Skip to main content

Effect of tofacitinib on dactylitis and patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: post-hoc analysis of phase III studies

Abstract

Background

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This post-hoc analysis of two phase III studies in patients with PsA treated with tofacitinib assessed dactylitis by location, and the impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Methods

Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo. Endpoints included change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score (DSS), proportions of patients with dactylitis, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), and PROs (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F]; Short Form-36 Health Survey [SF-36] Physical Component Summary [PCS], Mental Component Summary [MCS], and physical functioning [PF]; arthritis pain; and Work Limitations Questionnaire [WLQ]). Descriptive statistics were generated by visit and treatment. Change from baseline in PROs were evaluated by multivariate linear regression.

Results

The analysis included 373/337 patients with baseline DSS > 0/DSS = 0. Regardless of location, DSS improvements in patients with DSS > 0 were greater from month 1 with tofacitinib (10 mg BID) versus placebo. For patients with DSS > 0/DSS = 0, both doses of tofacitinib led to mean dactylitis presence ≤ 15%/< 2% for all digits at month 6, and PASDAS (by dactylitis location) was lower versus placebo at month 3. Dactylitis location was not significantly associated with change from baseline in PROs.

Conclusion

Tofacitinib resulted in sustained improvements in dactylitis irrespective of location, with minimal emergence of new dactylitis.

Trial registration NCT01877668; NCT01882439.

Peer Review reports

Background

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease that has multiple manifestations, including inflammation of the peripheral joints, tendons, ligaments, skin, and the axial skeleton [1,2,3]. It is associated with pain, increased levels of fatigue, impaired physical function, and reduced work productivity, which can have a substantial impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL) [1,2,3,4,5].

Dactylitis is a diffuse and, in its acute phase, painful swelling of the fingers and/or toes, and is considered a hallmark of PsA [6, 7]. Up to 50% of patients with PsA may experience dactylitis [6, 8], and it is more common in feet than in hands [8]. Dactylitic digits exhibit a greater degree of radiological damage than digits unaffected by dactylitis [6, 8]. As such, dactylitis is considered a core domain of musculoskeletal symptoms in PsA [9] and is important for both patients and physicians when developing treatment strategies. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are recommended as first-line treatments for dactylitis [10]. There is evidence supporting the efficacy of biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), including tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and inhibitors of interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23, for the treatment of dactylitis [7, 10,11,12,13,14]. However, effective therapies to treat dactylitis in patients with PsA are still needed.

Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID; recommended dosage) [15, 16] and 10 mg BID has been demonstrated in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to either conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) (OPAL Broaden; NCT01877668) [17] or TNFi therapy (OPAL Beyond; NCT01882439) [18], and were investigated in an open-label, long-term extension study (OPAL Balance; NCT01976364) [19].

In phase III RCTs of patients with active PsA, tofacitinib treatment was associated with greater improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score (DSS) than placebo, at month 3 [17, 18]. This post-hoc analysis of data pooled from phase III RCTs further explored the effects of tofacitinib on dactylitis, including the effect on individual digits, and the impact of tofacitinib treatment on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA with dactylitis, stratified by dactylitis location, compared with patients without dactylitis.

Methods

Study design

This post-hoc analysis included pooled data from two phase III studies. OPAL Broaden (NCT01877668) was a 12-month, phase III RCT of tofacitinib in patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to csDMARDs. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, placebo (to month 3 only; patients receiving placebo advanced to either tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3), or adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks [17]. OPAL Beyond (NCT01882439) was a 6-month, phase III RCT of tofacitinib in patients with active PsA with an inadequate response to TNFi. Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, or placebo (to month 3 only) [18].

This analysis included patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID (approved dose) or tofacitinib 10 mg BID from baseline to month 6, or placebo to month 3 [17, 18]. Patients were also treated with a single csDMARD throughout.

Both studies were conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee at each center, and all patients provided written informed consent.

Assessments

Patients were categorized at baseline by the presence or absence of dactylitis in the hands and/or feet. Dactylitis was defined as the painful swelling of an entire digit, based on the investigator’s judgment. The number of digits in the hands and feet with dactylitis was evaluated by a blinded, qualified assessor. For each digit of the hands and feet, the severity of dactylitis was scored on a scale of 0–3 (0 = no tenderness; 3 = extreme tenderness). DSS was calculated as the sum of the individual scores for each digit of the hands and feet, which ranged from 0 to 60 (60 = highest dactylitis severity) [20].

Endpoints in this analysis included the number of dactylitic digits per patient, and the proportion of patients with dactylitis in individual digits at months 1 (first post-baseline assessment), 3, and 6, and change from baseline in DSS in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, and the development of dactylitis through month 6 in patients with DSS = 0 at baseline. Disease activity at baseline and at months 1, 3, and 6 was assessed by Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), a composite measure of disease activity, that includes assessments of tender/swollen joints, dactylitis, and enthesitis; Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS); acute-phase response; and patient and physician global assessments (range 0–10; higher scores indicate higher disease activity) [21, 22].

PROs assessed at months 1, 3, and 6 included change from baseline in: Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores (HAQ-DI; range 0–3, higher scores indicate greater disability) [23]; HAQ-DI response rate (defined as a ≥ 0.35-point decrease from baseline in HAQ-DI score) [24]; Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) total score (range 0–52; higher scores indicate less fatigue) [25]; SF-36 PCS, Mental Component Summary (MCS), and physical functioning (PF) sub-scores (norm-based scale; higher scores indicate better HRQoL) [26,27,28]; arthritis pain (assessed by Visual Analog Scale [VAS], range 0–100 mm) [29]; and Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ) time management, physical demands, mental/interpersonal demands, and output demands scores (assessed at months 3 and 6 only, range 0–100; higher scores indicate greater work limitation/productivity loss) [30, 31].

Statistical analyses

Patient demographic and baseline disease characteristics were reported for all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study treatment. Descriptive statistics were generated for PROs by visit and for each treatment arm, stratified by the presence of dactylitis. Binary endpoints were analyzed using Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel statistics, with non-responder imputation for missing values; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived based on the normal approximation. When comparing with placebo, tofacitinib responses were defined as “greater”, “lower”, or “higher” if the corresponding 95% CIs did not overlap.

The effects of baseline dactylitis on change from baseline in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PF sub-score, and WLQ domain scores at months 3 and 6 were evaluated by multivariate linear regression analysis in patients with DSS > 0 receiving tofacitinib, using backward selection criteria. The baseline parameters included in the model were the respective PRO being assessed (HAQ-DI, SF-36 PF score, or WLQ dimension sub-scores); dactylitis in the right hand (yes/no), left hand (yes/no), right foot (yes/no), and left foot (yes/no); a term for tofacitinib dose was also included in the model. In this analysis, a P value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.

Results

Patient demographics and baseline disease characteristics

Overall, 710 patients were included in this analysis, of whom 337 (47.5%) had DSS = 0 at baseline, and 373 (52.5%) had DSS > 0 at baseline. Of those patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, dactylitis in the hands or feet was assessed; 251 (67.3%) patients had dactylitis in the hands only, 275 (73.7%) patients had dactylitis in the feet only, and 153 (41.0%) patients had dactylitis in both the hands and feet.

Patient demographics and baseline disease characteristics for patients with DSS > 0 and DSS = 0 are shown in Table 1. At baseline, patient demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar across dactylitis groups and treatment groups; however, of those patients with DSS > 0, a higher proportion of patients with dactylitis versus no dactylitis at baseline were men (e.g., in the hands and feet combined group: DSS > 0, 45.3–65.2%; DSS = 0, 36.0–42.3%). Baseline PASDAS across treatment groups was generally higher in patients with DSS > 0 (6.5–7.1), compared with patients with DSS = 0 (5.4–5.7). Baseline PROs were similar across dactylitis groups and treatment groups.

Table 1 Demographics and baseline characteristics in patients with baseline DSS > 0 or DSS = 0

DSS and dactylitic digits count in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline

Regardless of location (hands only, feet only, hands and feet), improvements from baseline in DSS were greater at months 1 and 3 in patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID, compared with placebo (Fig. 1a). Likewise, in the hands and feet combined group, improvements in dactylitic digit count were greater at months 1 and 3 in patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID, compared with placebo (Fig. 1b). Greater improvements were also observed in the hands only group at month 1 in patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID compared with placebo (Fig. 1b). For both endpoints, improvements with tofacitinib were maintained to month 6.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Change from baseline in DSS and dactylitic digits count (patients with baseline DSS > 0). Data for a DSS and b dactylitis digit count were stratified by dactylitis location and pooled from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond. *Comparisons where the 95% CI for tofacitinib does not overlap with the 95% CI for placebo. Dactylitis was defined as swelling of an entire digit; DSS ranged from 0 to 60 (60 = highest dactylitis severity) [20]. BID twice daily, CI confidence interval, DSS Dactylitis Severity Score, N total number of patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, n number of patients applicable for each category

Assessment of dactylitis over 6 months in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, stratified by location

At baseline, a larger proportion of patients experienced dactylitis in the 2nd and 3rd fingers of the right and left hands, compared with other fingers of either hand (Fig. 2a, b), and the 2nd toes of either foot, compared with other toes (Fig. 2c, d). The proportion of patients with dactylitis decreased following treatment with tofacitinib, and, at month 1, greater improvements were observed in the 4th finger of the right hand with 10 mg BID compared with placebo (Fig. 2a).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Proportion of patients with dactylitis stratified by location (patients with baseline DSS > 0). Data for a right hand fingers, b left hand fingers, c right foot toes, and d left foot toes were pooled from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond. *Comparisons where the 95% CI for tofacitinib does not overlap with the 95% CI for placebo. Dactylitis was defined as swelling of an entire digit; DSS ranged from 0 to 60 (60 = highest dactylitis severity) [20]. BID twice daily, CI confidence interval, DSS Dactylitis Severity Score, N total number of patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, n number of patients applicable for each category

At baseline, for all digits in the hands and feet in those receiving tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, dactylitis was present in up to 35.4% and 38.4% of patients, respectively. Improvements in dactylitis presence for individual digits were similar with tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID (≤ 15% of patients at month 6) (Fig. 2a–d).

Development of dactylitis over 6 months in patients with DSS = 0 at baseline, stratified by location

For those with no dactylitis (DSS = 0) at baseline receiving either tofacitinib or placebo, dactylitis had developed in ≥ 1 digits in < 2% of patients at month 1, and up to 3.7% of patients at month 3. Emerging dactylitis was observed in < 2% across treatment groups at month 6 (Additional file 1: Fig. S1a–d).

At month 3, in general, in patients without dactylitis at baseline, few differences were observed in the development of dactylitis in those who received tofacitinib, compared with placebo. Across treatment groups, development of dactylitis through month 6 was more common in the right hand, compared with the left hand, and primarily affected the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (Additional file 1: Fig. S1a, b). Development of dactylitis was more common in the digits of the left foot, compared with the right foot (Additional file 1: Fig. S1c, d).

Disease activity in patients with DSS > 0 and DSS = 0 at baseline

In patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, PASDAS was lower with both doses of tofacitinib versus placebo at months 1 and 3, regardless of dactylitis site. PASDAS in patients with dactylitis was 5.2–5.6 and 5.0–5.2 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID across dactylitis sites, respectively, versus 6.2–6.6 with placebo, at month 1; and 4.5–4.8 and 4.1–4.2 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, respectively, versus 5.7–6.2 with placebo, at month 3. Lower PASDAS with tofacitinib was maintained to month 6 (Fig. 3a).

Fig. 3
figure 3

PASDAS by dactylitis location in patients with DSS > 0 or DSS = 0 at baseline. Data for patients with a DSS > 0 and b DSS = 0 at baseline were pooled from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond. *Comparisons where the 95% CI for tofacitinib does not overlap with the 95% CI for placebo. Dactylitis was defined as swelling of an entire digit; DSS ranged from 0 to 60 (60 = highest dactylitis severity) [20]. BID twice daily, CI confidence interval, DSS Dactylitis Severity Score, N total number of patients, PASDAS Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score

In patients with DSS = 0 at baseline, PASDAS was lower at month 3 with tofacitinib 5 mg BID (mean 3.81 [95% CI 3.49–4.13]) and tofacitinib 10 mg BID (3.76 [95% CI 3.46–4.06]) compared with placebo (4.49 [95% CI 4.19–4.79]). Improvements with tofacitinib were maintained to month 6 (Fig. 3b).

PROs in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline

In patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID, change from baseline in HAQ-DI scores and HAQ-DI response rates are shown in Fig. 4a and b, respectively, and other PRO scores are shown in Additional file 2: Fig. S2.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Change from baseline in HAQ-DI scores and response rates. Change from baseline data in a HAQ-DI score and b HAQ-DI response rate by dactylitis location in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline; and c HAQ-DI score and d HAQ-DI response rate, in patients with DSS = 0 at baseline were pooled from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond. *Comparisons where the 95% CI for tofacitinib does not overlap with the 95% CI for placebo. Defined as ≥ 0.35-point decrease from baseline in HAQ-DI score. Dactylitis was defined as swelling of an entire digit; DSS ranged from 0 to 60 (60 = highest dactylitis severity) [20]. BID twice daily, CI confidence interval, DSS Dactylitis Severity Score, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, N total number of patients, n number of patients applicable for each category

Regardless of dactylitis site, mean improvements from baseline in HAQ-DI score and HAQ-DI response rate were greater at month 3 with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, compared with placebo (Fig. 4a, b). In the feet only group, greater improvements in HAQ-DI score and HAQ-DI response rate were also observed with both doses of tofacitinib at month 3 (Fig. 4a, b). At month 1, in the feet only group, greater improvements in HAQ-DI score and HAQ-DI response rate were observed with tofacitinib 10 mg BID and both doses of tofacitinib, respectively, compared with placebo (Fig. 4a, b).

Similarly, arthritis pain VAS scores were lower with both doses of tofacitinib versus placebo at month 3, regardless of dactylitis site and were maintained to month 6. At month 1, regardless of location, lower arthritis pain VAS scores were observed with tofacitinib 10 mg BID compared with placebo (Additional file 2: Fig. S2e). In the feet only group at month 1, lower arthritis pain VAS scores were also observed with tofacitinib 5 mg BID compared with placebo (Additional file 2: Fig. S2e).

Mean WLQ time management and output demands scores were lower with tofacitinib 10 mg BID in the hands only and feet only groups, compared with placebo at month 3 (first post-baseline assessment of WLQ dimension scores) (Additional file 3: Fig. S3a, d). Regardless of dactylitis site, mean WLQ physical demands scores were similar across treatment groups at month 3, whereas mean WLQ mental/interpersonal demands scores were lower with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, versus placebo in the hands only group (Additional file 3: Fig. S3b, c). Responses with tofacitinib were generally maintained to month 6, regardless of dactylitis site (Additional file 3: Fig. S3a–d).

Multivariate linear regression analyses demonstrated that dactylitis location was not significantly associated with change from baseline in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PF, or WLQ dimension sub-scores at months 3 and 6 in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, irrespective of tofacitinib dose; the only parameters that were associated with change from baseline in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PF, or WLQ dimension sub-scores were the baseline scores for each respective PRO. It was observed that in most cases, more unfavorable baseline scores predicted a bigger mean change from baseline in responses.

PROs in patients with DSS = 0 at baseline

PRO results are shown in Fig. 4c, d, Additional file 4: Fig. S4, and Additional file 5: Fig. S5, including mean WLQ time management, physical demands, mental/interpersonal demands, and output demands scores.

Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI score were greater with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, compared with placebo, at month 3 (Fig. 4c), and HAQ-DI response rates were greater with tofacitinib 5 mg BID at month 1 (Fig. 4d).

Mean FACIT-F total scores, SF-36 PCS, SF-36 MCS, and PF scores were similar across treatment groups at months 1 and 3 with both doses of tofacitinib, compared with placebo (Additional file 4: Fig. S4a–d).

Arthritis pain scores in patients with DSS = 0 at baseline were 41.2, 38.1, and 43.7 with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and placebo, respectively, at month 1; and 34.8, 33.0, and 41.4 with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and placebo, respectively, at month 3 (Additional file 4: Fig. S4e).

Discussion

Phase III RCTs of patients with active PsA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs (OPAL Broaden), or TNFi (OPAL Beyond), reported the effectiveness of tofacitinib with regard to various articular and patient-reported outcomes in PsA, and reported improvements in several psoriatic disease domains [17, 18]. Greater improvements in DSS were reported with tofacitinib, versus placebo, at month 3 [17, 18].

In this analysis of pooled data from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond, greater improvements in dactylitis were observed among patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg BID (recommended dosage: 5 mg BID [15, 16]) with pre-existing dactylitis (DSS > 0) at baseline, compared with placebo. Improvements in dactylitis with tofacitinib were observed as early as month 1 (first post-baseline assessment) and maintained up to month 6. PASDAS was lower at month 3 with tofacitinib versus placebo in patients with DSS > 0 (regardless of dactylitis site). We also assessed if location of dactylitis could impact on improvements in PROs; dactylitis location was not significantly associated with PROs (change from baseline in HAQ-DI, SF-36 PF, or WLQ dimension sub-scores). In those patients without pre-existing dactylitis (DSS = 0) at baseline, the proportions of patients developing dactylitis in any digit were low, and were similar with tofacitinib and placebo; however, PASDAS was lower with tofacitinib versus placebo at month 3, and scores were maintained through to month 6.

Dactylitis is more common in the feet, compared with the hands [6, 8], and it is possible that toe dactylitis may be less responsive to therapy than finger dactylitis. Notably, in this analysis when stratified by location, we only observed greater improvements in the 4th finger of the right hand with tofacitinib 10 mg BID at month 1.

Of note, in patients without pre-existing dactylitis at baseline, dactylitis developed in up to 3.7% of patients in the digits of the hands or feet up to month 3, and < 2% developed dactylitis up to month 6, regardless of treatment allocation.

As noted above, in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, absolute PASDAS score was lower with tofacitinib versus placebo, regardless of dactylitis location. Dactylitic digits are often tender and painful, and this can impact on the physical functioning of patients with PsA. PASDAS is a composite measure of disease activity, which includes assessment of dactylitis [22]. It is possible that changes in dactylitis will correspond with changes in tender/swollen joint counts; thus, treatments that improve dactylitis could also result in improvements in tender/swollen joints, contributing to reductions in PASDAS. Therefore, dactylitis may be acting as an indicator of disease severity in this analysis.

Dactylitis should be considered when treatment options are being evaluated for PsA [6, 7, 10]; however, clinical data on the effects of treatments for PsA on changes in dactylitis have, to date, been limited. An analysis of pooled data from two phase III studies found that treatment with ixekizumab resulted in significant improvements in dactylitis, compared with placebo over 24 weeks [32]. In an analysis of patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to prior therapy, the proportion of patients with active dactylitis was significantly lower after 12 weeks of adalimumab treatment [14]. In addition, a multivariate analysis of predictors of response to treatment in patients with PsA found that 12-month treatment with TNFi, versus DMARDs, was a significant predictor of improvement in dactylitis [7]. An analysis into the effect of csDMARDs or bDMARDs found that only infliximab was effective for the treatment of dactylitis [12, 13]. A review found that a range of treatments (including adalimumab, apremilast, ixekizumab, and ustekinumab) were effective for dactylitis, while abatacept, secukinumab, clazakizumab, and tofacitinib were considered “promising” [33]. Another analysis showed ustekinumab, certolizumab, and infliximab were likely to be efficacious for dactylitis [34]. Therefore, the findings of this current analysis provide additional detail on the effects of tofacitinib treatment on dactylitis in patients with PsA.

This analysis had several limitations. Firstly, this was a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from patients with PsA enrolled in OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond; the analysis was limited by the low number of patients in the dactylitis groups, and the effects of tofacitinib were only assessed up to month 6. A further limitation was the method used to assess dactylitis; inter- and intra-observer reliability for clinical assessment of dactylitis can be poor, particularly for the toes [20]. Similarly, inter-observer reliability of the degree of tenderness, which was used in this study to grade the severity of dactylitis, can also be poor [20]. Correspondingly, data describing the baseline distribution of both dactylitis digits count and DSS were skewed to the right, indicating that most patients had lower values for the affected dactylitis digits count and, thus, lower values of DSS, which may have impacted the study results. In addition, no formal statistical testing was carried out to determine differences between treatment groups for dactylitis by location and changes from baseline in PROs. Tofacitinib treatment groups were compared, descriptively, with placebo using 95% CIs.

Conclusion

In summary, in this post-hoc analysis of pooled data from two phase III studies, treatment with tofacitinib resulted in lasting improvements in dactylitis, with minimal emergence of new dactylitis up to month 6, irrespective of dactylitis location. PASDAS by dactylitis location was lower at month 3 with tofacitinib compared with placebo, and was maintained up to month 6. These results suggest that tofacitinib treatment may benefit those patients with PsA experiencing dactylitis, thus further supporting the use of tofacitinib as a treatment for PsA. Further analyses of data collected over longer time periods are required to further assess the effects of tofacitinib on dactylitis in patients with PsA.

Availability of data and materials

Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual de-identified participant data. See https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results for more information.

Abbreviations

bDMARD:

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

BID:

Twice daily

CI:

Confidence interval

csDMARD:

Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

DMARD:

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug

DSS:

Dactylitis severity score

FACIT-F:

Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue

HAQ-DI:

Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

IL:

Interleukin

MCS:

Mental Component Summary

PASDAS:

Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score

PCS:

Physical Component Summary

PF:

Physical functioning

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

PsA:

Psoriatic arthritis

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

SF-36:

Short Form-36 Health Survey

TNFi:

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor

VAS:

Visual Analog Scale

WLQ:

Work Limitations Questionnaire

References

  1. Ritchlin CT, Colbert RA, Gladman DD. Psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(10):957–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gladman DD, Antoni C, Mease P, Clegg DO, Nash P. Psoriatic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(Suppl 2):ii14–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Mease PJ, Armstrong AW. Managing patients with psoriatic disease: the diagnosis and pharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis. Drugs. 2014;74(4):423–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kavanaugh A, Helliwell P, Ritchlin CT. Psoriatic arthritis and burden of disease: patient perspectives from the population-based Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) survey. Rheumatol Ther. 2016;3(1):91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rosen CF, Mussani F, Chandran V, Eder L, Thavaneswaran A, Gladman DD. Patients with psoriatic arthritis have worse quality of life than those with psoriasis alone. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2012;51(3):571–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaeley GS, Eder L, Aydin SZ, Gutierrez M, Bakewell C. Dactylitis: a hallmark of psoriatic arthritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018;48(2):263–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gladman DD, Ziouzina O, Thavaneswaran A, Chandran V. Dactylitis in psoriatic arthritis: prevalence and response to therapy in the biologic era. J Rheumatol. 2013;40(8):1357–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brockbank JE, Stein M, Schentag CT, Gladman DD. Dactylitis in psoriatic arthritis: a marker for disease severity? Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(2):188–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Orbai AM, de Wit M, Mease P, Shea JA, Gossec L, Leung YY, et al. International patient and physician consensus on a psoriatic arthritis core outcome set for clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(4):673–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Coates LC, Kavanaugh A, Mease PJ, Soriano ER, Acosta-Felquer ML, Armstrong AW, et al. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis 2015 treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016;68(5):1060–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Helliwell PS. Therapies for dactylitis in psoriatic arthritis. A systematic review. J Rheumatol. 2006;33(7):1439–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Antoni C, Krueger GG, de Vlam K, Birbara C, Beutler A, Guzzo C, et al. Infliximab improves signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis: results of the IMPACT 2 trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(8):1150–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Antoni CE, Kavanaugh A, Kirkham B, Tutuncu Z, Burmester GR, Schneider U, et al. Sustained benefits of infliximab therapy for dermatologic and articular manifestations of psoriatic arthritis: results from the infliximab multinational psoriatic arthritis controlled trial (IMPACT). Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(4):1227–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gladman DD, Sampalis JS, Illouz O, Guérette B. Responses to adalimumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis who have not adequately responded to prior therapy: effectiveness and safety results from an open-label study. J Rheumatol. 2010;37(9):1898–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. US Food and Drug Administration. XELJANZ® (tofacitinib) highlights of prescribing information. http://labeling.pfizer.com/showlabeling.aspx?id=959. Accessed 22 Jan 2022.

  16. European Medicines Agency. Tofacitinib (Xeljanz): summary of product characteristics. 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/referral/xeljanz-article-20-procedure-annex-iii_en.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2022.

  17. Mease P, Hall S, FitzGerald O, van der Heijde D, Merola JF, Avila-Zapata F, et al. Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo for psoriatic arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(16):1537–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gladman D, Rigby W, Azevedo VF, Behrens F, Blanco R, Kaszuba A, et al. Tofacitinib for psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(16):1525–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nash P, Coates LC, Fleishaker D, Kivitz AJ, Mease PJ, Gladman DD, et al. Safety and efficacy of tofacitinib up to 48 months in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: final analysis of the OPAL Balance long-term extension study. Lancet Rheumatol. 2021;3(4):E270–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Helliwell PS, Firth J, Ibrahim GH, Melsom RD, Shah I, Turner DE. Development of an assessment tool for dactylitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(9):1745–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Helliwell PS, FitzGerald O, Fransen J, Gladman DD, Kreuger GG, Callis-Duffin K, et al. The development of candidate composite disease activity and responder indices for psoriatic arthritis (GRACE project). Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72(6):986–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Helliwell PS, FitzGerald O, Fransen J. Composite disease activity and responder indices for psoriatic arthritis: a report from the GRAPPA 2013 meeting on development of cutoffs for both disease activity states and response. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(6):1212–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bruce B, Fries JF. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005;23(5 Suppl 39):S14–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mease PJ, Woolley JM, Bitman B, Wang BC, Globe DR, Singh A. Minimally important difference of Health Assessment Questionnaire in psoriatic arthritis: relating thresholds of improvement in functional ability to patient-rated importance and satisfaction. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(11):2461–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chandran V, Bhella S, Schentag C, Gladman DD. Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue scale is valid in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(7):936–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Bjorner JB, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B, Maruish ME. User’s manual for the SF-36v2 health survey. 2nd ed. Lincoln: Quality Metric Incorporated; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Strand V, Boers M, Idzerda L, Kirwan JR, Kvien TK, Tugwell PS, et al. It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. J Rheumatol. 2011;38(8):1720–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Strand V, Sharp V, Koenig AS, Park G, Shi Y, Wang B, et al. Comparison of health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis and effects of etanercept treatment. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71(7):1143–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M, Bombardier C, Chernoff M, Fried B, et al. The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum. 1993;36(6):729–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lerner D, Amick BC 3rd, Rogers WH, Malspeis S, Bungay K, Cynn D. The work limitations questionnaire. Med Care. 2001;39(1):72–85.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lerner D, Chang H, Rogers WH, Benson C, Schein J, Allaire S. A method for imputing the impact of health problems on at-work performance and productivity from available health data. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51(5):515–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gladman DD, Orbai A-M, Klitz U, Wei JC-C, Gallo G, Birt J, et al. Ixekizumab and complete resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis: integrated analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials in psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21(1):38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sondag M, Verhoeven F, Guillot X, Prati C, Wendling D. Efficacy of new treatments for dactylitis of psoriatic arthritis: update of literature review. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(2):591–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rose S, Toloza S, Bautista-Molano W, Helliwell PS, GRAPPA Dactylitis Study Group. Comprehensive treatment of dactylitis in psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(11):2295–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc. Medical writing support, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Anthony G. McCluskey, Ph.D., CMC Connect, a division of IPG Health Medical Communications, and was funded by Pfizer Inc, New York, NY, USA, in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (Ann Intern Med 2015;163:461–464).

Funding

This study was sponsored by Pfizer Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the critical revision of this manuscript. A-MO, PJM, PSH, and OF contributed to the data acquisition and interpretation. DLF, RM, and PY contributed to the study design, data analysis, and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana-Maria Orbai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Both studies were conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee at each center, and all patients provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

A-M Orbai has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, Horizon, Janssen, and Novartis; and is a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB. PJ Mease has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, and UCB; is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sun, and UCB; and has been on speakers’ bureaus for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB. PS Helliwell has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly; and has received fees for educational services from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer Inc. O FitzGerald has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and UCB; has received consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Pfizer Inc; and has been on speakers’ bureaus for AbbVie, Janssen, and Pfizer Inc. DL Fleishaker, R Mundayat, and P Young are employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Fig. S1.

Proportion of patients without dactylitis (DSS = 0) at baseline who developed dactylitis

Additional file 2: Fig. S2.

Patient reported outcomes in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, by dactylitis location

Additional file 3: Fig. S3.

WLQ scores in patients with DSS > 0 at baseline, by dactylitis location

Additional file 4: Fig. S4.

Patient-reported outcomes in patients without dactylitis (DSS = 0) at baseline

Additional file 5: Fig. S5.

WLQ scores in patients without dactylitis (DSS = 0) at baseline

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Orbai, AM., Mease, P.J., Helliwell, P.S. et al. Effect of tofacitinib on dactylitis and patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: post-hoc analysis of phase III studies. BMC Rheumatol 6, 68 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00298-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-022-00298-4

Keywords

  • Spondyloarthritis
  • Psoriatic arthritis
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Dactylitis
  • Tofacitinib