Author and Publication Year (Study Name) | Type of Recruitment | Study Design | Study Size, n | Study Medication | Outcome(s) | Outcome Data | Study Duration, wks | P | Effect Size |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Vieira-Sousa 2020 (GO-DACT)7 | Multicenter (n = 11) in a single country (Portugal) | DB | 44 | GOL + MTX vs PBO + MTX | Primary outcome: median ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | GOL + MTX group was statistically superior to PBO + MTX (median 5 vs 2 [IQR not reported]). | 24 | 0.03 | – |
Secondary outcomes: % of patients achieving DSS = 0, 20, 50, 70, and LDI = 20, 50, 70 at wk 24 | GOL + MTX group was statistically superior to PBO + MTX in the following outcomes: • DSS = 50 (85% vs 50%), • DSS = 70 (60% vs 18%), • LDI = 20 (100% vs 73%), • LDI = 50 (100% vs 68%), and • LDI = 70 (95% vs 41%). The proportion of patients achieving DSS = 0 and DSS = 20 were not different between groups. | ||||||||
Mease 2020 (SPIRIT-H2H 24 wk)10 | Multicenter (n = 131) in several countries | OL | 566 | ADA vs IXE | % of patients with LDI-B = 0 at wk 24 | No significant difference between IXE 88.1% (95% CI 78.3-97.9%) vs ADA 93.1% (86.6-99.6%). | 24 | 0.66 | – |
Smolen 2020 (SPIRIT-H2H 52 wk)14 | Multicenter (n = 131) in several countries | OL | 566 | ADA vs IXE | % of patients with LDI-B = 0 at wk 52 | No significant difference between IXE 83.3% (95% CI 72.1-94.6%) vs ADA 81.0% (94% CI 70.9-91.1%). | 52 | 0.62 | – |
McInnes 2020 (EXCEED)9 | Multicenter (n = 156) in several countries | DB | 853 | ADA vs SEC | N (%) of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | No statistical difference between SEC (n = 130, 75%) vs ADA (n = 137, 70%); OR 1.29 (95% CI 0.75-2.22). | 24 | 0.36 | – |
Husni 2020 (GO-VIBRANT)15 | Multicenter (n = 89) in several countries | DB | 480 | GOL vs PBO | % of patients with DSS = 0 at wk 14 and wk 24; ΔDSS from BL to wk 52 | Greater proportions of patients in the GOL group had DSS = 0 compared to PBO at wk 14 (74.6% vs 25.0%) and wk 24 (78.4% vs 35.5%). DSS mean change from baseline was only described at wk 52 after crossover: −8.9 (SD 10.1) in the PBO to GOL group vs −8.0 (SD 8.9) in the GOL group. | 52 | Not described | – |
Kavanaugh 2017 (GO-VIBRANT)16 | Multicenter (n = 89) in several countries | DB | 480 | GOL vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | There was no statistical difference in PBO (−5.0, SD 8.1) vs GOL (−8.2, SD 8.9). | 24 | < 0.001 | 0.38 |
Mease 2019 (SEAM PsA)5 | Multicenter (n = 124) in 17 countries | DB | 851 | MTX + PBO vs ETN + PBO vs MTX + ETN | Mean ± SEM change from BL to wk 24 in LDI | There was no statistical difference among the 3 arms. BL: MTX + PBO (−128.8 ± 26.8), ETN + PBO (−119.1 ± 20.7), and ETN + MTX (−110.2 ± 22.7). | 24 | 0.68 (ETN + MTX vs MTX + PBO) 0.85 (ETN + PBO vs MTX + PBO) 0.057 (ETN + MTX vs MTX + PBO) 0.12 (ETN + PBO vs MTX + PBO) | 0.40 (ETN + PBO vs MTX + PBO) 0.72 (ETN + MTX vs MTX + PBO) |
Patients with LDI = 0 at wk 24 | There was no statistical difference among the 3 arms: MTX + PBO (65.2%), ETN + PBO (76.4%), and ETN + MTX (79.3%). | ||||||||
Coates 2016 (TICOPA)8 | Multicenter (n = 8) in the UK | OL | 188 (n = 59 with BL dactylitis) | MTX | ΔLDI-B from BL to wk 12 | Median −59.7 (IQR −157.4 to −26.4). | 48 | 0.03 | – |
Patients with LDI-B = 0 at wk 12 | 37/59 (63%). | 0.001 | |||||||
Walsh 2018 (RAPID-PsA)17 | Multicenter (n = 92) in several countries | DB | 409 | CZP vs PBO | ALDI from BL to wk 24 | CZP combined arm (3.3, SD 11.4) vs PBO (5.5, SD 16.1). | 216 | Not described | 0.16 |
Patients with LDI = 0 at wk 24 | CZP combined arm (67.3%) vs PBO (76.2%). | ||||||||
Mease 2014 (RAPID-PsA)18 | Multicenter (n = 92) in several countries | DB | 409 | CZP vs PBO | ALDI from BL to wk 24 | CZP was superior to PBO concerning the decrease in LDI from BL to wk 24: CZP 200 mg Q2W (−40.7, SD 34.6), CZP 400 mg Q4W (−53.5, SD 69.1), vs PBO (−22.0, SD 46.9). | 216 | 0.002 (CZP 200 mg Q2W vs PBO) < 0.001 (CZP 400 mg Q4W vs PBO) | 0.45 (CZP 200 Q2W vs PBO) 0.53 (CZP 400 Q4W vs PBO) |
Carron 2017 (CRESPA)19 | Single center in Belgium | DB | 60 | GOL vs PBO | % of patients with dactylitis at wk 12 | GOL was superior to PBO: 7.5% GOL vs 40% PBO. | 24 | 0.004 | – |
% of patients with dactylitis at wk 24 | GOL was superior to PBO: 17.5% GOL vs 60.0% PBO. | 0.003 | |||||||
Van Mens 2019 (NCT01871649)6 | Multicenter (n = 3) in a single country (The Netherlands) | DB | 51 | GOL + MTX vs PBO + MTX | No. of patients with dactylitis at wk 22 | There was no statistical difference between GOL + MTX (n = 0) and PBO + MTX (n = 1). | 22 | 0.31 | – |
Antoni 2005 (IMPACT)20 | Multicenter (n = 9) in several countries | DB | 104 | IFX vs PBO | Mean DSS at wk 16 | DSS was lower in IFX (29.2, SD 10.1) vs PBO (84.5, SD 10.1). | 50 | < 0.001 | – |
Mease 2005 (ADEPT)21 | Multicenter (n = 50) in several countries. | DB | 313 | ADA vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 12 | At wk 12, the mean improvement in dactylitis was greater in patients receiving ADA compared with those receiving PBO; however, these changes did not achieve statistical significance according to authors. | 24 | Not described | – |
McInnes 2014 (NCT00809614)22 | Multicenter (n = 11) in several countries | DB | 42 | SEC vs PBO | Mean LDI at BL, and wk 6, 12, and 24 | SEC baseline: 2.7 (SD 2.3), wk 6: 2.9 (SD 2.4), wk 12: 2.5 (SD 1.6), wk 24: 3.1 (SD 1.5) PBO baseline: 1.6 (SD 2.3), wk 6: 2.1 (SD 2.6), wk 12: 0.7 (SD 0.6), and wk 24: 1.9 (SD 2.2). | 24 | Not described | – |
Mease 2015 (FUTURE 1)23 | Multicenter (n = 104) in several countries | DB | 606 | SEC vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | SEC was statistically superior to PBO: SEC (combined 75 mg + 150 mg groups) was 52.4% vs 15.5% in PBO. | 24 | < 0.005 | – |
McInnes 2015 (FUTURE 2)24 | Multicenter (n = 76) in several countries | DB | 397 | SEC vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | SEC (combined 75 mg + 150 mg + 300 mg group) was 47% vs 15% in PBO. | 24 | 0.92 | – |
Kavanaugh 2016 (FUTURE 2)25 | Multicenter (n = 76) in several countries | DB | 397 | SEC vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | In TNFi-naïve subjects, SEC 300 mg and 150 mg were superior to PBO. SEC 300 mg was 54.8%, SEC 150 mg was 57.1%, and SEC 75 mg was 30.8%, vs 17.6% in PBO. In TNF-IR subjects, only the 300 mg dose was superior to PBO. SEC 300 mg was 60.0%, SEC 150 mg was 36.4%, and SEC 75 mg was 28.6%, vs 10.0% in PBO. | 24 | < 0.05 (SEC 300 mg vs PBO) < 0.05 (SEC 150 mg vs PBO) < 0.05 (SEC 300 mg vs PBO) > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg vs PBO) | – |
Nash 2018 (FUTURE 3)26 | Multicenter (n = 74) in several countries | DB | 414 | SEC vs PBO | N (%) of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | SEC 300 mg and 150 mg demonstrated superiority over PBO. SEC 300 mg: 22/46 (47.8%); SEC 150 mg 14/36 (38.9%); PBO 5/36 (13.9%). | 24 | < 0.01 (SEC 300 mg vs PBO) > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg vs PBO) | – |
Kivitz 2019 (FUTURE 4)27 | Multicenter (n = 58) in several countries | DB | 341 | SEC vs PBO | N (%) of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 16 | SEC 150 mg did not achieve statistical significance compared to PBO. SEC 150 mg with load: 13/40 (32.5%); SEC 150 mg no load: 16/38 (42%); PBO 14/44 (31.8%). | 24 | > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg with load vs PBO) > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg no load vs PBO) | – |
Mease 2018 (FUTURE 5)28 | Multicenter (n = 172) in several countries | DB | 996 | SEC vs PBO | N (%) of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 16 | SEC 300 mg and 150 mg (with load) demonstrated superiority over PBO: SEC 300 mg with load: 54/82 (65.9%); SEC 150 mg with load: 46/80 (57.5%); SEC 150 mg no load: 58/103 (56.3%); PBO: 40/124 (32.3%). | 24 | < 0.05 (SEC 300 mg load vs PBO) < 0.05 (SEC 150 mg load vs PBO) > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg no load vs PBO) | – |
Kirkham 2020 (FUTURE 5) (post hoc analysis ofsubjects with dactylitis)29 | Multicenter (n = 172) in several countries | DB | 389 | SEC vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 16 | SEC 300 mg with load was 67%, SEC 150 mg with load was 58%, and SEC 150 mg no load was 58%, vs 35% in PBO. | 24 | Not described | – |
Ritchlin 2020 (pooled analysis FUTURE 2,3,4,5)30 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 1803 | SEC vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 16, stratified by TSD ≤ 1 yr and > 2 yrs | SEC 300 mg with load was 53.8% (≤ 1 yr) and 57.0% (> 2 yrs), SEC 150 mg with load was 34.4% (≤ 1 yr) and 51.5% (> 2 yrs), and SEC 150 mg no load was 50.0% (≤ 1 yr) and 44.8% (> 2 yrs), vs 27.7% (≤ 1 yr) and 30.4% (> 2 yrs) in PBO. | 16 | TSD ≤ 1 year: < 0.05 (SEC 300 mg load vs PBO) > 0.05 (SEC 150 mg with or without load vs PBO) TSD > 2 years: < 0.05 (SEC 300 mg load vs PBO) < 0.05 (SEC 150 mg with or without load vs PBO) | – |
Gladman 2019 (integrated data SPIRIT P1 and P2)31 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 679 | IXE vs PBO | % of patients with LDI = 0 at wk 24 | IXEQ4W was 78% and IXEQ2W was 65%, vs 24% in PBO. | 24 | < 0.001 | – |
Mease 2021 (pooled AMVISION-1 and -2)32 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 962 | BRO vs PBO | % of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 16 | BRO 140 mg (40.9%) and 210 mg (50.8%) were statistically superior vs PBO (24.2%) | 24 | < 0.05 (BRO 140 mg vs PBO) < 0.001 (BRO 210 mg vs PBO) < 0.01 (BRO 140 mg vs PBO) < 0.001 (BRO 210 mg vs PBO) | – |
% of patients with resolution of dactylitis at wk 24 | BRO 140 mg (43.0%) and 210 mg (60.1%) were statistically superior vs PBO (19.8%). | ||||||||
Mease 2014 (NCT01516957)33 | Multicenter (n = 29) in USA and Canada | DB | 168 | BRO vs PBO | Change in the no. of dactylitis digits in a 0-20 count from BL at wk 12 | No significant difference between the group receiving BRO 140 mg, BRO 210 mg, and PBO. Change from BL to wk 12 was −1.4 for BRO 140 mg and −2.0 for BRO 210 mg, vs −0.5 in PBO. | 240 | 0.28 (BRO 140 mg vs PBO) 0.11 (BRO 210 mg vs PBO) | – |
Deodhar 2020 (DISCOVER-1)34 | Multicenter (n = 86) in several countries | DB | 381 | GUS vs PBO | % of patients with DSS = 0 at wk 24 | GUS 100 mg Q4W was 64% and GUS 100 mg Q8W was 65%, vs 49 in PBO. Pooled results with DISCOVER-2 were described in the next reference. | 52 | 0.01 (GUS Q4W vs PBO) 0.03 (GUS Q8W vs PBO) | – |
Mease 2020 (DISCOVER-2)35 | Multicenter (n = 118) in several countries | DB | 739 | GUS vs PBO | % of patients with DSS = 0 at wk 24 | GUS was statistically superior to PBO to achieve resolution of dactylitis at wk 24. GUS Q4W was 64% and GUS Q8W was 59%, vs 42% in PBO. | 24 | 0.01 (GUS Q4W vs PBO) 0.03 (GUS Q8W vs PBO) | – |
ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | LSM (95% CI) change in DSS: GUS Q4W −5.97 (−6.84 to −5.11); GUS Q8W −6.10 (−6.92 to −5.27); PBO 4.21 (−5.05 to −3.36). | Not described | |||||||
Mease 2020 (NCT02980692)36 | Multicenter (n = 74) in several countries | DB | 391 | TIL vs PBO | ΔLDI from BL to wk 52 | TIL 200 mg Q4W was −21.4 (SD 37.1), TIL 200 mg Q12W was −42.1 (SD 76.7), TIL 100 mg Q12W was −41.6 (SD 89.3), TIL 20 → 200 mg Q12W was −56.5 (123.4), and PBO → TIL 200 mg Q12W was −81.5 (173.0). | 52 | Not described | – |
Papp 2019 (NCT02986373)37 | Multicenter, no. of centers not provided in the reference | DB | 145 | RZB | ALDI from BL to wk 52 | Mean change BL in patients receiving RZB was −74.5. | 52 | Not described (no comparator group) | – |
Mease 2017 (NCT02719171)38 | Multicenter, no. of centers not provided in the reference | DB | 185 | RZB vs PBO | LSM change from BL to wk 16 in a simple count of digits (0-20) | Arm 1 (RZB 150 mg at wk 0, 4, 8, 12, and 16) was −0.5, Arm 2 (RZB 150 mg at wk 0, 4, and 16) was −2.5, Arm 3 (RZB 150 mg at wk 0 and 12) was −3.1, Arm 4 (RZB 75 mg single dose at wk 0) was −3.6, Arms 1 + 2 was −1.6, and Arm 5 (PBO) was −2.8. | 15 | Not described | – |
McInnes 2020 (DISCOVER-2)39 | Multicenter (n = 118) in several countries | DB | 739 | GUS vs PBO | % patients with DSS = 0 at wk 24 and 52 | At wk 24: GUS Q4W was 68.1% and GUS Q8W was 60.7%, vs PBO at 41.1%. At wk 52: GUS Q4W was 81.1% and GUS Q8W was 81.9%, vs PBO → GUS Q4W at 78.5%. | 52 | Not described | – |
McGonagle 2020 (pooled analysis of DISCOVER-1 and -2)40 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 1120 | GUS vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 16 | GUS Q4W was −5.51 and GUS Q8W was −5.43, vs PBO at −3.70. | 24 | Unadjusted nominal < 0.01 between GUS Q4W, GUS Q8W (each vs PBO) | – |
ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | GUS Q4W was −5.97 and GUS Q8W was −6.10, vs PBO at −4.21. | Unadjusted nominal < 0.01 between GUS Q4W and PBO Unadjusted nominal < 0.001 between GUS Q8W and PBO (not trolled for multiplicity, interpret only as supportive) | |||||||
Ritchlin 2020 (DISCOVER-1)41 | Multicenter (n = 86) in several countries | DB | 381 | GUS vs PBO | % of patients with DSS = 0 at wk 24 and wk 52 | GUS Q4W at wk 24 was 64.9%, and 78.4% at wk 52. GUS Q8W at wk 24 was 67.3%, and 79.5% at wk 52. PBO at wk 24 was 61.7%. PBO → GUS Q4W was 81.4% at wk 52. | 52 | Not described | – |
Mease 2017 (ASTRAEA)42 | Multicenter (n = 76) in several countries | DB | 424 | ABA vs PBO | % of patients with LDI-B score = 0 at wk 24 | ABA 125 mg weekly 44.3% (95% CI 31.8-56.7) vs PBO at 34.0% (95% CI 20.9-47.1). | 24 | Not tested because of failure in hierarchical significance | – |
Mease 2016 (NCT01490450)43 | Multicenter (n = 44) in several countries | DB | 165 | CLAZ vs PBO | Mean count of dactylitic digits at wk 24 | PBO was 2.5 (SD 3.8), CLAZ 25 mg was 1.4 (SD 2.1), CLAZ 100 mg was 0.2 (SD 0.4), and CLAZ 200 mg was 0.8 (SD 1.5). | 24 | Not described | – |
Kavanaugh 2015 (PSUMMIT 1, extension study, crossover at wk 24)44 | Multicenter (n = 104) in several countries | DB | 490 | UST | ΔDSS from BL to wk 100 | At wk 100, the 3 treatment groups (UST 45 mg, UST 90 mg, and PBO → UST 45 mg) all had a median score improvement of 3.0 and a median % improvement of 100%. In the combined UST group, the % of patients with ≥ 1 digits with residual dactylitis continued to decrease from wk 52 (42.6%) through wk 100 (31.8%). | 100 | Not described | – |
Ritchlin 2014 (PSUMMIT 2)45 | Multicenter (n = 71) in several countries | DB | 312 | UST vs PBO | % of patients with dactylitis at wk 24 | Numeric, but not significant, improvement was observed among the smaller no. (n = 127) of patients with baseline dactylitis in the UST 90 mg group vs placebo. PBO was 75.8%, UST 45 mg was 65.2%, UST 90 mg was 57.9%, and the combined UST group was 61.9%. | 24 | > 0.05 (UST 90 mg vs PBO) | – |
McInnes 2013 (PSUMMIT 1)46 | Multicenter (n = 104) in several countries | DB | 615 | UST vs PBO | % of patients with dactylitis at wk 24 | Significantly lower proportions of patients with dactylitis in the combined 45 mg/90 mg UST group (56.2%) vs PBO arm (76.1%). | 52 | 0.005 (45 mg vs PBO) 0.004 (90 mg vs PBO) 0.001 (combined UST groups vs PBO) | – |
Mease 2018 (EQUATOR)47 | Multicenter (n = 25) in several countries | DB | 131 | FILGO vs PBO | ΔLDI from BL to wk 16 | It was identified during blinded data review that dactylitis was not scored uniformly across all centers and thus authors decided not to report the results for this outcome. | 16 | Not described | – |
Mease 2017 (OPAL BROADEN)48 | Multicenter (n = 126) in several countries | DB | 422 | TOF vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 12 | TOF 10 mg was numerically superior to PBO whereas 5 mg was not. | 12 | Not tested because of failure in hierarchical significance | – |
Gladman 2017 (OPAL BEYOND)49 | Multicenter (n = 98) in several countries | DB | 395 | TOF vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 12 | TOF 10 mg and 5 mg were numerically superior to PBO. | 12 | Not tested because of failure in hierarchical significance | – |
McInnes 2020 (SELECT PsA1)11 | Multicenter (n = 374) in several countries | DB | 1705 | UPA vs ADA vs PBO | % of patients with LDI = 0 at wk 24 | UPA 15 mg (77 %) and 30 mg (80%) showed significantly more dactylitis resolution compared to PBO (40%) and similar to ADA (74%). | 24 | < 0.001 (UPA vs PBO) > 0.05 (UPA vs ADA) | – |
Orbai 2020 (pooled analysis OPAL BROADEN/OPAL BEYOND)50 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 373 | TOF vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 4, 12, and 24; dactylitic digits count (mean/SE) | Patients treated with TOF had cumulative improvements from BL to month 6 in DSS score and in the no. of dactylitic digits. | 24 | Not described | – |
Nash 2019 (OPAL BALANCE)51 | Multicenter (n = 153) in several countries | OL LTE | 180 | TOF vs TOF + MTX | % of patients maintaining DSS = 0 during 12 mos among those with DSS = 0 in baseline | Near 100% in both groups. | 48 | Not described | – |
Kavanaugh 2014 (PALACE 1)52 | Multicenter (n = 83) in several countries | DB | 504 | APR vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | DSS LSM change (SE):PBO was −1.3 (SE 0.27), APR 20 mg BID was −2.0 (SE 0.30), and APR 30 mg BID was −1.8 (SE 0.27). | 24 | 0.07 (PBO vs APR 20 mg BID) 0.17 (PBO vs APR 30 mg BID) > 0.05 | – |
% of patients with DSS = 0 at wk 24 | APR 20 mg BID (50.9%) and APR 30 mg BID (47.7%) vs PBO (40.9%). | ||||||||
Edwards 2016 (PALACE 3)53 | Multicenter (n = 91) in several countries | DB | 505 | APR vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | In patients with dactylitis at BL, ΔDSS was significantly improved for APR 30 mg (−2.4). Results for APR 20 mg did not reach statistical significance (−1.6) vs PBO (−1.4). | 24 | 0.04 (APR 30 mg BID vs PBO) NS (APR 20 mg BID vs PBO) | – |
Gladman 2018 (pooled analysis PALACE 1-3)54 | Multicenter in several countries | DB | 1493 | APR vs PBO | ΔDSS from BL to wk 24 | APR 30 mg BID was statistically superior to placebo BL (−1.8 vs −1.3). | 24 | < 0.01 | 0.15 |
% of patients with DSS = 0 | PBO (39.0%), APR 20 mg BID (45.9), and APR 30 mg BID (46.2%). | > 0.05 | |||||||
Wells 2018 (PALACE 4)55 | Multicenter (n = 118) in several countries | DB | 527 | APR vs PBO | Change in dactylitis count (0-20) from BL to wk 24 | Mean PBO (−0.9, SD 3.0), APR 20 mg BID (−1.8, SD 2.9), and APR 30 mg BID (−1.9, SD 3.3). | 52 | < 0.5 (PBO vs APR 30 mg BID) < 0.5 (PBO vs APR 20 mg BID) | 0.32 |
Total duration of the study reported in the manuscript. ABA: abatacept; ADA: adalimumab; APR: apremilast; BID: twice a day; BRO: brodalumab; DB: double blind; BL: baseline; CLAZ: clazakizumab; CZP: certolizumab pegol; ΔDSS: mean change in Dactylitis Severity Score; DSS: Dactylitis Severity Score; DSS 20/50/70: a 20/50/70% improvement in the Dactylitis Severity Score; ETN: etanercept; FILGO: filgotinib; GOL: golimumab; GUS: guselkumab; H2H: head-to-head; IFX: infliximab; IQR: interquartile rate; LDI: Leeds Dactylitis Index; IXE: ixekizumab; ΔLDI: change in Leeds Dactylitis Index; LDI-B: Leeds Dactylitis Index basic version; LDI 20/50/70: a 20/50/70 % improvement in Leeds Dactylitis Index; LSM: least squares mean; LTE: long-term extension; MTX: methotrexate; OL: open-label; OR: odds ratio; PBO: placebo; PsA: psoriatic arthritis; Q2W: every 2 weeks; Q4W: every 4 weeks; Q8W: every 8 weeks; RZB: risankizumab; SE: standard error; SEC: secukinumab; SEM: standard error of mean; TIL: tildrakizumab; TNF: tumour necrosis factor; TNF-IR: patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor agents; TOF: tofacitinib; TSD: time since diagnosis; UPA: upadacitinib; UST: ustekinumab.