Search

Background: Blocking of the Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) activity is a successful therapeutic approach for 50-60% of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, there are yet no biomarkers to stratify patients for anti-TNF therapy. Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic-citrullinated antibodies (anti-CCP) have been evaluated as biomarkers of response but the results have shown limited consistency. Anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) and anti-peptidylarginine deiminase type 4 (anti-PAD4) antibodies have been much less studied. Despite being linked to common immune processes, the interaction between these markers has not been evaluated yet. Our aim was to analyze the interaction between these four antibodies in relation to the response to anti-TNF therapy.Methods: For this objective, a prospective cohort of n = 80 RA patients starting anti-TNF therapy was recruited. Serum determinations at baseline were performed for RF, anti-CCP, anti-CarP and anti-PAD4 antibodies using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA). The clinical response to anti-TNF therapy was determined at week 12 using the change in DAS28 score. Association was performed using multivariate linear regression adjusting for baseline DAS28, sex and age.Results: The interaction between pairs of antibodies was tested by the addition of an interaction term. We found two highly significant antibody interactions associated with treatment response: anti-CarP with anti-PAD4 (p = 0.0062), and anti-CCP with RF (p = 0.00068). The latter antibody interaction was replicated in an independent retrospective cohort of RA patients (n = 199, p = 0.04).Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that antibody interaction effects are important factors in the response to anti-TNF therapy in RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) blockers are recognized as a risk factor for reactivation of granulomatous infections. Leishmaniasis has been associated with the use of these drugs, although few cases have been reported. Methodology: We performed a retrospective observational study including patients with confirmed leishmaniasis acquired in the Mediterranean basin that were under TNF-α blockers therapy at the moment of the diagnosis. Patients diagnosed in our hospital from 2008 to 2018 were included. Moreover, a systematic review of the literature was performed and cases fulfilling the inclusion criteria were also included. Principal findings: Forty-nine patients were analyzed including nine cases from our series. Twenty-seven (55.1%) cases were male and median age was 55 years. Twenty-five (51%) patients were under infliximab treatment, 20 (40.8%) were receiving adalimumab, 2 (4.1%) etanercept, one (2%) golimumab and one (2%) a non-specified TNF-α blocker. Regarding clinical presentation, 28 (57.1%) presented as cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), 16 (32.6%) as visceral leishmaniasis (VL) and 5 (10.2%) as mucocutaneous leishmaniasis (MCL). All VL and MCL patients were treated with systemic therapies. Among CL patients, 13 (46.4%) were treated with a systemic drug (11 received L-AmB, one intramuscular antimonials and one miltefosine) while 14 (50%) patients were given local treatment (13 received intralesional pentavalent antimonials, and one excisional surgery). TNF-α blockers were interrupted in 32 patients (65.3%). After treatment 5 patients (10.2%) relapsed. Four patients with a CL (3 initially treated with local therapy maintaining TNF-α blockers and one treated with miltefosine) and one patient with VL treated with L-AmB maintaining TNF-α blockers. Conclusions: This data supports the assumption that the blockage of TNF-α modifies clinical expression of leishmaniasis in endemic population modulating the expression of the disease leading to atypical presentations. According to the cases reported, the best treatment strategy would be a systemic drug and the discontinuation of the TNF-α blockers therapy until clinical resolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Anti-TNF therapies have been highly efficacious in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but 25–30% of patients do not show a significant clinical response. There is increasing evidence that genetic variation at the Fc receptor FCGR2A is associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy. We aimed to validate this genetic association in a patient cohort from the Spanish population, and also to identify new genes functionally related to FCGR2A that are also associated with anti-TNF response. Methods: A total of 348 RA patients treated with an anti-TNF therapy were included and genotyped for FCGR2A polymorphism rs1081274. Response to therapy was determined at 12 weeks, and was tested for association globally and independently for each anti-TNF drug (infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab). Using gene expression profiles from macrophages obtained from synovial fluid of RA patients, we searched for genes highly correlated with FCGR2A expression. Tag SNPs were selected from each candidate gene and tested for association with the response to therapy. Results: We found a significant association between FCGR2A and the response to adalimumab (P=0.022). Analyzing the subset of anti-CCP positive RA patients (78%), we also found a significant association between FCGR2A and the response to infliximab (P=0.035). DHX32 and RGS12 were the most consistently correlated genes with FCGR2A expression in RA synovial fluid macrophages (P<0.001). We found a significant association between the genetic variation at DHX32 (rs12356233, corrected P=0.019) and a nominally significant association between RGS12 and the response to adalimumab (rs4690093, uncorrected P=0.040). In the anti-CCP positive group of patients, we also found a nominally significant association between RGS12 and the response to infliximab (rs2857859, uncorrected P=0.042). Conclusions: In the present study we have validated the FCGR2A association in an independent population, and we have identified new genes associated with the response to anti-TNF therapy in RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]