ArticleThe Journal of dermatology2025
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Adalimumab, Secukinumab, and Upadacitinib in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study Based on PARWCH Cohort.
Article in The Journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory disease, with prevalence among psoriasis patients ranging from 6% to 42% across populations. Although targeted therapies such as adalimumab (ADA), secukinumab (SEC), and upadacitinib (UPA) have demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials, real-world head-to-head comparisons remain limited. This study aimed to compare the real-world effectiveness and safety of ADA, SEC, and UPA in PsA patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study using data from the PARWCH database. PsA patients treated with ADA, SEC, or UPA were included and followed at baseline, Week 4, Week 12, and Week 24. Skin responses were evaluated using PASI75/90. Joint outcomes-including peripheral and axial arthritis-were assessed with ACR, PsARC, and ASAS criteria. Patient-reported pain, disease activity, and HAQ scores were also recorded. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout treatment. MMRM and GLMM were used to analyze continuous and binary outcomes, respectively. A total of 187 PsA patients were included (SEC: 78; ADA: 66; UPA: 43). All three agents demonstrated comparable effectiveness in improving peripheral joint symptoms (ACR20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = -0.29, p = 0.62; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = -0.29, p = 0.66) and axial involvement (ASAS20: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = -0.04, p = 0.81; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = -1.05, p = 0.23). UPA and SEC showed significantly greater effectiveness than ADA in improving skin lesions (PASI90: SEC vs. ADA, Coef = 1.84, p = 0.006; UPA vs. ADA, Coef = 1.53, p = 0.04). However, ADA was more effective in relieving pain compared to both UPA (Coef = 2.43, p < 0.001) and SEC (Coef = 1.21, p = 0.02). Over 24 weeks, 85 AEs were reported by 48 patients, with fatigue, rash, upper respiratory tract infection, and pruritus being the most common. No serious AEs occurred. In conclusion, UPA and SEC demonstrated balanced effectiveness across skin and joint domains, while ADA offered superior pain relief. These findings support personalized treatment strategies tailored to the clinical features of PsA patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.