Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of SDZ ETN, an Etanercept Biosimilar, in Patients with Rheumatic Diseases: Final Results from Multi-Country COMPACT Study.

INTRODUCTION: COMPACT, a non-interventional study, evaluated the persistence, effectiveness, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), axial-spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with SDZ ETN (etanercept [ETN] biosimilar) in Europe and Canada. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) who have been treated with SDZ ETN were categorised on the basis of prior treatment status (groups A-D): patients in clinical remission or with low disease activity under treatment with reference ETN or biosimilar ETN and switched to SDZ ETN; patients who received non-ETN targeted therapies and switched to SDZ ETN; biologic-naïve patients who started SDZ ETN after conventional therapy failure; or disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with RA considered suitable for treatment initiation with a biologic and started on treatment with SDZ ETN. The primary endpoint was drug persistence, defined as time from study enrolment until discontinuation of SDZ ETN treatment. RESULTS: Of the 1466 patients recruited, 844 (57.6%) had RA, 334 (22.8%) had axSpA and 288 (19.6%) had PsA. Patients had an ongoing SDZ ETN treatment at the time of enrolment for an observed average of 138 days (range 1-841); 22.7% of patients discontinued SDZ ETN through 12 months of study observation. Overall, all the patients receiving SDZ ETN showed good treatment persistence at 12 months with discontinuation rates of 15.2%, 25.7% and 27.8% in groups A, B and C, respectively. Across all patient groups, no major differences were observed in the disease activity and PRO scores between baseline and month 12. Injection-site reactions were low across the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: These results support the effectiveness and safety of SDZ ETN treatment in patients with RA, axSpA or PsA in real-life conditions. The treatment persistence rates observed were consistent with previously published reports of patients treated with reference or other biosimilar ETN. No new safety signals were identified.

"There is something you must see": breaking down the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis from a rheumatologist's perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the implications of the existing definitions when applied to clinical practice among rheumatologists with different profiles. METHODS: A qualitative study through focus groups was conducted. Three focus groups were organised from February to March 2016. Each group was composed of rheumatologists with extensive clinical experience with different profiles; experts in basic research (RBR), experts in imaging techniques research (RIR), and experts in clinical research (RCR). The data was collected with audio recording. Verbatim transcriptions of the audio files were made, and a subsequent reflexive thematic analysis assisted by ATLAS.ti (GmbH, Berlin, v. 7) software was performed. RESULTS: From the reflexive thematic analysis, three main themes were generated: (1) remission limitations, (2) instruments or measures to assess remission, and (3) a new definition of remission. Rheumatologists mentioned frequently that the following variables should be considered when developing a new remission definition: inflammatory activity, calprotectin, psychological variables, sex, disease stage, and sociocultural factors. Contrary to what could be expected, all groups acknowledged that their research field could contribute with domains for a gold standard remission instrument, but not in a hierarchical arrangement of importance. The dissonance existing in the entire remission evaluation process was outlined: remission in clinical practice versus remission in clinical trials, remission following the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Boolean versus Musculoskeletal Ultrasound (US) remission, and remission from the rheumatologist's point of view versus the patient's point of view. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, rheumatologists would not accept a domain as more important than others in remission. Our suggestion is, not to generate a universal definition of remission - one that could cover all aspects - but rather to develop definitions of remission for the different settings that could be pondered by the patient's perspective.

Exploring the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis with patients and rheumatologists: time for a new approach?

OBJECTIVES: To explore the remission concept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare remission definitions and related concepts between rheumatologists and patients with the purpose of identifying similarities and disparities to comprehend the different perspectives of the disease. METHODS: This was a qualitative study of discourse and content analysis through focus groups, conducted from February to March 2016. Four focus groups were set up, each one with different interests: rheumatologists involved in basic research (BR), rheumatologists with high specialisation in imaging techniques (IR), clinical rheumatologists (CR), and patients (PA). RESULTS: There is no consensus in a remission definition in RA; differences exist between-groups, rheumatologists and patients value remission differently, and there are discrepancies within the group of rheumatologists. Rheumatologists highlight quantifiable objective parameters, in contrast, patients did not consider objective measures as the best instruments, and they prefer subjective measures of remission. The data confirmed the existence of two sources of knowledge of the disease, technical (physicians) and experiential (patients). These sources of knowledge should concur in order to establish new remission criteria well-adjusted to reality. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of consensus between key groups implicated in defining remission and remission criteria suggests a new strategy for its operational definition. Our group proposes that subjects with a balance between experiential and technical knowledge, should be the ones in charge of this assignment.

* Human Amniotic Mesenchymal Stromal Cells as Favorable Source for Cartilage Repair.

INTRODUCTION: Localized trauma-derived breakdown of the hyaline articular cartilage may progress toward osteoarthritis, a degenerative condition characterized by total loss of articular cartilage and joint function. Tissue engineering technologies encompass several promising approaches with high therapeutic potential for the treatment of these focal defects. However, most of the research in tissue engineering is focused on potential materials and structural cues, while little attention is directed to the most appropriate source of cells endowing these materials. In this study, using human amniotic membrane (HAM) as scaffold, we defined a novel static in vitro model for cartilage repair. In combination with HAM, four different cell types, human chondrocytes, human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (hBMSCs), human amniotic epithelial cells, and human amniotic mesenchymal stromal cells (hAMSCs) were assessed determining their therapeutic potential. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A chondral lesion was drilled in human cartilage biopsies simulating a focal defect. A pellet of different cell types was implanted inside the lesion and covered with HAM. The biopsies were maintained for 8 weeks in culture. Chondrogenic differentiation in the defect was analyzed by histology and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: HAM scaffold showed good integration and adhesion to the native cartilage in all groups. Although all cell types showed the capacity of filling the focal defect, hBMSCs and hAMSCs demonstrated higher levels of new matrix synthesis. However, only the hAMSCs-containing group presented a significant cytoplasmic content of type II collagen when compared with chondrocytes. More collagen type I was identified in the new synthesized tissue of hBMSCs. In accordance, hBMSCs and hAMSCs showed better International Cartilage Research Society scoring although without statistical significance. CONCLUSION: HAM is a useful material for articular cartilage repair in vitro when used as scaffold. In combination with hAMSCs, HAM showed better potential for cartilage repair with similar reparation capacity than chondrocytes.

3, 3', 5-triiodo-L-thyronine Increases In Vitro Chondrogenesis of Mesenchymal Stem Cells From Human Umbilical Cord Stroma Through SRC2.

Our group focuses on the study of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from human umbilical cord stroma or Warthons jelly and their directed differentiation toward chondrocyte-like cells capable of regenerating damaged cartilage when transplanted into an injured joint. This study aimed to determine whether lactogenic hormone prolactin (PRL) or 3, 3', 5-triiodo-L-thyronine (T3), the active thyroid hormone, modulates chondrogenesis in our in vitro model of directed chondrogenic differentiation, and whether Wnt signalling is involved in this modulation. MSCs from human umbilical cord stroma underwent directed differentiation toward chondrocyte-like cells by spheroid formation. The addition of T3 to the chondrogenic medium increased the expression of genes linked to chondrogenesis like collagen type 2, integrin alpha 10 beta 1, and Sox9 measured by quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) analysis. Levels of collagen type 2 and aggrecane analyzed by immunohistochemistry, and staining by Safranin O were increased after 14 days in spheroid culture with T3 compared to those without T3 or only with PRL. B-catenin, Frizzled, and GSK-3ß gene expressions were significantly higher in spheroids cultured with chondrogenic medium (CM) plus T3 compared to CM alone after 14 days in culture. The increase of chondrogenic differentiation was inhibited when the cells were treated with T3 plus ML151, an inhibitor of the T3 steroid receptor. This work demonstrates, for first time, that T3 promotes differentiation towards chondrocytes-like cells in our in vitro model, that this differentiation is mediated by steroid receptor co-activator 2 (SRC2) and does not induce hypertrophy. J. Cell. Biochem. 117: 2097-2108, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.