Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are chronic immune-mediated diseases that can create substantial long-term healthcare burden.
For policymakers, the strongest pharmaceutical partners are not simply companies with high-selling medicines. The more important questions are how strong the clinical evidence is, how broadly treatments address skin and joint disease, how durable the outcomes are, and whether treatment innovation can improve population-level care.
Access The Insights Behind Company Moves, Investments, Sales, Pipelines And Consumers. Download Sample: https://www.towardshealthcare.com/download-sample/6427
Several companies stand out, including Johnson & Johnson, AbbVie, Novartis, UCB and Bristol Myers Squibb.
The Leading Companies to Watch
| Company | Leading brand(s) | Main target | Key evidence signal | Policy perspective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johnson & Johnson | TREMFYA, STELARA | IL-23 / IL-12/23 | Strong skin + joint evidence; long-term data | Strong |
| AbbVie | SKYRIZI, RINVOQ | IL-23 / JAK | Strong psoriasis and PsA efficacy | Strong |
| Novartis | COSENTYX | IL-17A | Extensive long-term psoriasis/PsA evidence | Strong |
| UCB | BIMZELX | IL-17A + IL-17F | High skin-clearance and joint-response rates | Strong |
| Bristol Myers Squibb | SOTYKTU | TYK2 | Oral treatment option with psoriasis/PsA evidence | Strong |
Important: These are not interchangeable therapies. Treatment selection depends on disease severity, affected domains, comorbidities, previous therapies, safety considerations and local guidelines.
1. Johnson & Johnson – TREMFYA
Johnson & Johnson is one of the most important companies to evaluate because TREMFYA (guselkumab) has accumulated evidence across both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
In the Phase 3b APEX study, 66.6% of patients receiving TREMFYA every four weeks and 68.3% receiving it every eight weeks achieved ACR20 at week 24, compared with 47.0% with placebo.
The same study showed significantly less radiographic progression, with mean changes in PsA-modified van der Heijde-Sharp scores of 0.55 and 0.54 for TREMFYA versus 1.35 for placebo.
Long-term psoriasis evidence
Five-year VOYAGE 2 data showed:
- 53% achieved PASI 100
- 82% achieved PASI 90
- 85% achieved IGA 0/1
- 55.5% achieved complete skin clearance
These outcomes were maintained through week 252.
Why policymakers may recommend J&J
Pros
- Strong evidence across both PsO and PsA
- Long-term durability data
- Evidence addressing joint structural progression
- Multiple disease domains can be addressed
- Large clinical-development and evidence-generation infrastructure
Cons
- Biologic administration can create access and affordability challenges
- Real-world outcomes may differ from controlled trials
- IL-23 treatment is not automatically optimal for every PsA domain
- Requires continued monitoring of comparative effectiveness and health-system cost
Policy relevance
J&J is particularly interesting for policymakers because the evidence extends beyond skin clearance toward joint outcomes, structural progression and long-term disease control.
2. AbbVie – SKYRIZI
AbbVie’s SKYRIZI (risankizumab) is another major IL-23 option.
European Medicines Agency data show that in a psoriasis study involving 507 patients, 73% of patients receiving SKYRIZI achieved at least a 90% reduction in PASI at week 16, compared with 2% receiving placebo.
In another comparison, 84% of SKYRIZI-treated patients achieved clear or almost-clear skin versus 60% with adalimumab.
For PsA, two principal studies included more than 1,400 patients and demonstrated improved symptoms compared with placebo.
Why policymakers may recommend AbbVie
Pros
- Strong IL-23 clinical evidence
- High levels of skin clearance
- Evidence across psoriasis and PsA
- Established large-scale commercial and clinical infrastructure
- Useful comparator for evaluating biologic treatment strategies
Cons
- Primarily injectable treatment
- Cost and reimbursement remain important population-level considerations
- Comparative effectiveness depends on the patient’s disease domains
- Long-term treatment persistence should be evaluated using real-world evidence
Policy relevance
SKYRIZI is important when policymakers evaluate long-term disease control, biologic utilization and comparative effectiveness among IL-23 therapies.
3. Novartis – COSENTYX
Novartis’ COSENTYX (secukinumab) is an established IL-17A inhibitor with substantial experience in psoriasis and PsA.
Its long-term presence gives policymakers a large body of evidence to evaluate treatment persistence, effectiveness and safety.
COSENTYX is particularly relevant when joint manifestations are important because IL-17 pathway inhibition has an established role across psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.
Why policymakers may recommend Novartis
Pros
- Extensive clinical experience
- Strong psoriasis efficacy
- Established PsA evidence
- Long-term real-world experience
- Useful benchmark for newer biologics
Cons
- Injectable administration
- IL-17 inhibition requires consideration of infection-related safety issues
- Newer therapies have produced strong head-to-head efficacy results in some settings
- Treatment choice must consider individual PsA manifestations
Competitive evidence
In a head-to-head psoriasis study, TREMFYA demonstrated a higher PASI 90 response at week 48 than COSENTYX, illustrating why policymakers should evaluate head-to-head evidence rather than relying only on placebo-controlled trials.
4. UCB – BIMZELX
UCB’s BIMZELX (bimekizumab) is notable because it targets both IL-17A and IL-17F.
Its psoriasis trials have produced particularly high skin-clearance rates.
FDA trial data showed that at week 16:
- 85% achieved PASI 90 in one trial
- 91% achieved PASI 90 in another
- PASI 100 reached 59% and 68%
- IGA 0/1 reached 84% and 93%
Placebo PASI 90 response was only 5% and 1%, respectively.
PsA evidence
In the BE OPTIMAL trial, 44% of BIMZELX-treated patients achieved ACR50 at week 16 versus 10% with placebo.
In BE COMPLETE, the figures were 43% versus 7%.
A head-to-head PsA analysis also reported an ACR50 response of 49.1% with BIMZELX versus 38.0% with SKYRIZI at week 16.
Why policymakers may recommend UCB
Pros
- Very strong skin-clearance data
- Strong joint-response evidence
- Head-to-head evidence against established therapies
- Dual IL-17A/IL-17F mechanism
- Important competitor in treatment effectiveness assessments
Cons
- Safety monitoring remains important
- Injectable administration
- Newer long-term real-world evidence is less extensive than some established biologics
- Cost-effectiveness must be evaluated against competing biologics
Policy relevance
BIMZELX is particularly important for policymakers studying how newer mechanisms compare with established biologic standards.
5. Bristol Myers Squibb – SOTYKTU
Bristol Myers Squibb’s SOTYKTU (deucravacitinib) is strategically different because it is an oral TYK2 inhibitor.
This creates a potentially important policy advantage: treatment does not require biologic injections.
Clinical trials in PsA included 336 patients receiving SOTYKTU versus 334 receiving placebo in one study and 312 versus 312 in another. SOTYKTU produced statistically significant improvements in ACR20 at week 16.
Why policymakers may recommend BMS
Pros
- Oral administration
- Different mechanism from injectable biologics
- Psoriasis and PsA evidence
- Potentially useful for patients who prefer oral treatment
- Expands treatment choice and competition
Cons
- Oral treatment does not automatically mean lower total healthcare cost
- Long-term comparative effectiveness needs continued evaluation
- Safety and patient-selection considerations remain important
- Not necessarily the best option for every disease manifestation
Policy relevance
SOTYKTU is important because route of administration can influence access, adherence, patient preference and healthcare utilization.
How the Companies Compare on Evidence
| Company | Psoriasis evidence | PsA evidence | Long-term evidence | Administration | Key policy strength |
| Johnson & Johnson | Very strong | Very strong | Very strong | Injectable | Skin + joint + structural outcomes |
| AbbVie | Very strong | Strong | Strong | Injectable | IL-23 efficacy and broad evidence |
| Novartis | Very strong | Very strong | Very strong | Injectable | Extensive clinical experience |
| UCB | Very strong | Very strong | Growing | Injectable | High skin and joint response |
| BMS | Strong | Strong | Growing | Oral | Non-injectable treatment choice |
What Should Policymakers Measure?
A policy evaluation should go beyond headline efficacy percentages.
Important metrics include:
- PASI 75/90/100
- ACR20/50/70
- Minimal Disease Activity
- Disease remission
- Radiographic progression
- Treatment persistence
- Serious adverse events
- Hospitalizations
- Patient-reported outcomes
- Quality of life
- Cost per responder
- Cost per quality-adjusted life year
- Healthcare-resource utilization
- Treatment adherence
This broader framework helps determine whether a therapy is delivering meaningful public-health value rather than simply producing strong trial results.
The Public-Health Question
For policymakers, the best pharmaceutical company is not necessarily the company with the highest PASI response.
The stronger question is:
Which treatment delivers the best combination of clinical effectiveness, safety, durability, accessibility, patient experience and healthcare-system value?
That requires comparing evidence across multiple companies, disease domains and real-world populations.
What This Means for Evidence-Based Policy
Psoriasis and PsA treatment is becoming increasingly competitive.
The major therapeutic classes now include:
TNF inhibitors → IL-17 inhibitors → IL-23 inhibitors → TYK2 inhibitors
The evolution gives policymakers more opportunities to improve patient outcomes, but it also makes comparative-effectiveness research, reimbursement policy and long-term real-world evidence increasingly important.
A strong evidence framework should therefore consider:
Clinical outcomes + safety + patient preference + access + cost + healthcare utilization + long-term disease control
How Towards Healthcare Research & Consulting Can Help
Towards Healthcare Research & Consulting can help policymakers, pharmaceutical companies and healthcare organizations evaluate:
- Clinical trial outcomes
- Real-world treatment effectiveness
- Psoriasis and PsA patient populations
- Drug utilization
- Treatment persistence
- Competitor pipelines
- Pricing and reimbursement
- Patient access
- Healthcare-resource utilization
- Comparative effectiveness
- Regulatory developments
- Company investments and strategic partnerships
The objective is to connect clinical evidence with real-world healthcare outcomes, helping decision-makers understand which therapies can create meaningful value for patients and healthcare systems.
Connect with us for complete guidance or further enquiry at [email protected]
Europe Region – +44 778 256 0738
North America Region – +1 8044 4193 44
APAC Region: +91 9356 9282 04
Visit Our Website: https://www.towardshealthcare.com
Find us on social platforms: LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | Medium