Search

Objectives: Type-I interferons (IFNs-I) have potent antiviral effects. IFNs-I are also overproduced in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Autoantibodies (AAbs) neutralising IFN-α, IFN-β and/or IFN-ω subtypes are strong determinants of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia, but their impact on inflammation remains unknown., Methods: We retrospectively analysed a monocentric longitudinal cohort of 609 patients with SLE. Serum AAbs against IFN-α were quantified by ELISA and functionally assessed by abolishment of Madin-Darby bovine kidney cell protection by IFN-α2 against vesicular stomatitis virus challenge. Serum-neutralising activity against IFN-α2, IFN-β and IFN-ω was also determined with a reporter luciferase activity assay. SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses were measured against wild-type spike antigen, while serum-neutralising activity was assessed against the SARS-CoV-2 historical strain and variants of concerns., Results: Neutralising and non-neutralising anti-IFN-α antibodies are present at a frequency of 3.3% and 8.4%, respectively, in individuals with SLE. AAbs neutralising IFN-α, unlike non-neutralising AAbs, are associated with reduced IFN-α serum levels and a reduced likelihood to develop active disease. However, they predispose patients to an increased risk of herpes zoster and severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Severe COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with SLE is mostly associated with combined neutralisation of different IFNs-I. Finally, anti-IFN-α AAbs do not interfere with COVID-19 vaccine humoral immunogenicity., Conclusion: The production of non-neutralising and neutralising anti-IFN-I antibodies in SLE is likely to be a consequence of SLE-associated high IFN-I serum levels, with a beneficial effect on disease activity, yet a greater viral risk. This finding reinforces the recommendations for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in SLE., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AM has received grant/research support from Sobi; participated in advisory board related to lupus for AstraZeneca; received payment for expert testimony for GSK; received support for attending meetings and/or travel from AstraZeneca and GSK; received consulting fees, speaking fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. FC has received grant/research support from AstraZeneca; participated in advisory board related to lupus for AstraZeneca, GSK, Celgene and Principabio; received speaking fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. ZA has received grant/research support from GSK, AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Amgen; participated in advisory board related to lupus for GSK, AstraZeneca, Kezar, Amgen, Otsuka; received consulting fees, speaking fees and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Colchicine is a narrow therapeutic margin drug that does not have the adverse effects of corticosteroids and immunosuppressants. Its use in non-severe ocular inflammatory disease excluding Behcet's disease has not been studied., Methods: We included patients seen in the internal medicine department of Dijon University Hospital consecutively between September 2020 and September 2021 if they had received colchicine during their pathology. Patients with suspected Behçet's disease were excluded. Treatment efficacy was studied in patients with at least one year of disease progression who had received more than one year of colchicine. Successful treatment was defined as a 50 % reduction in the number of annual relapses on colchicine., Results: Sixteen patients were included (9 women and 7 men). They had recurrent anterior uveitis (n=10), recurrent scleritis (n=5) and intermediate uveitis. Opthalmological involvement was neither severe nor complicated. All patients combined, the annual relapse ratio (ARR) decreased from 1.8 (0.8-3.5) to 0.3 (0-1.6), (P=0.06). Colchicine was considered effective in three of 10 analyzable patients. In only one patient, treatment was stopped for adverse effects after six weeks., Conclusion: In view of the interesting benefit-risk ratio of colchicine, it seems appropriate to focus on this molecule in non-granulomatous anterior uveitis and non-severe recurrent scleritis., (Copyright © 2022 Société Nationale Française de Médecine Interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although immune modulation is a promising therapeutic avenue in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the most relevant targets remain to be found. COVID-19 has peculiar characteristics and outcomes, suggesting a unique immunopathogenesis., Methods: Thirty-six immunocompetent non-COVID-19 and 27 COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia were prospectively enrolled in a single center, most requiring intensive care. Clinical and biological characteristics (including T cell phenotype and function and plasma concentrations of 30 cytokines) and outcomes were compared., Results: At similar baseline respiratory severity, COVID-19 patients required mechanical ventilation for significantly longer than non-COVID-19 patients (15 [7-22] vs. 4 (0-15) days; p = 0.0049). COVID-19 patients had lower levels of most classical inflammatory cytokines (G-CSF, CCL20, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-15, TNF-α, TGF-β), but higher plasma concentrations of CXCL10, GM-CSF and CCL5, compared to non-COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 patients displayed similar T-cell exhaustion to non-COVID-19 patients, but with a more unbalanced inflammatory/anti-inflammatory cytokine response (IL-6/IL-10 and TNF-α/IL-10 ratios). Principal component analysis identified two main patterns, with a clear distinction between non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. Multivariate regression analysis confirmed that GM-CSF, CXCL10 and IL-10 levels were independently associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation., Conclusion: We identified a unique cytokine response, with higher plasma GM-CSF and CXCL10 in COVID-19 patients that were independently associated with the longer duration of mechanical ventilation. These cytokines could represent the dysregulated immune response in severe COVID-19, as well as promising therapeutic targets. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505281.

Objectives: Maintenance of remission has become central in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The importance of interferon-alpha (IFN-α) in the pathogenesis of SLE notwithstanding, its expression in remission has been poorly studied as yet. To study its expression in remission and its prognostic value in the prediction of a disease relapse, serum IFN-α levels were determined using an ultrasensitive single-molecule array digital immunoassay which enables the measurement of cytokines at physiological concentrations., Methods: A total of 254 SLE patients in remission, according to the Definition of Remission in SLE classification, were included in the study. Serum IFN-α concentrations were determined at baseline and patients were followed up for 1 year. Lupus flares were defined according to the Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus: National Assessment version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index Flare Index, whereas the Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis were used to estimate the time to relapse and to identify baseline factors associated with time to relapse, respectively., Results: Of all patients in remission, 26% displayed abnormally high IFN-α serum levels that were associated with the presence of antibodies specific for ribonucleoprotein (RNP), double stranded (ds)DNA and Ro/SSA60, as well as young age. Importantly, elevated-baseline IFN-α serum levels and remission duration were associated in an independent fashion, with shorter time to relapse, while low serum levels of complement component 3 and anti-dsDNA Abs were not., Conclusion: Direct serum IFN-α assessment with highly sensitive digital immunoassay permits clinicians to identify a subgroup of SLE patients, clinically in remission, but at higher risk of relapse., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: No simple or standardized assay is available to quantify interferon-α (IFNα) in routine clinical practice. Single-molecule array (Simoa) digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology enables direct IFNα quantification at attomolar (femtogram per milliliter [fg/ml]) concentrations. This study was undertaken to assess IFNα digital ELISA diagnostic performances to monitor systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) activity., Methods: IFNα concentrations in serum samples from 150 consecutive SLE patients in a cross-sectional study were determined with digital ELISA and a functional biologic activity assay (bioassay). According to their Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment version of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) flare composite scores, patients were divided into groups with inactive SLE (SLEDAI score of <4 or clinical SLEDAI score of 0) or active SLE (SLEDAI score of ≥4 or clinical SLEDAI score of >0), and into groups with no flare or mild/moderate flare or severe flare., Results: Based on serum samples from healthy blood donors, the abnormal serum IFNα level threshold value was 136 fg/ml. Next, using receiver operating characteristic curves for an SLE patient series that was widely heterogeneous in terms of disease activity and organ involvement, the threshold IFNα value associated with active disease was determined to be 266 fg/ml. The digital ELISA-assessed serum IFNα level was a better biomarker of disease activity than the Farr assay because its specificity, likelihood ratio for positive results, and positive predictive value better discerned active SLE or flare from inactive disease. The digital ELISA was more sensitive than the bioassay for detecting low-abnormal serum IFNα concentrations and identifying patients with low disease activity., Conclusion: Direct serum IFNα determination with a highly sensitive assay might improve monitoring of clinical SLE activity and selection of the best candidates for anti-IFNα treatment., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)