A Bold New Future for Psoriatic Arthritis Treatments in Dermatology

Key Takeaways

• Early recognition and treatment of PsA are of critical importance, and diagnostic delays are associated with worse long-term outcomes, including irreversible joint damage and reduced quality of life. 
• The PsA treatment landscape has expanded, with IL-17, IL-23, JAK, TYK2, and TNF-targeted therapies enabling more personalized treatment strategies. 
• Emerging evidence challenges the traditional TNF-first and methotrexate-combination approach, supporting individualized biologic selection based on disease manifestations and patient factors. 
• Head-to-head and real-world studies continue to refine treatment decisions, with bimekizumab, deucravacitinib, and guselkumab demonstrating strong efficacy across joint, skin, and radiographic outcomes. 
• Novel agents in development (such as sonelokimab, icotrokinra, and next-generation TYK2 inhibitors), may further expand therapeutic options.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an increasingly important consideration in the field of dermatology. Because the cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis (PsO) often precede the onset of musculoskeletal (MSK) disease, dermatologists are uniquely positioned to identify the early signs and symptoms of PsA while facilitating timely diagnosis and initiate treatment before irreversible structural damage occurs.¹ Early recognition of PsA is particularly important as diagnostic delays have been associated with worse long-term outcomes, including progressive joint destruction with impaired physical function and a reduced quality of life (QoL) for patients.^2,3 The current therapeutic landscape highlights the dermatologist’s role in PsA management. Many therapies approved for PsA are already routinely prescribed by dermatologists for PsO, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors, and other targeted agents.⁴ In addition, therapies for other inflammatory dermatoses, such as upadacitinib (atopic dermatitis), have also demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of PsA.^5,6 As a result, dermatologists are increasingly involved in recognizing PsA and in prescribing therapies capable of addressing both the cutaneous and MSK manifestations of psoriatic disease.^7,8 Also, emerging evidence suggests that early treatment of PsO with biologics may decrease the risk of PsA development, further highlighting the critical role of dermatologists.^9-11 In this article, we discuss current treatment considerations for PsA; key developments shaping the future of PsA management, including shifts away from traditional treatment algorithms; emerging head-to-head comparative clinical trial data; and promising agents currently in clinical development. 

Current Therapeutic Landscape 

The therapeutic landscape for PsA has markedly expanded over the past 20 years.¹² What was once a disease primarily managed with conventional global immunosuppressive agents now has a diverse repertoire of biologic and targeted therapies capable of addressing both cutaneous and MSK manifestations of psoriatic disease.¹³ Currently, 17 medications have received United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for PsA across multiple mechanistic classes, providing clinicians with an unprecedented ability to individualize treatment based on disease phenotype and severity, comorbidities, patient preferences, and therapeutic goals.¹⁴ 

The modern biologic era of PsA treatment began in 2002 with the approval of etanercept, the first TNF inhibitor approved for the disease.¹⁵ Over the following two decades, the TNF inhibitor class expanded to include adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and infliximab, providing multiple effective options for patients with active disease.^16-19 More recently, advances in understanding PsA pathogenesis have expanded treatment options beyond TNF inhibition to include IL-17 inhibitors such as secukinumab, ixekizumab, and bimekizumab, as well as IL-23 inhibitors including guselkumab and risankizumab, and ustekinumab, which targets the shared p40 subunit of IL-12 and IL-23.²⁰

Oral therapies also play an increasingly important role in PsA management. Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as tofacitinib and upadacitinib have provided highly effective alternatives for patients who prefer oral therapies or are not ideal candidates for biologics.^5,20,21 Additionally, apremilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) inhibitor, is a useful option for selected patients, particularly those seeking an oral therapy with a well-established safety profile.^20,22 More recently, deucravacitinib became the first tyrosine kinase (TYK) 2 inhibitor approved for PsA, adding a novel mechanism of action (MOA) to an increasingly diverse treatment landscape.^20,23 Finally, conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), most notably methotrexate (MTX), continue to be used frequently in clinical practice and remain part of the treatment conversation for many patients.^20,24 Together, these advances have transformed PsA management from a limited set of treatment options to a diverse therapeutic landscape that allows clinicians to better tailor therapy to the individual patient. 

Challenging Traditional Treatment Paradigms 

The expanding number of effective therapies for PsA has prompted a reexamination of several longstanding treatment paradigms. Historically, TNF inhibitors have been viewed as the default first-line biologic option; however, recent data suggest stronger efficacy across IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and JAK inhibitors.²⁵ JAK inhibitors comparatively showed the highest probability of achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 and ACR50 disease response while IL-17 inhibitors demonstrated particular strengths in enthesitis and dactylitis resolution.²⁵ Bimekizumab has also emerged as a notable performer, ranking first for minimal disease activity among biologic-naïve patients with robust efficacy in both cutaneous and MSK outcomes.²⁶ Together, these findings support a more individualized approach to PsA treatment selection rather than a default TNF-first strategy. 

The role of MTX has similarly come under scrutiny. Despite its widespread use, recent data found that adjunctive MTX did not improve disease response rates (ACR20, ACR50, and radiographic inhibition of disease progression) compared with biologic monotherapy.²⁷ Given the lack of added efficacy and extensive side effect profile including hepatotoxicity, cytopenias, and teratogenicity, routine combination therapy with MTX may not be necessary for many patients.^27,28 Perhaps the most important lesson from these data is that PsA treatment is becoming increasingly personalized and dermatologists now have the opportunity to effectively tailor treatment plans for their patients. As treatment algorithms evolve away from a “one-size-fits-all” approach, direct comparative trials between biologics and novel studies are helping dermatologists make evidence-based decisions tailored to patient needs. 

Old Drugs, New Lessons 

BE BOLD Study

One of the most anticipated updates in PsA treatment comes from the BE BOLD study, a head-to-head phase 3b clinical trial comparing bimekizumab with risankizumab in adults with active PsA. At Week 16, bimekizumab demonstrated statistically significant superiority in ACR50 response (49.1% vs 38.4%; p = 0.0078), making it the first approved biologic to show a therapeutic advantage in joint outcomes in a head-to-head PsA trial.^29,30 Early efficacy was notable, with ACR50 at Week 4 favoring bimekizumab, suggesting rapid onset of joint symptom relief.^29,30 Equally important for dermatologists, among patients with PsO affecting at least 3% body surface area, complete skin clearance (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI] 100) was achieved by 53.4% with bimekizumab versus 46.6% with risankizumab.^29,30 Moreover, these results were obtained with the PsA dosing of bimekizumab (160 mg q 4 weeks), which is half of the PsO dose.^29,30 These data are important for dermatologists managing patients with both cutaneous and MSK manifestations, as they provide direct comparative evidence between IL-17A/IL-17F and IL-23 inhibition. The dual advantage in both joint and skin clearance positions bimekizumab as a compelling first-line option when comprehensive disease control is the therapeutic goal. 

POETYK PsA-1 and PsA-2 Trials

Deucravacitinib, the first selective oral TYK2 inhibitor approved by the FDA for the treatment of plaque psoriasis, recently received expanded approval for PsA in March 2026 based on the pivotal POETYK PsA-1 and PsA-2 phase 3 trials.³¹ In these studies, deucravacitinib showed significant improvements in ACR20 response at Week 16 compared to placebo (54.2% vs 39.4%; p = 0.0002).³¹ Clinical responses were maintained and increased through Week 52.³¹ The selective TYK2 inhibition mechanism offers a distinct advantage over broader JAK inhibition with a favorable safety profile that did not require the black box warnings associated with other JAK inhibitors. For dermatologists, this provides a convenient once-daily oral option for patients with PsA. 

TOGETHER-PsA Trials

Another interesting study evaluated concomitant use of ixekizumab with tirzepatide, a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide (GLP) receptor agonist versus ixekizumab alone in adults with active PsA and obesity, a population representing 72% to 82% of PsA patients.^32,33 The TOGETHER-PsA trials showed that ACR50 and ≥10% weight reduction at 36 weeks was achieved by 31.7% with combination therapy versus only 0.8% with ixekizumab alone.^32,33 ACR50 response favored combination therapy as early as Week 4, suggesting weight-independent anti-inflammatory benefits.^32,33 Additionally, patient-reported outcomes showed clinically meaningful improvements in physical function and QoL with concomitant therapy.^32,33 This is important for dermatologists managing PsA patients with comorbid obesity as addressing both autoimmune and metabolic disease components may yield superior outcomes. 

APEX Trial

Lastly, the APEX trial evaluated guselkumab in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA and known risk factors for radiographic progression.³⁴ This study showed significantly less structural damage progression at Week 24 with guselkumab compared to placebo.³⁴ Notably, 67.3% of patients receiving guselkumab every 4 weeks and 62.8% receiving it every 8 weeks experienced no radiographic disease progression, compared to only 53.0% receiving placebo.³⁴ These results were sustained through Week 48, with minimal continued disease progression in patients receiving guselkumab.³⁴ For dermatologists managing PsA, these data reinforce the importance of early biologic use in preventing irreversible joint damage in high-risk patients. 

These studies demonstrate that approved PsA therapies continue to generate practice-changing evidence long after initial approval. For dermatologists, staying current with these data is essential to optimizing treatment selection for patients. 

Emerging Therapies for PsA 

While recent data from established biologics continue to redefine treatment plans, several promising next-generation agents are progressing through the drug discovery pipeline. Sonelokimab, an IL-17A/IL-17F inhibiting nanobody, demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2 randomized trial that included both placebo and adalimumab comparator arms.³⁵ At Week 12, ACR50 was met with both the 60-mg and 120-mg weekly induction regimens with response rates of 46.3% and 46.5% respectively, compared to only 20.0% with placebo.³⁵ The nanobody formulation offers potential advantages including smaller molecular size and enhanced tissue penetration, which may translate to improved clinical outcomes. 

Another emerging therapy for PsA is the oral IL-23R antagonist icotrokinra, which is being evaluated in the ICONIC-PsA program—two phase 3 trials enrolling more than 1,200 patients with active PsA.³⁶ ICONIC-PsA 1 (n=540) is assessing the safety and efficacy in biologic-naïve patients, while ICONIC-PsA 2 (n=750) is evaluating biologic-experienced patients.³⁶ While study results are not yet available, the anticipated findings from these trials will be highly informative given the novel mechanism of action. If successful, icotrokinra would further expand the growing repertoire of therapeutic options available to dermatologists managing PsA. 

Second-generation TYK2 inhibitors are also advancing through clinical development.³⁷ Zasocitinib (TAK-279), a highly selective TYK2 inhibitor, demonstrated clinically significant efficacy in a phase 2b trial, with 15-mg and 30-mg doses achieving ACR20 responses of 53.3% and 54.2%, respectively, compared to 29.2% with placebo at Week 12.³⁷ Three phase 3 trials are currently recruiting patients (NCT07286058, NCT06671496, and NCT06671483). If successful, zasocitinib would provide an additional TYK2 inhibitor option, with potentially enhanced selectivity and efficacy while maintaining a favorable safety profile. 

Conclusion 

PsA treatment is entering a new era with dermatologists well positioned to make a meaningful impact. Many therapies approved for PsA are already routinely prescribed in dermatology clinics for PsO and other inflammatory dermatoses, creating a familiar and timely opportunity for dermatologists to help manage PsA in collaboration with rheumatology to prevent long-term functional decline. A practical and logical approach begins with dermatologists screening for clinical signs and symptoms of PsA. Dermatologists should also assess for features associated with increased PsA risk—particularly scalp, nail, and genital involvement. Treatment should focus on reaching National Psoriasis Foundation target goals as quickly and safely as possible. If joint symptoms are present, the approach should prioritize therapies that are approved for both PsO and PsA and also demonstrate inhibition of radiographic progression. If axial components are present, selecting an IL-17 inhibitor or JAK inhibitor with a referral to rheumatology for evaluation of ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis is appropriate. Ultimately, the goal is not for dermatologists to manage complex PsA in isolation, but rather to recognize the disease early, start rational treatment when appropriate, and ensure timely co-management. This is an exciting time in PsA care. More targeted therapies and stronger comparative data are making earlier, more personalized treatment possible. For patients, that means better disease control and a greater chance of preserving long-term function. n

1. Cho HH, Kim BS. Diagnosing psoriatic arthritis from the dermatologist’s view. J Lifestyle Med. 2013;3(2):85-90. 

2. Zundell MP, Perez-Chada L, Tapryal N, et al. Diagnostic delay of psoriatic arthritis of more than six months contributes to poor patient-reported outcome measures in depression, social ability, and disease impact: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2024;17(10):19-22. 

3. Kannappan R, Kim S, Lau A, Brent LH. Psoriatic arthritis: from diagnosis to treatment. J Clin Med. 2025;14(22):8151. Published November 17, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14228151

4. Ogdie A, Coates L. The changing face of clinical trials in psoriatic arthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2017;19(4):21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-017-0642-z

5. Fonseca D, Nogueira M, Torres T. Upadacitinib for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Drugs Context. 2023;12:2022-11-6. Published February 28, 2023. https://doi.org/10.7573/dic.2022-11-6

6. Burmester GR, Cohen SB, Winthrop KL, et al. Safety profile of upadacitinib over 15 000 patient-years across rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and atopic dermatitis. RMD Open. 2023;9(1):e002735. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002735

7. Datta D, Podder I, De A, Das S. Psoriatic arthritis: a comprehensive update for dermatologists with review of literature. Indian J Dermatol. 2022;67(4):381-386. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijd.ijd_571_22

8. Dege T, Steffens O, Kiesel Ö, et al. Joint assessment matters: diagnostic and therapeutic benefits of interdisciplinary psoriasis care. Adv Ther. 2026;43(4):1790-1801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-026-03520-8

9. Gisondi P. Biologics and the psoriatic march: is it time to rethink early intervention? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2026;40(5):730-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.70394

10. Miao KL, Huang MY, Guo L, Lung K, Armstrong AW. Effect of biologic use on the development of psoriatic arthritis: a population-based study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2026;40(5):900-907. Published online November 6, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.70167

11. Rosenthal YS, Schwartz N, Sagy I, Pavlovsky L. Incidence of psoriatic arthritis among patients receiving biologic treatments for psoriasis: a nested case-control study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2022;74(2):237-243. Published online December 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.41946

12. Aydin SZ, Marzo-Ortega H. The changing face of psoriatic arthritis. Lancet Rheumatol. 2022;4(5):e313-e315. Published online February 7, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(22)00002-9

13. Ayan G, Ribeiro A, Macit B, Proft F. Pharmacologic treatment strategies in psoriatic arthritis. Clin Ther. 2023;45(9):826-840. Published online July 15, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.05.010

14. Yi RC, Akbik M, Smith LR, Klionsky Y, Feldman SR. Therapeutic advancements in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. J Clin Med. 2025;14(4):1312. Published February 16, 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14041312

15. Mease PJ. Etanercept, a TNF antagonist for treatment for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Skin Therapy Lett. 2003;8(1):1-4. 

16. Simpson D, Scott LJ. Adalimumab: in psoriatic arthritis. Drugs. 2006;66(11):1487-1496; discussion 1497-1499. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200666110-00008

17. Esposito M, Carubbi F, Giunta A, Alunno A, Giacomelli R, Fargnoli MC. Certolizumab pegol for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2020;16(2):119-128. Published online January 22, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2020.1713754

18. Yang H, Epstein D, Bojke L, et al. Golimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(suppl 1):87-95. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta15suppl1/10

19. Mease P. Infliximab (Remicade) in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2006;2(4):389-400. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.2006.2.4.389

20. Spanopoulou C, Katsimbri P. Psoriatic arthritis: developments in 2025. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 2026;37(suppl 1):12-20. Published January 8, 2026. https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.200925.per

21. Ly K, Beck KM, Smith MP, Orbai AM, Liao W. Tofacitinib in the management of active psoriatic arthritis: patient selection and perspectives. Psoriasis (Auckl). 2019;9:97-107. Published August 28, 2019. https://doi.org/10.2147/PTT.S161453

22. Reed M, Crosbie D. Apremilast in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a perspective review. Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2017;9(2):45-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1759720X16673786

23. Tsiogkas SG, Gkouvi A, Kontouli KM, et al. Janus kinase inhibitors for psoriatic arthritis: evidence from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Autoimmun Rev. 2025;24(6):103819. Published online April 21, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2025.103819

24. Wilsdon TD, Whittle SL, Thynne TR, Mangoni AA. Methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1(1):CD012722. Published January 18, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012722.pub2

25. Lin J, Ren Y. Different biologics for biological-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol. 2024;15:1279525. Published March 13, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1279525

26. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Merola JF, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2024;63(7):1779-1789. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kead705

27. Mease PJ, Reddy S, Ross S, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of biologics with and without methotrexate in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a network meta-analysis. RMD Open. 2024;10(1):e003423. Published January 31, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003423

28. Yélamos O, Català A, Vilarrasa E, Roé E, Puig L. Acute severe methotrexate toxicity in patients with psoriasis: a case series and discussion. Dermatology. 2014;229(4):306-309. Published online November 12, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1159/000366501

29. UCB. BIMZELX® (bimekizumab) superior to SKYRIZI® (risankizumab) in BE BOLD head-to-head study. UCB. March 10, 2026. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://www.ucb.com/newsroom/press-releases/article/ucb-announces-a-head-to-head-study-evaluating-bimzelxrvbimekizumab-versus-skyrizir-risankizumab-in-active-psoriatic-arthritis

30. Bimekizumab tops risankizumab in PsA head-to-head trial. Dermatology Times. Published May 19, 2026. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://www.dermatologytimes.com/view/bimekizumab-tops-risankizumab-in-psa-head-to-head-trial

31. Bristol Myers Squibb. Bristol Myers Squibb presents late-breaking data from phase 3 POETYK PsA-2 trial demonstrating superiority of Sotyktu (deucravacitinib) compared with placebo in adults with psoriatic arthritis. News release. March 7, 2025. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://news.bms.com/news/details/2025/Bristol-Myers-Squibb-Presents-Late-Breaking-Data-from-Phase-3-POETYK-PsA-2-Trial-Demonstrating-Superiority-of-Sotyktu-deucravacitinib-Compared-with-Placebo-in-Adults-with-Psoriatic-Arthritis/default.aspx

32. Merola JF, Mease P, Kivitz A, et al. Ixekizumab with tirzepatide achieved greater disease control than ixekizumab alone in adults with psoriatic arthritis and overweight or obesity: results from a randomized clinical trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. Published online March 28, 2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.70134

33. Eli Lilly and Company. Lilly’s Taltz® (ixekizumab) and Zepbound® (tirzepatide) used together delivered superior efficacy in first-of-its-kind phase 3b trial for adults with active psoriatic arthritis and obesity or overweight. News release. January 7, 2026. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lillys-taltz-ixekizumab-and-zepbound-tirzepatide-used-together

34. Johnson & Johnson. TREMFYA®: overview of the APEX clinical trial. J&J Medical Connect. Updated December 16, 2025. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://www.jnjmedicalconnect.com/products/tremfya/medical-content/tremfya-overview-of-the-apex-clinical-trial

35. McInnes IB, Coates LC, Mease PJ, et al. Sonelokimab, an IL-17A/IL-17F-inhibiting nanobody for active psoriatic arthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Nat Med. 2025;31:4160-4171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03971-6

36. Johnson & Johnson Medical Connect. ICOTYDE: treatment of psoriatic arthritis: ICONIC-PsA program. Updated March 18, 2026. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://www.jnjmedicalconnect.com/products/icotyde/medical-content/icotyde-treatment-of-psoriatic-arthritis-iconic-psa-program

37. Kivitz A, Baraliakos X, Muensterman ET, et al. Highly selective tyrosine kinase 2 inhibition with zasocitinib (TAK-279) improves outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: a randomised phase 2b study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2025;84(10):1660-1674. Published online July 4, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ard.2025.05.023