You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 82, Issue 8
  • Correspondence on ‘No efficacy of anti-IL-23 therapy for axial spondyloarthritis in randomised controlled trials but in post-hoc analyses of psoriatic arthritis-related ‘physician-reported spondylitis’?’

Article Text

Article menu

This article has a Reply. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Correspondence on ‘No efficacy of anti-IL-23 therapy for axial spondyloarthritis in randomised controlled trials but in post-hoc analyses of psoriatic arthritis-related ‘physician-reported spondylitis’?’
  1. Dafna D Gladman1,
  2. Philip J Mease2,
  3. Paul Bird3,
  4. Enrique R Soriano4,
  5. Soumya D Chakravarty5,6,
  6. May Shawi7,
  7. Frederic Lavie8,
  8. Cinty Gong5,
  9. Evan Leibowitz5,
  10. Denis Poddubnyy9,
  11. Lai-Shan Tam10,
  12. Philip S Helliwell11,
  13. Arthur Kavanaugh12,
  14. Atul A Deodhar13,
  15. Mikkel Østergaard14,
  16. Xenofon Baraliakos15
  1. 1 Division of Rheumatology, University of Toronto and Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  2. 2 Rheumatology Research, Swedish Medical Center/Providence St. Joseph Health and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  3. 3 Rheumatology, University of New Sounth Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4 Rheumatology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  5. 5 Immunology, Janssen Scientific Affairs LLC, Horsham, Pennsylvania, USA
  6. 6 Rheumatology, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  7. 7 Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Horsham, PA, USA
  8. 8 Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Paris, France
  9. 9 Division of Gastroenterology, Infectious Diseases and Rheumatology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  10. 10 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong
  11. 11 Academic Unit of Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, School of Medicine, Leeds, UK
  12. 12 Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA
  13. 13 Division of Arthritis/Rheumatic Diseases (OPO9), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
  14. 14 Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
  15. 15 Rheumazentrum Ruhrgebiet, Ruhr University Bochum, Herne, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Professor Dafna D Gladman, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; dafna.gladman{at}utoronto.ca

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222161

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We have read with interest the recently published Viewpoint regarding a potential difference, or lack thereof, in the pathophysiology and response to treatment between patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and those with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial involvement (axPsA), a domain of PsA characterised by inflammation of the axial skeleton.1 While post hoc analyses of patients with axPsA from the phase III PSUMMIT-1 and PSUMMIT-22 and DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-23 studies were constrained by various aspects of trial design and available assessment tools, the results highlighted the need for clinical trials focusing on axPsA. We believe this important topic merits additional discussion.

    We have previously acknowledged the limitations of the PSUMMIT-1 and PSUMMIT-2 axPsA cohort and agree that clinical judgement alone is insufficient to categorise patients as having axPsA in clinical trials.2 We also have noted that relying only on radiographic sacroiliitis to confirm the presence of axPsA is a potential limitation to the DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2 post hoc analyses.3 Results of the guselkumab post hoc analyses, however, indicated potential efficacy of interleukin-23 inhibition in patients with axPsA, in contrast to a prior study in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, which also relied on locally read radiographs.4 Taken together, the aforementioned findings provided a framework on …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

    • Contributors All authors were involved in the development and writing of the letter.

    • Funding Janssen Research & Development funded the PSUMMIT-1&2 and DISCOVER-1&2 studies. Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, is the sponsor of the STAR study and is one of several pharmaceutical companies providing funding for the AXIS study. Editorial support related to this correspondence was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC.

    • Competing interests DDG received grant support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. PJM received research support, consulting fees and/or speaker bureau support from AbbVie, Aclaris, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Inmagene, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, SUN Pharma and UCB. PB received speaker honoraria from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and UCB and served as advisor for Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer. ERS has served as advisor for AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis and Roche; grant/research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB; and served as speaker/received honoraria from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. SDC, CG and EL are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Scientific Affairs is a wholly owned subsidiary. MS and FL are employed by Immunology Global Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson and own stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. DP received consulting fees from AbbVie, Biocad, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB and grants from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis and Pfizer. L-ST received grant/research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Pfizer, and acted as a consultant for Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. PSH received speaker bureau support from AbbVie, Janssen and Novartis and consulting fees from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen and Pfizer. AK received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. AAD received consulting fees for participation in advisory boards from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; research grant funding from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. MØ received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene and Novartis, and speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and UCB. XB received consulting fees and grant/research support/speaker support from AbbVie, Biocad, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles