An Extension Study of Subcutaneous Secukinumab in Patients With Juvenile Psoriatic Arthritis (JPsA) and Enthesitis Related Arthritis (ERA)

This study is an extension of a previous core study (NCT03031782 \[CAIN457F2304\]) aiming to assess the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of secukinumab treatment in patients who completed the core study and chose to participate in the extension study. The primary objective was to gather comprehensive data on the efficacy and safety of secukinumab over an extended period. At Week 104 of the core study, all eligible patients could opt to roll over to the extension study and continue receiving secukinumab at either 75 mg or 150 mg, as they were at the Week 100 visit of the core study. The treatment involved subcutaneous injections using pre-filled syringes (PFS). The duration of patient participation could range from a minimum of one year to a maximum of four years, or until one of the following conditions was met: the drug was locally approved, marketed, and reimbursed, secukinumab could be provided free of charge to patients in compliance with local guidelines, or a maximum of 4 years study duration. During the extension study (starting from Week 108), to maintain a high proportion of clinically meaningful response during the entire duration of the extension study, the dosing options available, at the Investigator's discretion, were as follows: * The dose could be escalated from 75 mg to 150 mg for patients whose signs and symptoms were not fully controlled with the current dose of 75 mg and might improve with a higher dose as judged by the investigator * Further, the dose could be escalated to 300 mg for patients weighing 50 kg and over currently on the 150 mg dose whose signs and symptoms were not fully controlled and might improve further with an increase in dose as judged by the investigator * Dose escalation from secukinumab 75 mg to 300 mg had to be done in two steps (first 150 mg then 300 mg if the patient weighed 50 kg or over and based on the investigator's judgement), also considering the gap between the two escalations to review the response