Search

Background: Type I interferons (IFN-Is) play a role in a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), and compelling evidence suggests that their measurement could have clinical value, although testing has not progressed into clinical settings. Objective: To develop evidence-based points to consider (PtC) for the measurement and reporting of IFN-I assays in clinical research and to determine their potential clinical utility. Methods: EULAR standardised operating procedures were followed. A task force including rheumatologists, immunologists, translational scientists and a patient partner was formed. Two systematic reviews were conducted to address methodological and clinical questions. PtC were formulated based on the retrieved evidence and expert opinion. Level of evidence and agreement was determined. Results: Two overarching principles and 11 PtC were defined. The first set (PtC 1-4) concerned terminology, assay characteristics and reporting practices to enable more consistent reporting and facilitate translation and collaborations. The second set (PtC 5-11) addressed clinical applications for diagnosis and outcome assessments, including disease activity, prognosis and prediction of treatment response. The mean level of agreement was generally high, mainly in the first PtC set and for clinical applications in systemic lupus erythematosus. Harmonisation of assay methodology and clinical validation were key points for the research agenda. Conclusions: IFN-I assays have a high potential for implementation in the clinical management of RMDs. Uptake of these PtC will facilitate the progress of IFN-I assays into clinical practice and may be also of interest beyond rheumatology.

ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology.MethodsThree databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology.ResultsOf 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced.ConclusionsDiverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No 'gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.

BackgroundType I interferons (IFN-I) contribute to a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Compelling evidence suggests that the measurement of IFN-I pathway activation may have clinical value. Although several IFN-I pathway assays have been proposed, the exact clinical applications are unclear. We summarise the evidence on the potential clinical utility of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted across three databases to evaluate the use of IFN-I assays in diagnosis and monitor disease activity, prognosis, response to treatment and responsiveness to change in several RMDs.ResultsOf 366 screened, 276 studies were selected that reported the use of assays reflecting IFN-I pathway activation for disease diagnosis (n=188), assessment of disease activity (n=122), prognosis (n=20), response to treatment (n=23) and assay responsiveness (n=59). Immunoassays, quantitative PCR (qPCR) and microarrays were reported most frequently, while systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, systemic sclerosis and primary Sjogren's syndrome were the most studied RMDs. The literature demonstrated significant heterogeneity in techniques, analytical conditions, risk of bias and application in diseases. Inadequate study designs and technical heterogeneity were the main limitations. IFN-I pathway activation was associated with disease activity and flare occurrence in SLE, but their incremental value was uncertain. IFN-I pathway activation may predict response to IFN-I targeting therapies and may predict response to different treatments.ConclusionsEvidence indicates potential clinical value of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation in several RMDs, but assay harmonisation and clinical validation are urged. This review informs the EULAR points to consider for the measurement and reporting of IFN-I pathway assays.

Background Type I interferons (IFN-I) contribute to a broad range of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Compelling evidence suggests that the measurement of IFN-I pathway activation may have clinical value. Although several IFN-I pathway assays have been proposed, the exact clinical applications are unclear. We summarise the evidence on the potential clinical utility of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted across three databases to evaluate the use of IFN-I assays in diagnosis and monitor disease activity, prognosis, response to treatment and responsiveness to change in several RMDs. Results Of 366 screened, 276 studies were selected that reported the use of assays reflecting IFN-I pathway activation for disease diagnosis (n=188), assessment of disease activity (n=122), prognosis (n=20), response to treatment (n=23) and assay responsiveness (n=59). Immunoassays, quantitative PCR (qPCR) and microarrays were reported most frequently, while systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, systemic sclerosis and primary Sjögren's syndrome were the most studied RMDs. The literature demonstrated significant heterogeneity in techniques, analytical conditions, risk of bias and application in diseases. Inadequate study designs and technical heterogeneity were the main limitations. IFN-I pathway activation was associated with disease activity and flare occurrence in SLE, but their incremental value was uncertain. IFN-I pathway activation may predict response to IFN-I targeting therapies and may predict response to different treatments. Conclusions Evidence indicates potential clinical value of assays measuring IFN-I pathway activation in several RMDs, but assay harmonisation and clinical validation are urged. This review informs the EULAR points to consider for the measurement and reporting of IFN-I pathway assays.

Objectives To systematically review the literature for assay methods that aim to evaluate type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway activation and to harmonise-related terminology. Methods Three databases were searched for reports of IFN-I and rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases. Information about the performance metrics of assays measuring IFN-I and measures of truth were extracted and summarised. A EULAR task force panel assessed feasibility and developed consensus terminology. Results Of 10 037 abstracts, 276 fulfilled eligibility criteria for data extraction. Some reported more than one technique to measure IFN-I pathway activation. Hence, 276 papers generated data on 412 methods. IFN-I pathway activation was measured using: qPCR (n=121), immunoassays (n=101), microarray (n=69), reporter cell assay (n=38), DNA methylation (n=14), flow cytometry (n=14), cytopathic effect assay (n=11), RNA sequencing (n=9), plaque reduction assay (n=8), Nanostring (n=5), bisulphite sequencing (n=3). Principles of each assay are summarised for content validity. Concurrent validity (correlation with other IFN assays) was presented for n=150/412 assays. Reliability data were variable and provided for 13 assays. Gene expression and immunoassays were considered most feasible. Consensus terminology to define different aspects of IFN-I research and practice was produced. Conclusions Diverse methods have been reported as IFN-I assays and these differ in what elements or aspects of IFN-I pathway activation they measure and how. No â € gold standard' represents the entirety of the IFN pathway, some may not be specific for IFN-I. Data on reliability or comparing assays were limited, and feasibility is a challenge for many assays. Consensus terminology should improve consistency of reporting.

Objective The level of neutralising capacity against Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 after third COVID-19 vaccination in patients on paused or continuous methotrexate (MTX) therapy is unclear. Methods In this observational cohort study, neutralising serum activity against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type (Wu01) and variant of concern Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 were assessed by pseudovirus neutralisation assay before, 4 and 12 weeks after mRNA booster immunisation in 50 rheumatic patients on MTX, 26 of whom paused the medication. 44 non-immunosuppressed persons (NIP) served as control group. Results While the neutralising serum activity against SARS-CoV-2 Wu01 and Omicron variants increased 67-73 fold in the NIP after booster vaccination, the serum activity in patients receiving MTX increased only 20-23 fold. Patients who continued MTX treatment during vaccination had significantly lower neutralisation against all variants at weeks 4 and 12 compared with patients who paused MTX and the control group, except for BA.2 at week 12. Patients who paused MTX reached comparably high neutralising capacities as NIP, except for Wu01 at week 12. The duration of the MTX pause after-not before-was associated with a significantly higher neutralisation capacity against all three variants, with an optimal duration at 10 days after vaccination. Conclusion Patients pausing MTX after COVID-19 booster showed a similar vaccine response to NIP. Patients who continued MTX demonstrated an impaired response indicating a potentially beneficial second booster vaccination. Our data also suggest that a 1 week MTX break is sufficient if the last administration of MTX occurs 1-3 days before vaccination.