Search

Autoimmune rheumatic diseases are characterised by an abnormal immune system response, complement activation, cytokines dysregulation and inflammation. In last years, despite many progresses in managing these patients, it has been shown that clinical remission is reached in less than 50% of patients and a personalised and tailored therapeutic approach is still lacking resulting in a significant gap between guidelines and real-world practice. In this context, the need for biomarkers facilitating early diagnosis and profiling those individuals at the highest risk for a poor outcome has become of crucial interest. A biomarker generally refers to a measured characteristic which may be used as an indicator of some biological state or condition. Three different types of medical biomarkers has been suggested: i. mechanistic markers; ii. clinical disease markers; iii. therapeutic markers. A combination of biomarkers from these different groups could be used for an ideal more accurate diagnosis and treatment. However, although a growing body of evidence is focused on improving biomarkers, a significant amount of this information is not integrated on standard clinical care. The overarching aim of this work was to clarify the meaning of specific biomarkers during autoimmune diseases; their possible role in confirming diagnosis, predicting outcome and suggesting specific treatments., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: The project aimed to collect expert consensus statements for the profiling of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) candidate to biologic agents (bDMARDs) treatment, in order to better define the drivers for the best treatment choice., Methods: The 6 more interesting topics about axSpA patient profiling were identified by the project steering committee and a panel of axSpA Italian experts. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed for each of the selected topics according to the PICO format. Two rounds of a modified Delphi process were conducted. In the 1st round, the steering committee evaluated the results of the SLR in order to formulate statements for each topic. In the 2nd round, the experts panel discussed, rephrased when needed, and voted the level of agreement (on a 5-point Likert-type scale) for each statement. Consensus was defined as ≥66% agreement., Results: The topics selected for the analysis were the differential efficacy of available bDMARDs on enthesitis/dactylitis, uveitis, radiographic progression and cardiovascular involvement, and the clinical response in non radiographic-axSpA and in patients receiving a second-line bDMARD. The Delphi rounds formulated 19 statements, all reaching the defined level of consensus in a second round including 25 rheumatologists highly skilled in the management of axSpA., Conclusion: Identified consensus statements can help clinicians to apply to routine-care settings the results from clinical studies and international recommendations, providing a guide for individualization of treatment strategy in axSpA patients., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

TNF inhibitors are biologic DMARDs approved for the treatment of active RA in mid-1990s. They still represent a valuable therapeutic option to control the activity, disability and radiographic progression of the disease. In the context of TNF inhibitors, there are currently several molecules and different administration routes that provide optimal treatment personalization, allowing us to respond to a patient's needs in the best possible way. The increasing use of TNF inhibitors has not only improved the management of RA, but it has also helped in our understanding of the pathogenetic mechanisms of the disease. This review focuses on the basis of this targeted therapy and on the knowledge gained from their use about therapeutic effects and adverse events. Effectiveness analysed from drug registries and safety issues are presented together with recent data on infections (in particular, Mycobacterium tuberculosis and hepatitis B), cancer (lymphoma, skin cancers) and cardiovascular risk.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold-standard of medical evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. However, the need to minimize bias and ensure the correct design to explore the study aims often affects the generalizability of results. As a consequence, the evidence derived from the most rigorous research strategy available is not always representative of the real-world settings for which this evidence is ultimately intended. Observational studies, in contrast, although affected by a number of potential confounders, can more effectively capture treatment characteristics and safety issues that had not been identified by previous RCTs, owing to the short duration of follow-up or highly selective inclusion criteria. The aim of this review is to provide a comparative summary of the main advantages and pitfalls of RCTs and real-world data, emphasizing the need for a constant integration of all available levels of evidence to provide the best care for patients.

Background: Treat to target (T2T), aiming at inactive disease (ID), has become the recommended strategy for axial-SpA (ax-SpA). Using the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS), we assessed the prevalence of ID in ax-SpA patients treated with TNFα inhibitors (TNFi)., Methods: A multicentric, cross-sectional study was performed assessing disease activity status (BASDAI and ASDAS) of consecutive patients with ax-SpA on stable treatment with TNFi for at least six months. We analyzed differences with nonradiographic axSpA (nr-ax-SpA) and the influence of population characteristics and comorbidities in reaching ID. ID was defined as ASDAS-CRP <1.3., Results: A total of 218 patients were enrolled, 165 with AS and 53 with nr-ax-SpA. ASDAS-CRP ID was reached by 89 (40.8%) patients, while 163 (74.8%) of patients achieved good disease control with BASDAI. There were no significant differences between the two diagnostic groups. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated a negative correlation of concomitant fibromyalgia, higher BASMI and current NSAIDs with the chances of reaching ASDAS-CRP ID or BASDAI <4., Conclusion: T2T represents a new challenge in the management of ax-SpA, with recently introduced disease activity measures being significantly more stringent. The prevalence of ID was affected by concomitant fibromyalgia, decreased spine mobility and concomitant NSAIDs.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease characterised by inflammation of the synovial tissue in joints, which can lead to joint destruction. The primary goal of the treatment is to control pain and inflammation, reduce joint damage and disability, and maintain or improve physical function and quality of life. The present review is aimed at providing a critical analysis of the recent literature on the novelties in the treatment of RA, with a particular focus on the most relevant studies published over the last year.

Background: Emerging research on the mechanisms of disease chronicity in experimental arthritis has included a new focus on the draining lymph node (LN). Here, we combined clinical-serological analyses and power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) imaging to delineate noninvasively the reciprocal relationship in vivo between the joint and the draining LN in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Forty consecutive patients refractory to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were examined through parallel PDUS of the hand-wrist joints and axillary LNs and compared with 20 healthy subjects. A semiquantitative score for LN gray-scale (GS) parameters (nodal hypertrophy and cortical structure) and LN PD signal was developed. A 6-month follow-up study with serial sonographic assessments was then performed on initiation of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors., Results: PDUS analysis of RA axillary LNs revealed the existence of marked inter-individual heterogeneity and of quantitative differences compared with healthy individuals in both GS and PD characteristics. RA LN changes were plastic, responsive to anti-TNF treatment, and displayed a degree of concordance with synovitis activity in peripheral joints. However, low LN PD signal at baseline despite active arthritis was strongly associated with a poor clinical response to TNF blockade., Conclusions: PDUS analysis of the draining LN in RA allows capture of measurable inter-individual differences and dynamic changes linked to the underlying pathologic process. LN and joint sonographic assessments are nonredundant approaches that may provide independent perspectives on peripheral disease and its evolution over time.

Objective: Patients with resolved hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, i.e., hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative/antihepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive, undergoing rituximab (RTX)-based chemotherapy for hematological malignancies without anti-HBV prophylaxis are at risk of HBV reactivation, but the risk in such patients receiving RTX for rheumatological disorders is not clear. We evaluated this risk in HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) undergoing RTX without prophylaxis., Methods: Thirty-three HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive outpatients with RA with undetectable HBV DNA by sensitive PCR assay [73% women, median age 60 years, 85% with HBsAg antibodies (anti-HBs), 37% with antihepatitis B envelope antigen] received a median of 3 cycles of RTX (range 1-8) over 34 months (range 0-80) combined with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) without prophylaxis. All underwent clinical and laboratory monitoring during and after RTX administration, including serum HBsAg and HBV DNA measurements every 6 months or whenever clinically indicated., Results: None of the patients seroreverted to HBsAg during RTX treatment, but 6/28 (21%) showed a > 50% decrease in protective anti-HBs levels, including 2 who became anti-HBs-negative. One patient (3%) who became HBV DNA-positive (44 IU/ml) after 6 months of RTX treatment was effectively rescued with lamivudine before any hepatitis flare occurred. Among the 14 patients monitored for 18 months (range 0-70) after RTX discontinuation, no HBV reactivation was observed., Conclusion: The administration of RTX + DMARD in patients with RA with resolved HBV infection leads to a negligible risk of HBV reactivation, thus suggesting that serum HBsAg and/or HBV DNA monitoring but not universal anti-HBV prophylaxis is justified.

Unlabelled: Methotrexate (MTX) is still considered the drug of choice in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Comparing subcutaneous (MTX SC) and oral (MTX OR) routes of administration is important to optimize the everyday therapeutic strategy in the real-life setting. This review summarizes scientific evidence currently available on this topic. As shown by pharmacokinetic studies, at the same dose level, bioavailability of MTX SC is significantly higher and less variable than that of MTX OR. This difference is even more pronounced for medium-to-high dosages (i.e., >15 mg/week). With regard to clinical response (Disease Activity Score-28, American College of Rheumatology Criteria), randomized, double-blind studies and retrospective or longitudinal analyses in real-life settings showed that MTX SC is more effective than MTX OR. This is true both in MTX-naive patients with early RA, and in patients who switch from MTX OR to MTX SC due to previous treatment failure, lack of efficacy and/or adverse events. Finally, MTX SC has a better tolerability profile than MTX OR, with fewer gastroenterological side effects. Delaying the use of more expensive biological therapies by switching from MTX OR to MTX SC in non-responders might provide cost savings, with relevant implications in the management of patients with RA., Funding: Alfa Wassermann.