Table 2.
Clinical characteristics and previous and current medication use among patients in the CorEvitas Psoriatic Arthritis/Spondyloarthritis Registry with psoriatic arthritis who initiated guselkumab
| Clinical characteristics | N | |
|---|---|---|
| Years since PsA symptom onset, mean (SD) | 111 | 13.9 (11.3) |
| Median (IQR) | 11 (13) | |
| PsOa | 113 | 101 (89%) |
| Years since PsA diagnosis, mean (SD) | 113 | 9.5 (9.4) |
| Median (IQR) | 7 (9) | |
| BSA affected by PsO (0–100%)b, mean (SD) | 108 | 8.0 (13.0) |
| Median (IQR) | 4 (9) | |
| 0% | 16 (15%) | |
| > 0% to < 3% | 31 (29%) | |
| ≥ 3% to < 10% | 32 (30%) | |
| ≥ 10% | 29 (27%) | |
| Tender joint count (0–68), mean (SD) | 102 | 6.8 (8.8) |
| Swollen joint count (0–66), mean (SD) | 102 | 2.0 (3.5) |
| Physician Global Assessment of PsA VAS (0–100)c, mean (SD) | 111 | 33.3 (23.4) |
| Physician Global Assessment of PsA/PsO VAS (0–100)c, mean (SD) | 112 | 39.5 (23.7) |
| Dactylitis count (0–20), mean (SD) | 113 | 0.2 (0.7) |
| Dactylitis count ≥ 1 | 12 (11%) | |
| Dactylitis count, mean (SD) | 1.9 (1.2) | |
| Leeds Enthesitis Index score (0–6), mean (SD) | 89 | 0.4 (0.9) |
| Leeds Enthesitis Index score ≥ 1 | 20 (22%) | |
| Leeds Enthesitis Index score, mean (SD) | 1.8 (1.0) | |
| SPARCC Enthesitis Index score (0–16), mean (SD) | 113 | 0.9 (1.8) |
| SPARCC Enthesitis Index score ≥ 1 | 32 (28%) | |
| SPARCC Enthesitis Index score, mean (SD) | 3.1 (2.1) | |
| Nail PsO VAS (0–100)c, mean (SD) | 109 | 7.6 (14.5) |
| Axial involvementd | 113 | 55 (49%) |
| Diagnosis of axial SpA (nonradiographic or radiographic) or AS | 10 (18%) | |
| Physician-indicated spinal involvement or completed any of the mobility measurements [includes occiput-to-wall distance, lateral lumbar flexion, and lumbar flexion (Schöber)] | 30 (54%) | |
| Selected any of the criteria for diagnosing axial SpA within the clinical features sectione | 43 (78%) | |
| Medication use | ||
| Prior csDMARDsf | 113 | |
| 0 | 33 (29%) | |
| 1 | 50 (44%) | |
| 2 + | 30 (27%) | |
| Prior bDMARDsf | 113 | |
| 0 | 10 (8.8%) | |
| 1 | 17 (15%) | |
| 2 + | 86 (76%) | |
| Prior TNFi bDMARDsf | 113 | |
| 0 | 21 (19%) | |
| 1 | 38 (34%) | |
| 2 + | 54 (48%) | |
| Prior tsDMARDsf | 113 | |
| 0 | 61 (54%) | |
| 1 | 41 (36%) | |
| 2 + | 11 (9.7%) | |
| Prior b/tsDMARDf | 113 | |
| 0 | 7 (6%) | |
| 1 | 19 (17%) | |
| 2 + | 87 (77%) | |
| Concomitant therapy | 113 | |
| Monotherapy | 91 (81%) | |
| MTX | 17 (15%) | |
| csDMARD other than MTX | 5 (4.4%) | |
| Last b/tsDMARD therapy prior to guselkumabg | 113 | |
| TNFi | 36 (32%) | |
| Non-TNFi bDMARD | 55 (49%) | |
| tsDMARD | 22 (19%) | |
| Duration of last b/tsDMARD therapy prior to guselkumab (months), mean (SD) | 85 | 13.7 (20.2) |
| Median (IQR) | 7.0 (13) | |
| Therapy gap duration prior to guselkumab (months)h | 106 | |
| 0 | 62 (58%) | |
| 1 | 19 (18%) | |
| 2–5 | 11 (10%) | |
| 6 + | 14 (13%) | |
| Reason for discontinuation of last therapy prior to guselkumabi | 113 | |
| Lack of efficacy | 58 (51%) | |
| Safety | 11 (9.7%) | |
| Insurance | 2 (1.8%) | |
| Other reasons | 7 (6%) | |
| Missing | 38 (34%) | |
| Reason for guselkumab initiationj | 108 | |
| Active disease | 91 (84%) | |
| Safety | 1 (1%) | |
| Insurance | 1 (1%) | |
| Other reasons | 15 (14%) | |
| Missing | 5 (5%) | |
Values are n (%) unless otherwise specified
AS ankylosing spondylitis, bDMARD biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, BSA body surface area, csDMARD conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, IQR interquartile range, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, MTX methotrexate, n subgroup population, N patient population, PsA psoriatic arthritis, PsO psoriasis, SD standard deviation, SpA spondyloarthritis, SPARCC Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada, TNFi tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, tsDMARD targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, VAS visual analog scale
aCurrent PsO or a personal history of ever having PsO
bAssessed in all patients with evaluable data
cMeasured using a 0- to 100-point VAS
dGroups are not mutually exclusive
eSee details in Table S2 of the ESM
fPrior therapy count does not include patient’s current therapy
gGroups are not mutually exclusive; 9 patients discontinued 2 therapies on the same date, and some therapies were not within the same drug class. TNFi bDMARDs: adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab; non-TNFi bDMARDs: abatacept, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab; and tsDMARDs: apremilast and tofacitnib. Top 3 prior therapies were ixekizumab (21%), secukinumab (19%), and apremilast (12%)
hTime between prior therapy discontinuation and initiation of guselkumab; 0 indicates prior treatment was discontinued and guselkumab was initiated on the same day
iLack of efficacy reasons: inadequate initial response, failure to maintain initial response, active disease (initially or a flare) leading to initiating a medication or changing the dose/frequency. Safety reasons: serious side effect, minor side effect. Insurance reasons: co-pay/patient cost, denied by the insurance. Other reasons: fear of future side effect, temporary interruption, patient preference, to improve compliance, to improve tolerability, frequency of administration, route of administration, alternate mechanism of action, patient doing well. The sum of all reason categories may total more than 100% given that patients could provide up to 3 reasons; 3 patients provided multiple reasons
jActive disease reasons: inadequate initial response, failure to maintain initial response, active disease (initially or a flare) leading to initiating a medication or changing the dose/frequency. Safety reasons: serious side effect, minor side effect. Insurance reasons: co-pay/patient cost, denied by the insurance. Other reasons: fear of future side effect, temporary interruption, patient preference, to improve compliance, to improve tolerability, frequency of administration, route of administration, alternate mechanism of action, patient doing well. The sum of all reason categories may total more than 100% given that patients could provide up to 3 reasons