Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease within the axial spondyloarthritis spectrum. Biological therapies targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-17A (IL-17A) have expanded treatment options for patients with persistent disease activity. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of secukinumab and adalimumab in patients with AS and to compare each biological therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) over one year. Methods: This retrospective comparative study included 83 patients: 31 receiving secukinumab 150 mg, 28 receiving adalimumab 40 mg, and 24 receiving DMARDs. C-reactive protein (CRP) was evaluated at weeks 16, 24, and 52. Disease activity at week 52 was assessed using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score based on CRP (ASDAS-CRP), and clinical response was evaluated using the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society 20% response criteria (ASAS20) at weeks 24 and 52. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: At week 16, CRP differed significantly between secukinumab and DMARDs (p = 0.003). At weeks 24 and 52, CRP differed significantly between both biological treatment groups and DMARDs (week 24: secukinumab p = 0.009, adalimumab p = 0.013; week 52: secukinumab p = 0.017, adalimumab p = 0.012). Direct comparisons between secukinumab and adalimumab were not significant. At week 52, both secukinumab (RR = 1.902, p = 0.045) and adalimumab (RR = 1.816, p = 0.038) were associated with a higher likelihood of low disease activity compared with DMARDs. Secukinumab was associated with ASAS20 response compared with DMARDs at week 52 (RR = 1.82, p = 0.021); the direct comparison with adalimumab was not significant. Conclusion: Both biological therapies were associated with more favorable inflammatory and disease-activity outcomes than DMARDs in this cohort. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated between secukinumab and adalimumab. The retrospective design and small sample size limit causal interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruci et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: