Since the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) published its 2019 recommendations, the range of therapeutic options in the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has expanded significantly. Univadis France spoke to Professor Laure Gossec, a rheumatologist at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris, about the updates to these recommendations.
What is the role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) today?
NSAIDs remain the first-line treatment, but their place as monotherapy without background treatment has been mainly limited to patients with mild peripheral disease. For them, NSAIDs are recommended as monotherapy for a short duration, 2-4 weeks, while the clinician assesses and promptly introduces background treatment. We have a window of opportunity. Inflammation must be targeted quickly, especially if the patient has a form of disease associated with poor prognosis. Such patients include those with polyarticular forms or high C-reactive protein (CRP).
The two criteria of at least four swollen joints and/or a CRP greater than 5 mg/L should prompt the physician to introduce background treatment.
When prescribing NSAIDs, clinicians must rigorously evaluate the benefit-risk ratio because patients with PsA often have comorbidities. In France, one third of them have obesity, 20% have hypertension, and 20% have diabetes.
What is the recommended hierarchy for other treatments?
In the second phase of treatment, synthetic conventional treatments (like methotrexate, leflunomide, or sulfasalazine) are recommended. Methotrexate is by far the most used. This choice is based on efficacy, the efficacy-safety ratio, and cost.
A biologic therapy has no place as a first-line treatment because most PsA cases are moderate. In this regard, our European recommendations differ from American recommendations, which leave the choice between conventional or targeted therapies as a first-line treatment.
We have opted for a step-up approach. Although there is no study comparing a biologic therapy vs methotrexate as a first-line treatment, we have many data showing that more than half of patients will never need a biologic therapy.
We have a lot of experience with molecules like methotrexate. The benefit-risk ratio of this treatment as a first-line option is favorable, with efficacy for the skin. However, in axial forms, methotrexate is ineffective and calls for the use of biologic therapy.
Are there selection criteria for second-line biologic therapies?
Five classes of molecules are authorized and reimbursed in France: anti-TNF (tumor necrosis factor), anti–IL (interleukin)-17A, anti–IL-17A, -F, and -AF (bimekizumab), anti–IL-12/23 (ustekinumab), and anti–IL-23. All these treatments are effective in about two thirds of patients.
Unfortunately, we are not yet practicing personalized medicine to choose the most appropriate treatment for each patient, because we cannot predict this response. However, there are specific cases. Anti–IL-17 and anti–IL-23 can be favored in patients with bothersome skin involvement, either because it is extensive or located on the face or genital area. If a patient also has chronic inflammatory bowel disease, anti-TNF, anti–IL-23, or Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors should be prioritized. In axial forms, anti-TNF or anti–IL-17 is recommended. But these cases concern only a minority of our patients.
We have kept a place for JAK inhibitors in patients for whom biologic therapies are not suitable or effective. It is important to follow the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency, avoiding the use of JAK inhibitors after age 60 years, in smokers, or in those with cardiovascular risk. Oncologic monitoring is also important for patients treated with this therapeutic class.
Let's also remember the role of apremilast, which is an alternative to biologic therapies in patients with moderate forms of the disease.
In the next 2 or 3 years, new modes of action or new molecules should be available, such as tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2) inhibitors; izokibep, an oral nanomolecule targeting IL-17; or a new injectable anti–IL-17 with an affinity with interleukin that is incomparable to that of previous antibodies.
What message should be conveyed to the general practitioner?
PsA treatments are prescribed initially in hospitals, but rheumatologists will be able to prescribe them in the coming months. The general practitioner cannot initiate targeted treatment but has the role of starting methotrexate and referring the patient to specialized follow-up.
The most important thing to know is that in France, about half of patients will be on targeted treatment. The median maintenance of such therapy is only 3 years, which means that half of the patients will have replaced it with another therapy after 3 years. This switch could indicate a loss of efficacy or escape. It is therefore important for a specialist to follow the patient and to continue biologic monitoring every 2-6 months, as well as imaging every 2-5 years to check radiographic progression.
In cases of prolonged remission of more than 6 months, a gradual and cautious decrease in background treatments can be considered in a shared medical decision. However, treatment discontinuation leads to a systemic relapse in the short or long term, and a gradual decrease results in relapse in about half of the patients.
And in terms of monitoring?
The management of comorbidities is crucial. It is essential to keep vaccinations up to date, especially because of the increased risk for potential infections with targeted treatments. Regular screening for infections, including dental follow-up, is also recommended.
Preventive medicine is also important, especially regarding breast and colon cancer screening. General population recommendations apply.
Cardiovascular risk, which is doubled in patients with PsA compared with the general population due to chronic inflammation, should prompt monitoring of blood pressure and metabolic diseases. It should be noted that there is an 11% higher mortality rate after 8 years of follow-up, mainly due to cardiovascular and neoplastic risks.
Gossec reported receiving research grants from AbbVie, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, and UCB and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Stada, and UCB.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.