Search

Introduction: The use of Janus Kinase Inhibitors (JAK-Is) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has entered in daily practice. In consideration of ORAL-Surveillance trial and the new EULAR recommendations, real-world data are needed to assess Jak-Is safety and effectiveness. The multicenter study presented here aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in a real-life cohort., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed from September 2021 to December 2022. Data were collected when tofacitinib was started (T0) and after 3 (T3), 6 (T6) and 12 (T12) months of treatment. The primary objective was to analyze the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib. Safety was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs) with and without discontinuation. The secondary objective was to assess the difference between Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Physician's Global Assessment of disease activity (PhGA)., Results: 122 patients were included in the study from the following rheumatology Centers: Pisa, Ancona, Florence (two Centers), Siena, and Sardinia. A statistically significant improvement in DAS-28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI score was observed at T3, T6, compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Improvement was confirmed in patients who reach T12. Patients naïve to bDMARDs showed a shorter remission time and higher remission rates. There was also a statistically significant improvement in PROs compared to baseline (p < 0.001). The improvement was rapid and was consistent with PhGA. The 12-month retention rate for tofacitinib was 89.35%. Reasons to stop tofacitinib were: insufficient response (7), gastrointestinal symptoms (2), infection (1), malignancy (1), Zoster (1), pruritus sine materia (1)., Conclusions: Tofacitinib is safe and effective in our RA cohort. It induces higher remission rates in patients naive to bDMARDs, suggesting that there may be a benefit using it as first-line therapy. Additionally, improvement in PROs was consistent with PhGA scores, demonstrating how tofacitinib affects both the objective and subjective components of disease activity. Key Points 1. JAK inhibitors are considered at a similar level as biologic agents in terms of effectiveness. 2. After ORAL-Surveillance results, real-world data are needed to assess the benefit/risk profile of Jaki. 3. Disagreement between patients and physicians has been previously reported with biologic therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with patients rating disease activity higher than physicians. 4. Jak inhibitors could reduce this discrepancy, due to their mechanism of action., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease whose natural history leads to articular and extra-articular damage. Both cardiovascular risk and malignancy risk results higher in RA patients, compared to general population. Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) are oral targeted synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) that disrupt cytokine cascade and exert anti-inflammatory effects by interfering with signaling through the JAK-STAT intracellular pathways. A recent RCT comparing tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily and anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis demonstrated an increased risk of MACE HR 1.33 and cancer HR 1.49 at a follow-up of 4 years. This has led the FDA to class warnings for tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib. Cumulative RCT data, RCT extension data demonstrated a safety profile for Jak inhibitors. Conflicting data results from real life registries; the different selectivity for JAKs (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 and Tyk2) probably determines differences in efficacy and safety profiles among the members of this group which should actually be evaluated. In order to better understand the cardiovascular and neoplastic risk linked to these class of drugs, we aim to provide a literature review on existing evidence of the safety of Jak-Inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In 2015, the Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) proposed evidence-based decisional statements for first-line tailored biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Taking into account the new licensed drugs, the aim of the present review was to update the previous statements., Areas Covered: A narrative review of the most recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of old and newly licensed drugs for the treatment of articular and extra-articular RA was performed. In addition, host-related variables potentially driving the therapy choice, such as the infection risk, the cardiovascular risk, the risk of deep vein thrombosis, thromboembolism, pregnancy, and obesity were analyzed. Consequently, several statements for personalized therapy were formulated, thus providing a decisional algorithm useful for proper personalized therapy of RA patients in clinical practice., Expert Opinion: Several clinical variables related to specific drug and host characteristics may drive the choice toward anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics, or anti-JAKs, thus allowing to personalize the therapy. Consequently, the right therapy for the right patient would ensure a successful therapeutic intervention.

Background: We describe the features of nocebo, and its impact in studies of transition from the originator to the respective biosimilar in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Investigations in healthy volunteers as well as in the neurology and anesthesiology fields demonstrated the involved cerebral areas and the neurotransmitter pathways responsible for the nocebo response. Whether these findings are applicable to patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases remains to be demonstrated. Nocebo may account for part of the after-switching biosimilar failures. However, in the absence of validated classification or diagnostic criteria, specific neurochemical and neuroimaging studies, the lack of data on serum tumor necrosis factor and drug levels, and the disease improvement after the switching back to the originator biologic observed in some patients, the nocebo diagnosis remains the role of the individual clinician. Investigations on nocebo pathophysiology and diagnosis are required to address its impact in after-transition biosimilar studies in rheumatology.

Objectives: Adipokines play an important role in the pathophysiology of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), provide a link between the disease and overweight, contributing to explain the enhanced cardiovascular (CV) risk and influence the response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The aim of this study was to determine the possible effects of intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ), an interleukin-6 receptor antagonist, on serum levels of leptin, adiponectin, resistin, visfatin, and chemerin., Methods: Forty-four RA patients with active disease (DAS28-ESR ≥3.2) were treated with IV TCZ (8 mg/kg) once every 4 weeks for six months: 20 patients received TCZ as monotherapy and 24 in association with methotrexate (MTX). At baseline and monthly, before each infusion, body mass index, DAS28-ESR and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) were recorded. The laboratory parameters, including the adipokines serum levels were collected at baseline and after six months., Results: At the end of the follow-up, ESR, CRP, DAS28-ESR and HAQ resulted significantly improved in patients received TCZ as monotherapy or combined with MTX. Lipid profile showed only a significant increase of total cholesterol. A significant reduction of chemerin and an increase of adiponectin were observed in the whole population and in the subgroups of the patients analysed (TCZ mono or combined therapy) without any significant correlations with clinical and biochemical parameters. No changes in the leptin and resistin levels were detected., Conclusions: TCZ is able to regulate serum levels of chemerin and adiponectin in RA patients, independently of the disease treatment response, which contributes to explain the CV safety of TCZ.

Objective: To establish evidence-based and experts' opinion filtered statements on the optimal treatment choice between cycling (switch) and changing mode of action strategies (swap) in RA patients failing TNF inhibitors (TNFis)., Methods: The relevant question (switch vs swap) was rephrased into a research question according to the population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) strategy, considering all the available scientific evidence published from the 2013 EULAR set of recommendations up to mid-January 2016. Final statements derived from the retrieved scientific evidence and experts' consensus, with eventual rephrasing through a Delphi method during a national consensus of Italian rheumatologists., Results: From a total of 365 records, 12 studies were finally included. The final statements argued that, until head-to-head comparison data are available, switch and swap can be still considered suitable strategies in RA patients failing first TNFi, even though some data seem to lend more support to a different mode of action-targeted strategy., Conclusion: After failure of first TNFi course, switch and swap can be currently considered as alternative suitable approaches in RA patients.

Objectives: Switching to a different mechanism of action in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients after a first anti-TNF-α has proved to be effective. The objective of this study was a health economic assessment in Italy., Methods: The study was conducted using a pharmacoeconomic model with a 3-year time horizon. Effectiveness was measured as days gained in low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-ESR <3.2) or in remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6). The model simulated the response to treatments, based on the Rotation Or Change (ROC) trial, the probability of discontinuation and switch to a 3rd-line biologic, and the transition to death. Time on treatment curves for 2nd-line biologics were derived from published Italian real-word data. Costs were estimated based on published sources and Italian prices and tariffs., Results: The switch to tocilizumab after the failure of a first anti-TNF-α was more effective than a second anti-TNF-α, in terms of days in remission (224 vs. 114 days) and of days in LDA (345 vs. 193 days). The cost-consequence ratio with tocilizumab iv was 174 euros/day in remission and 113 euros/day in LDA. With tocilizumab sc the ratio was 181 euros/day in remission and 117 euros/day in LDA. The same ratios for the anti-TNF-α treatments ranged from 233 to Euro 320 euros per day in remission and from 138 to 190 euros per day in LDA., Conclusions: The switch to a different mechanism of action, namely tocilizumab, after the failure of a first anti-TNF-α agent seems a rational strategy for RA patients in the Italian setting.

The biological drugs have all been successfully used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and have led to fair rates of clinical remission; however, the possible occurrence of adverse events such as infectious diseases or cancers means that the patients undergoing treatment need to be closely monitored. Anti-TNF agents, first appeared in the pharmacological algorithm of RA in the early 2000s, seem to lead to a higher risk of reactivated tubercular infection than the biological agents with different mechanism of action (abatacept or rituximab). Although the data on anti-TNF agents and cancer are controversial, their use is currently not recommended in neoplastic patients because of their uncertain effects on immune-surveillance. The safety profile of abatacept is similar to that of other biological agents, while rituximab is used to treat non-Hodgkin lymphomas and is also considered in the case of RA patients with previous hematological or non-hematological malignancies. The risk of infections and new-onset cancers during tocilizumab treatment is similar to that associated with other biological therapies. Finally, under particular circumstances, such as in the presence of infections or malignancies, blocking a specific immunological pathway may be simultaneously successful and detrimental. The only thing that can be done at the moment is to continue to look for adverse events in order to discover these complications as soon as possible, and then develop the most appropriate means of treating (and even preventing) them., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.org.)

Objective: The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies., Results: Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS., Conclusion: Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biosimilar infliximab (INX) was recently approved by the European Medicine Agency for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis on the grounds that its pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy were comparable to those of innovator INX. The aim of this study was to investigate the real-life efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of switching from innovator to biosimilar INX in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Forty-one patients attending three Italian rheumatology centres with a previous diagnosis of SpA and clinically inactive or moderate disease activity (ASDAS-CRP < 2.1; 22 with AS, five with enteropathic arthritis, 10 with PsA, and four with undifferentiated SpA), who had been treated for more than 6 months with innovator INX in accordance with the ASAS/EULAR guidelines, were switched to biosimilar INX for pharmaco-economic reasons (Tuscany Law No. 450 of 7 April 2015) and followed up for 6 months. A record was kept of their BASDAI, BASFI, ASDAS-CRP, DAS28-CRP (in the presence of peripheral disease), MASES, VAS pain scores, the duration of morning stiffness, and adverse events (AEs). At the time of the switch, the patients had a median age of 50.9 years (range 23-80), a median disease duration of 124.5 months (range 14-372), and a median duration of treatment with innovator INX of 73.7 months (range 6-144). After 6 months of biosimilar INX therapy, there were no statistical differences in their median BASDAI (2.73 ± 1.5 vs. 2.6 ± 1.3, p = .27), BASFI (2.34 ± 1.3 vs. 2.17 ± 1.2, p = 0.051), ASDAS-CRP (1.35 ± 0.3 vs. 1.28 ± 0.2, p = 0.24), DAS28-CRP (2.66 ± 0.67 vs. 2.67 ± 0.35, p = 0.92), MASES (0.35 ± 0.7 vs. 0.17 ± 0.4, p = 0.08), or VAS pain scores (18 ± 14.7 vs. 16.7 ± 11.3, p = 0.55), whereas the median duration of morning stiffness had significantly decreased (7.2 ± 6.9 vs. 5.8 ± 6, p = 0.02). Furthermore, there was no change in circulating INX (4.22 ± 2.89 vs 4.84 ± 2.86 μg/mL, p = 0.80) or anti-INX antibody levels (27.76 ± 17.13 vs 27.27 ± 17.28 ng/mL, p = 0.98). The switch from innovator to biosimilar INX in this Italian multicentre SpA cohort was not associated with any statistically significance differences in efficacy, adverse events or anti-drug antibody level.

Introduction: Treatment with biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) has meant that remission or low disease activity (LDA) is now a realistic goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, as in the case of all long-term therapies, potential side-effects give rise to concern. The main reasons for withdrawing or tapering bDMARDs are safety and the sustainability of national healthcare systems. Given these data our review has been focused on important question: whether conventional, including steroids, or bDMARDs can be reduced or even stopped in patients with stable established RA or early RA. Areas covered: The studies included in the evaluation had to be RCTs, observational studies, systematic reviews evaluating the withdrawing or tapering bDMARDs in RA patients who have been on long-term treatment and have achieved remission or LDA. A search was made in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1980 to May 2016. Expert commentary: There is curently no standardised way of identifying the patients for whom reducing bDMARD therapy is appropriate. Clinical experience and data from de-escalation studies suggest that patients with RA in sustained remission are the best target population for studying drug-tapering regimens, and that LDA should not be considered an adequate indication for bDMARD de-escalation because it could hide a persistent amount of inflammation.

Objective: A multidisciplinary expert panel, the Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO), was constituted to formulate evidence-based decisional statements for the first-line tailored biologic therapy in patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)., Methods: Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on the variables influencing the first-line biologic choice, including the efficacy and safety of the drug, the route of administration, the availability of response predictor biomarkers, the need of monotherapy, the patient socio-economic status, lifestyle, cultural level, personality, fertility and childbearing potential in women, the presence of comorbidities, the host-related risk factors for infection and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) reactivation, the cardiovascular (CV) risk, and costs., Results: Some variables, including the patients' preference, the indication for anti-TNF monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. Further, evidence of a better cost-effectiveness profile for etanercept (ETN) and biosimilar infliximab (IFX) in RA was found. Any biologic may be employed in absence of choice driving factors in RA. Otherwise, a high infection risk or LTBI positivity drive the choice toward abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), or ETN. TCZ should be the first choice if monotherapy is required. High rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titers should drive the choice toward TCZ or ABA, while in patients at high CVD risk anti-TNF choice, with preference for ETN, seems appropriate. Presence of anterior uveitis or inflammatory bowel disease drives the choice to monoclonal antibody anti-TNFs (MoAb anti-TNFs). In PsA, ustekinumab (UTK), and to a lesser extent ETN, represents the first choice in patients at high infection and TB risk. Anti-TNFs or UTK choice is guided by skin or articular disease severity, enthesitis, and dactylitis, whereas ETN should be preferred if metabolic syndrome or high CV risk complicate PsA., Conclusion: Taking in account of multiple choice driving variables, first-line biologic therapy may be optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The polymorphism 158V/F of Fc fragment of IgG (FCGR) type 3A may influence the response to rituximab (RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We investigated the FCG3A polymorphism in a large cohort of RA patients treated with RTX, also by considering the possible loss of response from month +4 to +6 after RTX and the presence of established predictors of response., Methods: The study analysed 212 RA patients. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response was evaluated at months +4 and +6 after the first RTX infusion. The FCGR3A polymorphism was analysed by PCR followed by Sanger sequencing., Results: The FCGR3A genotypes were associated with EULAR response (good or moderate) at month +6 (response in 34/38 (89.5%) VV vs 70/106 (66%) VF and in 51/77 (66.2%) FF patients; p=0.01), but not at month +4 (response in 32/37 (86.5%) VV vs 69/102 (67.6%) VF and 53/73 (72.6%) FF patients; p=0.09). Loss of response was observed only in VF and FF carriers ((VV vs VF vs FF: 0/37 (0%) vs 11/102 (10.8%) vs 12/73 (16.4%); p=0.02)). Probability of response at month +6 was very high when at least two of the three following items selected by multivariate analysis were present: positive rheumatoid factor and/or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, previous treatment with ≤ 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent, and 158VV FCGR3A genotype (p<0.0001; OR 7.9, 95% CI 4.1 to 15.1)., Conclusions: The 158VV FCGR3A genotype was associated with response to RTX in a large cohort of RA patients. Patient genotyping may be helpful to plan RTX treatment, and may be integrated with clinical predictors.

Unlabelled: To compare the efficacy of the addition of clarithromycin (CM) to methotrexate (MTX) and methylprednisolone (MP) in active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 32 patients with RA consecutively randomized., Control Group: sixteen patients treated for 24 months with MTX 10-15 mg i.m. weekly and MP 4-6 mg daily. CM group: sixteen patients treated with MTX 10-15 mg i.m. weekly and MP 4-6 mg daily for 24 months; CM therapy added in the first month (500 mg twice a day for the first 15 days followed by 500 mg a day for the remaining 15 days). Evaluation of the improvement following ACR criteria was performed at months 1 (primary endpoint), 3 and 6. Patients were furthermore observed after 12, 18 and 24 months from the study beginning. At month 1, following ACR70 improvement criteria, we found a significant additive value in CM group (10/16 = 63% vs 4/16 = 25%, p = 0.033--chi-square test). After discontinuation of CM, the difference between groups was anymore evident (month 3: CM group 10/16 = 63% vs control group 9/16 = 56%). At month 24, 7/16 (44%) in control group and 12/16 (75%) in CM group completed the follow-up. The addition of CM to MTX and MP can induce the remission ACR 70 in the majority of RA patients within 4 weeks, while MTX and MP alone need about 3 months to achieve the same result.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune chronic disease which is associated with an increasing disability in patients and high socioeconomic burden. Given the large number of economic evaluations considered by national health technology assessments (HTAs), this review attempts to clarify whether results from biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) economic evaluations form the basis of official recommendation by national HTA agencies in Australia, Canada, Scotland and England. The results show that evidence of cost-effectiveness was not equally perceived by decision makers and did not have equal weightage in defining the official listing of biologic DMARDs for the treatment of RA. As it has been demonstrated in previous studies, major barriers exist for the integration of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility results with national HTA activity. In fact, as shown in this review, even when such analysis are available, cost-minimization and comparative effectiveness studies seemed to be preferred by some HTA agencies as tools to inform allocation of healthcare resources.

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a common extra-articular manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Usual interstitial pneumonia and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia seem to be the most frequent patterns in RA patients with ILD, although the proportion of patients with usual interstitial pneumonia is higher than among patients with other systemic rheumatic autoimmune diseases. RA patients with ILD most frequently present with chronic symptoms of cough and dyspnea when climbing stairs or walking uphill. A physical examination may reveal inhalatory crackles and a pulmonary function test demonstrates restrictive physiology, often with reduced diffusing capacity. High-resolution computed tomography is generally sufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ILD, although a minority of cases may require a surgical lung biopsy. Conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate (MTX) or leflunomide (LEF) and biological agents such as TNF-blocking agents or rituximab may trigger or aggravate ILD in RA patients, and infections may contribute to increased mortality in such patients. LEF should not be used in patients with a history of MTX pneumonitis. The prevalence of interstitial pneumonia among RA patients treated with anti-TNF agents ranges from 0.5 to 3%; however, as the evidence that anti-TNF increases or decreases the risk of ILD is controversial, it is not clear whether this indicates more severe RA requiring biological therapy or the effect of exposure to potentially toxic drugs such as MTX or LEF. The development of treatment-related ILD is a paradoxical adverse event, and patients should be warned about this rare but serious complication of biological or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy.

Objective: To investigate the polymorphisms in the promoter region of the B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) gene as markers of response to rituximab (RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: The study was first conducted in 152 Italian RA patients and then replicated in an additional 117 RA patients (73 Italian, 44 British). The European League Against Rheumatism response criteria were used to evaluate the response rate at months 4 and 6 after the first cycle of RTX, by means of the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate; patients were classified according to the best response shown between months 4 and 6. BLyS promoter polymorphisms were analyzed by polymerase chain reaction followed by the analysis of the restriction fragments, BLyS promoter haplotypes were analyzed using the expectation-maximization algorithm, and BLyS serum levels were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs)., Results: The TTTT BLyS promoter haplotype appeared to be significantly associated with response to RTX only in the subset of seropositive patients (those positive for rheumatoid factor and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide). The replication study confirmed that this association was limited to seropositive RA patients in whom treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents had previously failed. In the whole series of seropositive patients in whom anti-TNF agents had previously failed, patients carrying the TTTT BLyS promoter haplotype were more prevalent in good responders (18 of 43 [41.9%]) than in moderate responders (20 of 83 [24.1%]) or in nonresponders (1 of 21 [4.8%]) (for good responders versus nonresponders, OR 14.4 [95% CI 1.77-117.39], P=0.0028). Furthermore, multivariate analysis selected the TTTT BLyS promoter haplotype as an independent marker of good response to RTX (for good responders versus nonresponders, OR 16.2 [95% CI 1.7-152.5], P=0.01; for good responders versus moderate responders and nonresponders combined, OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.2-7.8], P=0.02). The relationship between BLyS polymorphisms and BLyS serum levels remained unclear., Conclusion: BLyS promoter genotyping may be suitable for identifying seropositive RA patients who may have a good response to RTX after anti-TNF agents have failed., (Copyright © 2013 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

We evaluated the efficacy of clodronate for treating active erosive osteoarthritis of the hand and to compare it with hydroxychloroquine. Group A consisted of 24 patients treated for 24 months with clodronate 300 mg i.v. for 7 days, followed by clodronate i.m. 100 mg for 14 days every 3 months. Group B comprised 14 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg daily for 30 days, followed by 200 mg daily for the next 11 months. In group A, 21/24 patients completed the trial and obtained significant pain reduction (p < 0.001), Dreiser's score (p = 0.012), and number of tender joints (p = 0.011). Strength of right (p = 0.04) and left (p = 0.016) hands, physician's global assessment (p ≤ 0.001), and patient's global assessment (p = 0.021) improved. In group B, 8/14 patients completed 12 months of the study, which showed the inefficacy of hydroxychloroquine and its lack of acceptance by patients (worsening pain and patient's global assessment). Therefore, enrolment was stopped. Differences between groups showed a pain decreasing trend for group A and a slightly increasing one for group B (p = 0.018). Physician and patient global assessments showed a strong increase in group A compared with group B (p < 0.001). Clodronate is effective in erosive osteoarthritis; hydroxychloroquine seems to be ineffective.

Identification of genetic biomarkers of response to biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a relevant issue. Being IL-6 a key cytokine for B cell survival, the interleukin-6 (IL-6) -174G>C and the IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) D358A gene polymorphisms were investigated in 158 RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX). One hundred and twenty-eight (81.0%) were RF positive and 126 (79.7%) were anti-CCP positive. Response to therapy was evaluated at the end of the sixth month after the first RTX infusion, by using both the EULAR and the ACR criteria. The possible relationship with IL-6 serum levels was also studied. By univariate analysis, lack of response by the EULAR criteria was more prevalent in RA patients with the IL-6 -174 CC genotypes (39.1%), than in the GC/GG patients (18.5%) (OR 2.83; 95%CI=1.10-7.27; p=0.031). A good response was noticed in only one patient (4.3%) with the IL-6 -174 CC genotype, while it was present in 24.4% of GG/GC cases (p=0.06). By stepwise multivariate analysis (including RA duration, baseline DAS28, baseline HAQ, RF status, anti-CCP status and IL-6 genotype as covariates), the IL-6 -174CC genotype was selected as an independent predictor of no response to RTX by both EULAR and ACR≥50 criteria, while the IL-6R polymorphism resulted as not associated. No definite association between gene polymorphisms and IL-6 serum levels was noticed. Present results suggest a possible role for IL-6 genotyping to better plan treatment with RTX in RA, and larger studies are worthwhile., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The cost-effectiveness of treatments that have the potential to change the "natural history" of a chronic progressive disease has to be evaluated over the long term. Cost-effectiveness estimates have been based on the concept that, with treatment, patients will not progress to the next level(s) of disease severity or will take a longer time to progress, thus avoiding or delaying the high costs and low utility associated with more severe disease. This analysis focused on the use of Rituximab in treating patients with moderate to severe RA for whom at least one anti-TNFα blocking agent had failed. The aim of our study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness in 32 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in therapy with a single infusion of Rituximab 1,000 mg given on days 1 and 15 of each month for 1 year. After 6 months of treatment, we observed for all 32 patients a total quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of 11,840 with an average of 0.37 QALY for a single patient, a treatment cost of euro 5,610 and a QALY/cost ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of euro 15,114. After 1 year of treatment, we observed data for 28 patients with a total QALY gained of 11,480 with an average of 0.41 QALY for a single patient, a treatment cost of euro 9,690 and a QALY/cost ICER (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) of euro 23,696. The benefit of using Rituximab is cost-effectiveness with a QALY/gained under the acceptable threshold of euro 50,000 in our observational study. These are important data for discussion from the economic point of view when we choose a biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

Objectives: We explored clinical factors associated with a major response to rituximab (RTX) (e.g. ACR >/=50, and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) moderate to good response) in patients with active long-standing RA and inadequate response to anti-TNF agents or traditional DMARDs., Methods: RTX was used in 110 RA patients in six different Italian centres. The mean disease activity score on 28 joints (DAS28) was 6.4 +/- 0.99 and the mean HAQ was 1.63 +/- 0.68 at baseline. Thirty-two patients (29.1%) underwent RTX after the failure of DMARD therapy, 37 (33.6%) had failed or were intolerant to at least two anti-TNF agents, and 41 (37.3%) had failed or were intolerant to one anti-TNF agent. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed., Results: The number of previous anti-TNF agents (P = 0.043), HAQ (P = 0.023), RF positivity (P < 0.0001) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity (P = 0.003) were associated with ACR response >or=50 between month +4 and month +6 after starting RTX by univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis confirmed that a lower HAQ, a lower number of anti-TNF agents failed before RTX and RF positivity, but not anti-CCP positivity, were the selected variables associated with an ACR response >or=50, with an accuracy of 84% of the model. Only RF positivity correlated with EULAR moderate to good response both in the univariate and in the multivariate analysis, with an accuracy of 79% of the model., Conclusion: RF-positive rather than anti-CCP-positive RA patients with lower baseline disability and a lower number of previously failed TNF blockers may be the best candidates to RTX.

Since anti-TNFalpha treatments were introduced in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis, some cases of patients with drugs induced Lupus during clinical trials with infliximab treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were reported. We report three cases with history of refractory RA (two patients) and of psoriatic arthritis (one patient) with a diagnosis of Drug Induced Lupus, after treatment with infliximab, with different clinical features such as pericardial and pleural effusion, skin lesions and piastrinopenia and with autoantibody assessment. We also reviewed the development of anti nuclear and anti double-strand DNA antibodies and drug induced lupus in patients treated with anti-TNFalpha agents (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab).

Cytokines such as TNF-alpha and IL-1beta play key roles in driving the inflammation and synovial cell proliferation that characterize rheumatoid arthritis (RA) joint destruction. It is, therefore, not surprising that therapies for RA have targeted these cytokines. While blockade of TNF-alpha or IL-1beta has been efficacious for many patients with RA, adequacy and maintenance of response are not universal, and increased risk of adverse events such as infections and malignancy remain a concern. Therefore, new targets in the treatment of RA continue to be examined. As interleukin-6 (IL-6) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of RA, blockade of its activity is of both scientific and clinical interest. Tocilizumab has been assessed in a number of studies in recent years, mainly in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Data from randomized controlled clinical trials demonstrate the effectiveness of tocilizumab in improving the signs and symptoms of RA. In addition, it appears that such inhibition of IL-6 can have positive effects on functional status, an important outcome for RA patients. Finally, data suggest that treatment with this agent may also inhibit the progression of disease as assessed radiographically. Data from recent studies will help to refine the ultimate use of this novel approach to treatment, and help clinicians to optimize therapy using this approach.

Anti-nucleosome antibodies have a role in the diagnosis and follow-up of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and have a possible correlation with SLE activity and with kidney and hematological involvement. The aim of our study was to detect in 91 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) the positivity of anti-nucleosome antibodies during therapy with three different TNFalpha blocking agents and to underline the possible correlation with the development of antinuclear autoantibodies (ANA) and anti-dsDNA autoantibodies. We detected anti-nucleosome antibodies, ANA, and anti-dsDNA during therapy with three different TNFalpha blocking agents at T-0 and after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, respectively. Anti-nucleosome antibodies (IgG class) were analyzed by ELISA technique (Orgentec Diagnostika GmbH, Mainz, Germany), ANA both by indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) technique on Hep-2 (Scimedx, USA) and by ELISA (Autoimmune EIA ANA screening test Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA), and anti-dsDNA (IgG and IgM classes) by ELISA (Kallestad, Bio-Rad Laboratories, CA, USA) and confirmed by IIF on Crithidia luciliae (ImmunoConcepts N.A., Sacramento, CA, USA). We observed 19 patients on infliximab treatment at 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, 43 patients on etanercept treatment at 25 mg twice a week, and 29 patients on adalimumab treatment at 40 mg every other week. At baseline, we observed positivity as follow: in the group of patients treated with infliximab-anti-nucleosome 1/19 (5.26%), ANA 3/19 (15.7%), anti-dsDNA 1/19 (5.26%); in the group treated with etanercept--anti-nucleosome 2/43 (4.65%), ANA 1/43 (2.43%), anti-dsDNA 0/43; and in the group treated with adalimumab--anti-nucleosome 2/29 (6.89%), ANA 1/29 (3.44%), anti-dsDNA 0/29. The results at 12 weeks for the three autoantibodies were: for infliximab--3/19 (15.7%), 10/19 (52.6%), 2/19 (10.5%); for etanercept--3/43 (6.9%), 10/43 (23.2%), 1/43 (2.32%); and for adalimumab--3/29 (10.3%), 4/29 (13.7%), 1/29 (3.4%). At 24 weeks, the results were for infliximab 6/19 (31.5%), 12/19 (63.1%), 2/19 (10.5%); for etanercept 11/43 (25.5%), 22/43 (51.1%), 2/43 (4.65%); and for adalimumab 4/29 (13.7%), 13/29 (44.8%), 1/29 (3.4%). We observed a concordance anti-nucleosome/ANA antibodies of 85.5% (p < 0.001). Our data showed a concordance between anti-nucleosome antibodies and ANA positivity in patients with RA during therapy with TNFalpha blocking agents. The induction of autoantibodies positivity is different for each TNFalpha blocking agent.

TNF-alpha role in RA is confirmed by the improvement on joint inflammation and physical function and by the slowing of radiographic damage induced by TNF-alpha blockers, that also reduce Rheumatoid Factor (RF) and anti-CC-P titres. (1) To evaluate the effects of 3 TNF-alpha blockers on (a) disability (HAQ), disease activity (DAS28), acute phase reactants (ERS, CRP); (b) autoantibodies: IgM RF, anti-CCP abs. (2) To evaluate if anti-CCP abs could be useful for testing the efficacy of anti-TNF-alpha agents in the follow-up of RA patients. 34 patients with RA (25 F, 9 M; mean age: 59.1 +/- 12.1 years, mean disease duration: 9.6 +/- 2.3 years; 23/34 positive for anti-CCP abs, 19/34 for IgM RF) were enrolled: 18 received Etanercept (25 mg twice weekly subcutaneously), 8 received Infliximab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 8 weeks) and 8 Adalimumab (40 mg every 14 days). All the patients were evaluated for the above mentioned parameters at baseline (t0) and after 6 months of therapy (t6). Anti-TNF-alpha agents differently reduced HAQ and DAS28, ERS and CRP, RF and anti-CCP ab titres RA patients whose RF (14) and/or anti-CCP abs (17) titres were significantly lowered at the end of the study, at t6 presented a significant reduction in respect to t0 of VES, PCR, DAS28 and HAQ values (p < 0.05 for all comparison). This effect was not shown in patients in whose RF (5) and/or anti-CCP abs (6) titres were not reduced in respect to baseline. In RA, anti-TNF-alpha agents, especially Etanercept, reduce disability, disease activity and acute phase reactants expecially in patients showing reduction of RF and anti CC-P titres.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the composition and functional integrity of the various components of immune response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We evaluated in 14 patients with RA with stable methotrexate therapy 12.5 mg/weekly, the number of peripheral mononuclear (PMN) cells lymphocytes, monocytes and the circulating levels of TNFalpha, IL-6 and IL-10 before and during adalimumab therapy 40 mg every other week for 6 months. No difference in baseline versus 6 months values between two treated group for PMN cells. Data about cytokines show a reduction for TNFalpha, IL-6 circulating levels and an increase for IL-10 circulating levels. Our data reveal that adalimumab doesn't reduce lymphocyte population and subsets such as CD14 or CD56 cells that have an important role against infections.

We report a case of a 45-year-old man with an 8-month history of rheumatoid arthritis, who was treated with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg per day and 15 mg intramuscular methotrexate per week without reaching a good control of the disease. The patient was successfully treated with 3 mg/kg infliximab for 20 weeks. Before the last infusion, drug-induced lupus (DIL) was diagnosed based on the clinical features of fever > 37.5 degrees C, recurrence of active synovitis, myalgia, erythematosus rash, pericardial and pleural effusion, and of some laboratory findings (antinuclear antibodies 1:160 and anti double-strand DNA positive by DNA recombinant plasmid assay dsDNA). After infliximab discontinuation and the beginning of therapy with methylprednisolone, lupus symptoms resolved within 6 weeks. A new rheumatoid arthritis flare, occurring after 8 weeks, was controlled by methotrexate plus leflunomide. We also review the development of antinuclear and antidouble-strand DNA antibodies and drug-induced lupus in patients treated with anti-TNFalpha agents (infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab).

Background: Filgotinib (FIL) is a selective JAK1 inhibitor with an affinity 30-fold higher than JAK2, approved to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in adults with inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicentric study in order to evaluate efficacy and safety of FIL 200 mg daily therapy, after 3 and 6 months, in 120 patients affected by RA, managed in Tuscany and Umbria rheumatological centers. The following clinical records were analyzed: demographical data, smoking status, previous presence of comorbidities (Herpes zoster -HZ- infection, venous thromboembolism -VTE-, major adverse cardiovascular events -MACE-, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension), disease duration, presence of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), rheumatoid factor (RF), number of biological failures, and prior csDMARDs utilized. At baseline, and after 3 (T3) and 6 (T6) months of FIL therapy, we evaluated mean steroid dosage, csDMARDs intake, clinimetric indexes (DAS28, CDAI, HAQ, patient and doctor PGA, VAS), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and body mass index (BMI). Results: At baseline, the mean disease duration was 9.4 ± 7.5 years; the prevalence of previous HZ infection, VTE, MACE, and cancer was respectively 4.12%, 0%, 7.21%, and 0.83%, respectively. In total, 76.3% of patients failed one or more biologics (one biological failure, 20.6%; two biological failures, 27.8%; three biological failures, 16.5%; four biological failures, 10.3%; five biological failures, 1.1%). After 3 months of FIL therapy, all clinimetric index results significantly improved from baseline, as well as after 6 months. Also, ESR and CRP significatively decreased at T3 and T6. Two cases of HZ were recorded, while no new MACE, VTE, or cancer were recorded during the observation time. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of the retrospective study and of the observational period of only 6 months, real-life data on the treatment of RA patients with FIL demonstrate that this Jak inhibitor therapy is safe in terms of CV, VTE events, and occurrence of cancer, and is also effective in a population identified as "difficult to treat" due to failure of previous b-DMARD therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We investigated how the non-medical switching (NMS) between Etanercept (ETN)/originator and SB4/biosimilar affects treatment efficacy in a rheumatic disease (RD) cohort, evaluating some laboratory parameters as loss of efficacy predictors after NMS. Methods: We enrolled 124 patients with RD (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis): 79 switchers from ETN/originator to SB4 and 45 naïve patients receiving SB4 (first biological treatment). At baseline, 6 (T1), and 12 months (T2), clinical and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Results: In naïve patients, TNF-α significantly increased at T1 in responders (NR) and non-responders (NNR). TNF-α was lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2. In NR and NNR, drug levels (DL) increased between T1 and T2. However, DLs were lower in NNR than in NR at T1 and T2. TNF-α was higher in switcher responders (SR) than in non-responders (SNR) at T1 and T2. In SNR, DLs were higher at baseline than in SR, but they decreased significantly at T1 and T2. Conclusions: We observed a decrease in DL and TNF-α levels after NMS in SNR. Moreover, in naïve patients, DL and TNF-α levels were higher in NR than in NNR. Monitoring DL and TNF-α levels may represent a future precision medicine approach to predict loss of efficacy after NMS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cost effectiveness of treatments that have changed the "natural history" of a chronic progressive disease needs to be evaluated over the long term. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are the standard treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and should be started as early as possible. A number of studies have shown that they are effective in improving disease activity and function, and in joint damage. Our review was focused on revision and critical evaluation of the studies including the literature on cost effectiveness of DMARDs (cyclosporine A, sulphasalazine, leflunomide, and methotrexate). The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations showed that traditional DMARDs are cost effective at the time of disease onset. They are less expensive than biological DMARDs and can be useful in controlling disease activity in early RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]