patient demographics and comorbidities could offer deeper insights into the factors influencing differences in SECU persistence.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tab-10.1177_1759720X251315138 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis across different clinical phenotypes: insights from the Italian GISEA Registry

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tab-10.1177_1759720X251315138 for Efficacy and retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis across different clinical phenotypes: insights from the Italian GISEA Registry by Giuseppe Lopalco, Maria Morrone, Fabiola Atzeni, Chiara Bazzani, Francesco Paolo Bianchi, Francesco Paolo Cantatore, Roberto Caporali, Antonio Carletto, Alberto Cauli, Maria Sole Chimenti, Sergio Colella, Fabrizio Conti, Addolorata Corrado, Ennio Giulio Favalli, Alberto Floris, Marco Fornaro, Rosario Foti, Roberta Foti, Elena Fracassi, Bruno Frediani, Stefano Gentileschi, Roberto Gorla, Elisa Gremese, Emanuela Praino, Roberta Ramonda, Cinzia Rotondo, Marco Sebastiani, Angelo Semeraro, Gianfranco Ferraccioli, Giovanni Lapadula and Florenzo Iannone in Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnotes

Supplemental material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Contributor Information

Giuseppe Lopalco, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, Piazza G. Cesare 11, Bari 70124, Italy.

Maria Morrone, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.

Fabiola Atzeni, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Experimental and Internal Medicine, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.

Chiara Bazzani, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Lombardia, Italy.

Francesco Paolo Bianchi, Health Prevention Department, Local Health Authority of Brindisi, Brindisi, Puglia, Italy.

Francesco Paolo Cantatore, Rheumatology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Roberto Caporali, Dipartimento di Reumatologia e Scienze Mediche, ASST PINI-CTO and Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di Comunità, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Antonio Carletto, Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Veneto, Italy.

Alberto Cauli, Department of Medical Science and Public Health, University of Cagliari and Rheumatology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy.

Maria Sole Chimenti, Rheumatology, Allergology and Clinical Immunology, Department of Systems Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Roma, Lazio, Italy.

Sergio Colella, Rheumatology Unit, ASL Taranto Valle d’Itria Hospital, Martina Franca, Taranto, Italy.

Fabrizio Conti, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Clinical Internal, Anesthesiologic and Cardiovascular Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Roma, Italy.

Addolorata Corrado, Rheumatology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Ennio Giulio Favalli, Dipartimento di Reumatologia e Scienze Mediche, ASST PINI-CTO and Dipartimento di Scienze Cliniche e di Comunità, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Alberto Floris, Department of Medical Science and Public Health, University of Cagliari and Rheumatology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy.

Marco Fornaro, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.

Rosario Foti, Rheumatology Unit, A.O.U. Policlinico S. Marco, Catania, Italy.

Roberta Foti, Rheumatology Unit, A.O.U. Policlinico S. Marco, Catania, Italy.

Elena Fracassi, Rheumatology Unit, University of Verona, Verona, Veneto, Italy.

Bruno Frediani, U.O.C. Reumatologia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Senese, Siena, Toscana, Italy.

Stefano Gentileschi, U.O.C. Reumatologia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Senese, Siena, Toscana, Italy.

Roberto Gorla, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit, ASST Spedali Civili of Brescia, Brescia, Lombardia, Italy.

Elisa Gremese, Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy; Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.

Emanuela Praino, U.O.S. Reumatologia, DSS4 Barletta, ASL BT Andria, Italy.

Roberta Ramonda, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Medicine DIMED, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

Cinzia Rotondo, Rheumatology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.

Marco Sebastiani, Rheumatology Unit, AUSL Piacenza, Piacenza, Italy; Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Modena, Parma, Italy.

Angelo Semeraro, Rheumatology Unit, ASL Taranto Valle d’Itria Hospital, Martina Franca, Taranto, Italy.

Gianfranco Ferraccioli, Department of Aging Diseases, Orthopedic and Rheumatology, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Lazio, Italy.

Giovanni Lapadula, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.

Florenzo Iannone, Rheumatology Unit, Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Policlinico of Bari (GISEA Registry—protocol no. 598/2011) and adhered to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent to participate: Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Author contributions: Giuseppe Lopalco: Conceptualization; Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Maria Morrone: Data curation; Formal analysis; Methodology; Writing – review & editing.

Fabiola Atzeni: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Chiara Bazzani: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Francesco Paolo Bianchi: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Francesco Paolo Cantatore: Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – review & editing.

Roberto Caporali: Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – review & editing.

Antonio Carletto: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Alberto Cauli: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Maria Sole Chimenti: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Sergio Colella: Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – review & editing.

Fabrizio Conti: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Addolorata Corrado: Data curation; Formal analysis; Writing – original draft.

Ennio Giulio Favalli: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Alberto Floris: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Marco Fornaro: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Rosario Foti: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Roberta Foti: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Elena Fracassi: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Bruno Frediani: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Stefano Gentileschi: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Roberto Gorla: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Elisa Gremese: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Emanuela Praino: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Roberta Ramonda: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Cinzia Rotondo: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Marco Sebastiani: Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Angelo Semeraro: Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Gianfranco Ferraccioli: Data curation; Investigation; Validation; Writing – review & editing.

Giovanni Lapadula: Conceptualization; Data curation; Investigation; Writing – review & editing.

Florenzo Iannone: Conceptualization; Data curation; Writing – original draft; Writing – review & editing.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Editing assistance and open access was funded by Novartis Farma SpA. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

F.I. and G.Lopalco received speaker honoraria from Novartis. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Availability of data and materials: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • 1. Frede N, Hiestand S, Schauer F, et al. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have a major impact on quality of life and depressive symptoms: a cross-sectional study of 300 patients. Rheumatol Ther 2023; 10(6): 1655–1668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Feld J, Ye JY, Chandran V, et al. Is axial psoriatic arthritis distinct from ankylosing spondylitis with and without concomitant psoriasis? Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020; 59(6): 1340–1346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mulder MLM, van Hal TW, van den Hoogen FHJ, et al. Measuring disease activity in psoriatic arthritis: PASDAS implementation in a tightly monitored cohort reveals residual disease burden. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021; 60(7): 3165–3175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Queiro R. Analysis of the HAQ-DI components in psoriatic arthritis patients with and without low disease impact. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020; 59(11): 3569–3570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kerschbaumer A, Smolen JS, Ferreira RJO, et al. Efficacy and safety of pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: systematic literature research informing the 2023 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2024; 83(6): 760–774. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Chung SH, Ye XQ, Iwakura Y. Interleukin-17 family members in health and disease. Int Immunol 2021; 33(12): 723–729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Łukasik Z, Gracey E, Venken K, et al. Crossing the boundaries: IL-23 and its role in linking inflammation of the skin, gut and joints. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021; 60(Suppl. 4): iv16–iv27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Mease P, McInnes IB. Secukinumab: a new treatment option for psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 2016; 3(1): 5–29. (Erratum in: Rheumatol Ther 2016; 3(2): 363.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Moshrif A, Mosallam A, Mohamed EE, et al. Subclinical enthesopathy in patients with psoriasis and its association with other disease parameters: a power Doppler ultrasonographic study. Eur J Rheumatol 2017; 4(1): 24–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Kivitz AJ, Kremer JM, Legerton CW, 3rd, et al. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab in US patients with psoriatic arthritis: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 FUTURE studies. Rheumatol Ther 2024; 11(3): 675–689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Coates LC, Mease PJ, Gladman DD, et al. Secukinumab improves physical function and quality of life and inhibits structural damage in patients with PsA with sustained remission or low disease activity: results from the 2-year phase 3 FUTURE 5 study. RMD Open 2023; 9(2): e002939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Molica Colella F, Zizzo G, Parrino V, et al. Effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: a 52-week real-life study in an Italian cohort. Adv Rheumatol 2023; 63(1): 15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Chimenti MS, Fonti GL, Conigliaro P, et al. One-year effectiveness, retention rate, and safety of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis: a real-life multicenter study. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2020; 20(7): 813–821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Klavdianou K, Lazarini A, Grivas A, et al. Real life efficacy and safety of secukinumab in biologic-experienced patients with psoriatic arthritis. Front Med (Lausanne). 2020; 7: 288. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Gaffney K, Gullick N, MacKay K, et al. Real-world evidence for secukinumab in UK patients with psoriatic arthritis or radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: interim 2-year analysis from SERENA. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2023; 7(3): rkad055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Weddell J, Din NRA, Harrison SR, et al. Real-world experience of IL-17Ai drug survival in a large cohort of axial spondyloarthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2024; 8(1): rkae018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Salaffi F, Siragusano C, Alciati A, et al. Axial spondyloarthritis: reshape the future-from the “2022 GISEA International Symposium”. J Clin Med 2022; 11(24): 7537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Taylor W, Gladman D, Helliwell P, et al. ; CASPAR Study Group. Classification criteria for psoriatic arthritis: development of new criteria from a large international study. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54(8): 2665–2673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, et al. The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis 2009; 68(6): 777–783. (Erratum in: Ann Rheum Dis 2019; 78(6): e59.) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology 2007; 18(6): 800–804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Schoels MM, Aletaha D, Alasti F, et al. Disease activity in psoriatic arthritis (PsA): defining remission and treatment success using the DAPSA score. Ann Rheum Dis 2016; 75(5): 811–818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Machado P, Landewé R, Lie E, et al.; Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society. Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70(1): 47–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Machado PM, Landewé R, Heijde DV; Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS). Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS): 2018 update of the nomenclature for disease activity states. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77(10): 1539–1540. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76(4): 673–680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Puche-Larrubia MÁ, Ladehesa-Pineda L, Font-Ugalde P, et al. Distribution of comorbidities in spondyloarthritis with regard to the phenotype and psoriasis: data from the ASAS-COMOSPA study. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis 2021; 13: 1759720X211045263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Ciurea A, Götschi A, Kissling S, et al. Characterisation of patients with axial psoriatic arthritis and patients with axial spondyloarthritis and concomitant psoriasis in the SCQM registry. RMD Open 2023; 9(2): e002956. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Queiro R, Lorenzo A, Tejón P, et al. Obesity in psoriatic arthritis: comparative prevalence and associated factors. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98(28): e16400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Mease PJ. Psoriatic arthritis: update on pathophysiology, assessment and management. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70(Suppl. 1): i77-84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Dikbas O, Tosun M, Bes C, et al. Serum levels of visfatin, resistin and adiponectin in patients with psoriatic arthritis and associations with disease severity. Int J Rheum Dis 2016; 19(7): 672–677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Gialouri CG, Pappa M, Evangelatos G, et al. Effect of body mass index on treatment response of biologic/targeted-synthetic DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis. A systematic review. Autoimmun Rev 2023; 22(7): 103357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Alegre-Sancho JJ, Núñez-Monje V, Campos-Fernández C, et al. Real-world effectiveness and persistence of secukinumab in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023; 10: 1294247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Joven B, Manteca CF, Rubio E, et al. Real-world persistence and treatment patterns in patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with anti-IL17 therapy in Spain: the PerfIL-17 Study. Adv Ther 2023; 40(12): 5415–5431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Michelsen B, Georgiadis S, Di Giuseppe D, et al. Real-world six- and twelve-month drug retention, remission, and response rates of secukinumab in 2,017 patients with psoriatic arthritis in thirteen European countries. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2022; 74(7): 1205–1218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Moreno-Ramos MJ, Sanchez-Piedra C, Martínez-González O, et al. Real-world effectiveness and treatment retention of secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis: a descriptive observational analysis of the Spanish BIOBADASER Registry. Rheumatol Ther 2022; 9(4): 1031–1047. (Erratum in: Rheumatol Ther 2022; 9(5): 1475–1476.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Gladman DD, Shuckett R, Russell ML, et al. Psoriatic arthritis (PSA)—an analysis of 220 patients. Q J Med 1987; 62(238): 127–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Gladman DD. Axial disease in psoriatic arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2007; 9(6): 455–460. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Chandran V. Psoriatic spondylitis or ankylosing spondylitis with psoriasis: same or different? Curr Opin Rheumatol 2019; 31(4): 329–334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Jadon DR, Sengupta R, Nightingale A, et al. Axial disease in psoriatic arthritis study: defining the clinical and radiographic phenotype of psoriatic spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76(4): 701–707. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Feld J, Ye JY, Chandran V, et al. Axial disease in psoriatic arthritis: the presence and progression of unilateral grade 2 sacroiliitis in a psoriatic arthritis cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2021; 51(2): 464–468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Mease PJ, Palmer JB, Liu M, et al. Influence of axial involvement on clinical characteristics of psoriatic arthritis: analysis from the Corrona psoriatic arthritis/spondyloarthritis registry. J Rheumatol 2018; 45(10): 1389–1396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Baraliakos X, Gossec L, Pournara E, et al. Secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis and axial manifestations: results from the double-blind, randomised, phase 3 MAXIMISE trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2021; 80(5): 582–590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Carriero A, et al.; on behalf Spondyloartritis and Psoriatic Arthritis SIR Study Group “Antonio Spadaro.” Effectiveness and safety of secukinumab in 608 patients with psoriatic arthritis in real life: a 24-month prospective, multicentre study. RMD Open 2021; 7(1): e001519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Chimenti MS, et al. Four-year real-world experience of secukinumab in a large Italian cohort of axial spondyloarthritis. Front Immunol 2024; 15: 1435599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Ortolan A, Lorenzin M, Leo G, et al. Secukinumab drug survival in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients: a 24-month real-life study. Dermatology 2022; 238(5): 897–903. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Mease PJ, McInnes IB, Kirkham B, et al.; FUTURE 1 Study Group. Secukinumab inhibition of interleukin-17A in patients with psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med 2015; 373(14): 1329–1339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. McInnes IB, Mease PJ, Kirkham B, et al.; FUTURE 2 Study Group. Secukinumab, a human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (FUTURE 2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2015; 386(9999): 1137–1146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Nash P, Mease PJ, McInnes IB, et al.; FUTURE 3 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of secukinumab administration by autoinjector in patients with psoriatic arthritis: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (FUTURE 3). Arthritis Res Ther 2018; 20(1): 47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Kivitz AJ, Nash P, Tahir H, et al. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg with or without loading regimen in psoriatic arthritis: results from the FUTURE 4 study. Rheumatol Ther 2019; 6(3): 393–407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Mease P, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, et al. Secukinumab improves active psoriatic arthritis symptoms and inhibits radiographic progression: primary results from the randomised, double-blind, phase III FUTURE 5 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77(6): 890–897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Coates LC, Nash P, Kvien TK, et al. Comparison of remission and low disease activity states with DAPSA, MDA and VLDA in a clinical trial setting in psoriatic arthritis patients: 2-year results from the FUTURE 2 study. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2020; 50(4): 709–718. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Coates LC, Gladman DD, Nash P, et al.; FUTURE 2 Study Group. Secukinumab provides sustained PASDAS-defined remission in psoriatic arthritis and improves health-related quality of life in patients achieving remission: 2-year results from the phase III FUTURE 2 study. Arthritis Res Ther 2018; 20(1): 272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Gladman DD, Choquette D, Khraishi M, et al. Real-world retention and clinical effectiveness of secukinumab for psoriatic arthritis: results from the Canadian Spondyloarthritis Research Network. J Rheumatol 2023; 50(5): 641–648. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Deodhar A, Mease PJ, McInnes IB, et al. Long-term safety of secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: integrated pooled clinical trial and post-marketing surveillance data. Arthritis Res Ther 2019; 21(1): 111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Adami G, Idolazzi L, Benini C, et al. Secukinumab retention rate is greater in patients with psoriatic arthritis presenting with axial involvement. Reumatismo 2023; 75(1). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Ramonda R, Lorenzin M, Chimenti MS, et al.; on behalf Spondyloarthritis and Psoriatic Arthritis SIR Study Group “Antonio Spadaro.” Four-year effectiveness, safety and drug retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis: a real-life Italian multicenter cohort. Arthritis Res Ther 2024; 26(1): 172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

sj-docx-1-tab-10.1177_1759720X251315138 – Supplemental material for Efficacy and retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis across different clinical phenotypes: insights from the Italian GISEA Registry

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tab-10.1177_1759720X251315138 for Efficacy and retention rate of secukinumab in psoriatic arthritis across different clinical phenotypes: insights from the Italian GISEA Registry by Giuseppe Lopalco, Maria Morrone, Fabiola Atzeni, Chiara Bazzani, Francesco Paolo Bianchi, Francesco Paolo Cantatore, Roberto Caporali, Antonio Carletto, Alberto Cauli, Maria Sole Chimenti, Sergio Colella, Fabrizio Conti, Addolorata Corrado, Ennio Giulio Favalli, Alberto Floris, Marco Fornaro, Rosario Foti, Roberta Foti, Elena Fracassi, Bruno Frediani, Stefano Gentileschi, Roberto Gorla, Elisa Gremese, Emanuela Praino, Roberta Ramonda, Cinzia Rotondo, Marco Sebastiani, Angelo Semeraro, Gianfranco Ferraccioli, Giovanni Lapadula and Florenzo Iannone in Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease


Articles from Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES