-
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2020To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
OBJECTIVE
To update the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS
According to the EULAR standardised operating procedures, a systematic literature review was followed by a consensus meeting to develop this update involving 28 international taskforce members in May 2019. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined.
RESULTS
The updated recommendations comprise 6 overarching principles and 12 recommendations. The overarching principles address the nature of PsA and diversity of both musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations; the need for collaborative management and shared decision-making is highlighted. The recommendations provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local glucocorticoid injections are proposed as initial therapy; for patients with arthritis and poor prognostic factors, such as polyarthritis or monoarthritis/oligoarthritis accompanied by factors such as dactylitis or joint damage, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) targeting tumour necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-17A or IL-12/23 should be initiated, taking into account skin involvement if relevant. If axial disease predominates, a TNF inhibitor or IL-17A inhibitor should be started as first-line disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is addressed primarily after bDMARD failure. Phosphodiesterase-4 inhibition is proposed for patients in whom these other drugs are inappropriate, generally in the context of mild disease. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are addressed.
CONCLUSION
These recommendations provide stakeholders with an updated consensus on the pharmacological management of PsA, based on a combination of evidence and expert opinion.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Consensus; Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Decision Making, Shared; Europe; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Interleukin-12; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors; Societies, Medical; Synthetic Drugs; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 32434812
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217159 -
Lancet (London, England) May 2022In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The addition of androgen deprivation therapy and pelvic lymph node treatment to prostate bed salvage radiotherapy (NRG Oncology/RTOG 0534 SPPORT): an international, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial.
BACKGROUND
In men with a detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy for prostate cancer, salvage prostate bed radiotherapy (PBRT) results in about 70% of patients being free of progression at 5 years. A three-group randomised trial was designed to determine whether incremental gains in patient outcomes can be achieved by adding either 4-6 months of short-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to PBRT, or both short-term ADT and pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT) to PBRT.
METHODS
The international, multicentre, randomised, controlled SPPORT trial was done at 283 radiation oncology cancer treatment centres in the USA, Canada, and Israel. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) were those who after prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate had a persistently detectable or an initially undetectable and rising PSA of between 0·1 and 2·0 ng/mL. Patients with and without lymphadenectomy (N0/Nx) were eligible if there was no clinical or pathological evidence of lymph node involvement. Other eligibility criteria included pT2 or pT3 disease, prostatectomy Gleason score of 9 or less, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive PBRT alone at a dose of 64·8-70·2 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction daily (group 1), PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 2), or PLNRT (45 Gy at 1·8 Gy per fraction, and then a volume reduction made to the planning target volume for the remaining 19·8-25 ·2 Gy) plus PBRT plus short-term ADT (group 3). The primary endpoint was freedom from progression, in which progression was defined as biochemical failure according to the Phoenix definition (PSA ≥2 ng/mL over the nadir PSA), clinical failure (local, regional, or distant), or death from any cause. A planned interim analysis of 1191 patents with minimum potential follow-up time of 5 years applied a Haybittle-Peto boundary of p<0·001 (one sided) for comparison of 5-year freedom from progression rates between the treatment groups. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00567580. The primary objectives of the trial have been completed, although long-term follow-up is continuing.
FINDINGS
Between March 31, 2008, and March 30, 2015, 1792 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the three treatment groups (592 to group 1 [PBRT alone], 602 to group 2 [PBRT plus short-term ADT], and 598 to group 3 [PLNRT plus PBRT plus short-term ADT]). 76 patients subsequently found to be ineligible were excluded from the analyses; thus, the evaluable patient population comprised 1716 patients. At the interim analysis (n=1191 patients; data cutoff May 23, 2018), the Haybittle-Peto boundary for 5-year freedom from progression was exceeded when group 1 was compared with group 3 (difference 17·9%, SE 2·9%; p<0·0001). The difference between groups 2 and 3 did not exceed the boundary (p=0·0063). With additional follow-up beyond the interim analysis (the final planned analysis; data cutoff May 26, 2021), at a median follow-up among survivors of 8·2 years (IQR 6·6-9·4), the 5-year freedom from progression rates in all 1716 eligible patients were 70·9% (95% CI 67·0-74·9) in group 1, 81·3% (78·0-84·6) in group 2, and 87·4% (84·7-90·2) in group 3. Per protocol criteria, freedom from progression in group 3 was superior to groups 1 and 2. Acute (≤3 months after radiotherapy) grade 2 or worse adverse events were significantly more common in group 3 (246 [44%] of 563 patients) than in group 2 (201 [36%] of 563; p=0·0034), which, in turn, were more common than in group 1 (98 [18%] of 547; p<0·0001). Similar findings were observed for grade 3 or worse adverse events. However, late toxicity (>3 months after radiotherapy) did not differ significantly between the groups, apart from more late grade 2 or worse blood or bone marrow events in group 3 versus group 2 (one-sided p=0·0060) attributable to the addition of PLNRT in this group.
INTERPRETATION
The results of this randomised trial establish the benefit of adding short-term ADT to PBRT to prevent progression in prostate cancer. To our knowledge, these are the first such findings to show that extending salvage radiotherapy to treat the pelvic lymph nodes when combined with short-term ADT results in meaningful reductions in progression after prostatectomy in patients with prostate cancer.
FUNDING
National Cancer Institute.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Androgen Antagonists; Androgens; Humans; Lymph Nodes; Male; Prostate; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms; Radiation Oncology; Salvage Therapy
PubMed: 35569466
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01790-6 -
Nature Medicine Apr 2022Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have demonstrated promising efficacy, particularly in hematologic malignancies. One challenge regarding CAR T cells in solid...
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have demonstrated promising efficacy, particularly in hematologic malignancies. One challenge regarding CAR T cells in solid tumors is the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME), characterized by high levels of multiple inhibitory factors, including transforming growth factor (TGF)-β. We report results from an in-human phase 1 trial of castration-resistant, prostate cancer-directed CAR T cells armored with a dominant-negative TGF-β receptor (NCT03089203). Primary endpoints were safety and feasibility, while secondary objectives included assessment of CAR T cell distribution, bioactivity and disease response. All prespecified endpoints were met. Eighteen patients enrolled, and 13 subjects received therapy across four dose levels. Five of the 13 patients developed grade ≥2 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), including one patient who experienced a marked clonal CAR T cell expansion, >98% reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and death following grade 4 CRS with concurrent sepsis. Acute increases in inflammatory cytokines correlated with manageable high-grade CRS events. Three additional patients achieved a PSA reduction of ≥30%, with CAR T cell failure accompanied by upregulation of multiple TME-localized inhibitory molecules following adoptive cell transfer. CAR T cell kinetics revealed expansion in blood and tumor trafficking. Thus, clinical application of TGF-β-resistant CAR T cells is feasible and generally safe. Future studies should use superior multipronged approaches against the TME to improve outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Male; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; T-Lymphocytes; Transforming Growth Factor beta; Tumor Microenvironment
PubMed: 35314843
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01726-1 -
Lancet (London, England) Jan 2022Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.
BACKGROUND
Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.
METHODS
These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS
Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).
INTERPRETATION
Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.
FUNDING
Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.
Topics: Abiraterone Acetate; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Benzamides; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Male; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Neoplasm Grading; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Nitriles; Phenylthiohydantoin; Prednisolone; Progression-Free Survival; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34953525
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02437-5 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2021The term spondyloarthritis pertains to both axial and peripheral arthritis including ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), which is strongly linked... (Review)
Review
The term spondyloarthritis pertains to both axial and peripheral arthritis including ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), which is strongly linked to psoriasis and also the arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The argument supporting the role for IL-23 across the spectrum of SpA comes from 4 sources. First, genome wide associated studies (GWAS) have shown that all the aforementioned disorders exhibit IL-23R pathway SNPs, whereas HLA-B27 is not linked to all of these diseases-hence the IL-23 pathway represents the common genetic denominator. Secondly, experimental animal models have demonstrated a pivotal role for the IL-23/IL-17 axis in SpA related arthropathy that initially manifests as enthesitis, but also synovitis and axial inflammation and also associated aortic root and cutaneous inflammation. Thirdly, the emergent immunology of the human enthesis also supports the presence of IL-23 producing myeloid cells, not just at the enthesis but in other SpA associated sites including skin and gut. Finally, drugs that target the IL-23 pathway show excellent efficacy for skin disease, efficacy for IBD and also in peripheral arthropathy associated with SpA. The apparent failure of IL-23 blockade in the AS which is effectively a spinal polyenthesitis but evidence for efficacy of IL-23 inhibition for peripheral enthesitis in PsA and preliminary suggestions for benefit in axial PsA, raises many questions. Key amongst these is whether spinal inflammation may exhibit entheseal IL-17A production independent of IL-23 but peripheral enthesitis is largely dependent on IL-23 driven IL-17 production. Furthermore, IL-23 blocking strategies in animal models may prevent experimental SpA evolution but not prevent established disease, perhaps pointing towards a role for IL-23 in innate immune disease initiation whereas persistent disease is dependent on memory T-cell responses that drive IL-17A production independently of IL-23, but this needs further study. Furthermore, IL-12/23 posology in inflammatory bowel disease is substantially higher than that used in AS trials which merits consideration. Therefore, the IL-23 pathway is centrally involved in the SpA concept but the nuances and intricacies in axial inflammation that suggest non-response to IL-23 antagonism await formal definition. The absence of comparative immunology between the different skeletal sites renders explanations purely hypothetical at this juncture.
Topics: Animals; Biomarkers; Diagnosis, Differential; Disease Management; Disease Susceptibility; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Interleukin-17; Interleukin-23; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Signal Transduction; Spondylitis, Ankylosing; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33815371
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.614255 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2024New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the...
OBJECTIVE
New modes of action and more data on the efficacy and safety of existing drugs in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) required an update of the EULAR 2019 recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of PsA.
METHODS
Following EULAR standardised operating procedures, the process included a systematic literature review and a consensus meeting of 36 international experts in April 2023. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were determined.
RESULTS
The updated recommendations comprise 7 overarching principles and 11 recommendations, and provide a treatment strategy for pharmacological therapies. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be used in monotherapy only for mild PsA and in the short term; oral glucocorticoids are not recommended. In patients with peripheral arthritis, rapid initiation of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is recommended and methotrexate preferred. If the treatment target is not achieved with this strategy, a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be initiated, without preference among modes of action. Relevant skin psoriasis should orient towards bDMARDs targeting interleukin (IL)-23p40, IL-23p19, IL-17A and IL-17A/F inhibitors. In case of predominant axial or entheseal disease, an algorithm is also proposed. Use of Janus kinase inhibitors is proposed primarily after bDMARD failure, taking relevant risk factors into account, or in case bDMARDs are not an appropriate choice. Inflammatory bowel disease and uveitis, if present, should influence drug choices, with monoclonal tumour necrosis factor inhibitors proposed. Drug switches and tapering in sustained remission are also addressed.
CONCLUSION
These updated recommendations integrate all currently available drugs in a practical and progressive approach, which will be helpful in the pharmacological management of PsA.
Topics: Arthritis, Psoriatic; Humans; Antirheumatic Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Methotrexate; Biological Products
PubMed: 38499325
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2024-225531 -
Journal of Nuclear Medicine : Official... May 2021Treatment of advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after failure of approved therapy options remains challenging. Prostate-specific membrane antigen...
Treatment of advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after failure of approved therapy options remains challenging. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeting β- and α-emitters have been introduced, with promising response rates. Here, we present the first-to our knowledge-clinical data for PSMA-targeted α-therapy (TAT) using Ac-PSMA imaging and therapy (I&T). Fourteen patients receiving Ac-PSMA-I&T were included in this retrospective analysis. Eleven of the 14 had prior second-line antiandrogen treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide, prior chemotherapy, and prior Lu-PSMA treatment. Patients were treated at bimonthly intervals until progression or intolerable side effects. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was measured for response assessment. Hematologic and nonhematologic side effects were recorded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Thirty-four cycles of Ac-PSMA-I&T were applied (median dose, 7.8 MBq; range, 6.0-8.5), with 1 cycle in 3 patients, 2 cycles in 7 patients, 4 cycles in 3 patients, and 5 cycles in 1 patient. No acute toxicity was observed during hospitalization. Baseline PSA was 112 ng/mL (range, 20.5-818 ng/mL). The best PSA response after TAT (a PSA decline ≥ 50%) was observed in 7 patients, and a PSA decline of any amount was observed in 11 patients. Three patients had no PSA decline at any time. A subgroup analysis of 11 patients with prior Lu-PSMA treatment showed any PSA decline in 8 patients and a decline of at least 50% in 5 patients. After TAT, grade 3 anemia was observed in 3 of the 14 patients, with 2 of them presenting with grade 2 anemia already at baseline. Grade 3 leukopenia was observed in 1 patient. Eight patients with preexisting xerostomia after Lu-PSMA showed no worsening after TAT. Newly diagnosed grade 1 or 2 xerostomia after TAT was observed in 5 patients. One patient reported no xerostomia at all. Our first clinical data for TAT using Ac-PSMA-I&T showed a promising antitumor effect in advanced metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. These results are highly comparable to data on Ac-PSMA-617 TAT.
Topics: Actinium; Antigens, Surface; Beta Particles; Glutamate Carboxypeptidase II; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasm Metastasis; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33008928
DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.251017 -
Giornale Italiano Di Dermatologia E... Aug 2020Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a seronegative inflammatory arthritis often observed in patients with skin psoriasis. Treatment of PsA, especially peripheral PsA, has... (Review)
Review
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a seronegative inflammatory arthritis often observed in patients with skin psoriasis. Treatment of PsA, especially peripheral PsA, has typically relied on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents (DMARDs); however, these agents have limited efficacy and considerable associated toxicity. More recently, monoclonal antibodies (biologic agents) have revolutionized management of immune-mediated diseases; however, these therapies carry a high cost and require parenteral administration. Apremilast, a novel oral DMARD, was approved by the European Union for psoriatic arthritis in 2015. Apremilast inhibits the function of phosphodiesterase-4, a regulator of cyclic adenosine monophosphate, leading to a broad inhibition of proinflammatory mediators and subsequent reduction in tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) response. The PALACE and ACTIVE trials, phase III randomized controlled trials for apremilast, showed that apremilast is effective at improving various clinical and patient-reported outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis in both DMARD-naïve and DMARD-experienced PsA patients. Efficacy was limited in patients with previous biologic DMARD failure and the overall efficacy of apremilast appears to be less than biologics agents, though no head-to-head trials exist comparing apremilast to biologic DMARDs. Apremilast is generally well tolerated, with short-lived gastrointestinal side effects being the most commonly reported adverse events. Guidelines suggest a trial of apremilast in patients who have failed traditional oral DMARDs and for whom, biologics are contraindicated. More studies directly comparing apremilast to conventional DMARDs and biologic DMARDs are needed and will be crucial in informing clinical and economic decisions about apremilast role in management of PsA.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Humans; Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thalidomide
PubMed: 33050680
DOI: 10.23736/S0392-0488.20.06640-7