The change over time in the prescription pattern of the first targeted drug after failure of conventional therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 20-year real-world experience.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the change over time in the pattern of the first biologic/targeted synthetic drug (b/tsDMARD) prescription and baseline characteristics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from 1999 to the present. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis from RA patients enrolled in an Italian single-center registry was conducted. The analysis was limited to all the patients who received the first b/tsDMARD between October 1999 and December 2022. Patients were stratified according to the date of b/tsDMARD initiation into 4 groups (1999-2004, 2005-2010, 2011-2016, and 2017-2022) and a comparative analysis of prescription patterns and patients' baseline characteristics was performed. RESULTS: The study population included 1206 patients. The characteristics of patients at baseline in the 4 groups were similar overall, with the exception of disease duration (12.26, 10.5, 9.7, 8.1 years, respectively; p<0.0001), mean number of conventional DMARDs used before the first b/tsDMARD (3, 2.5, 2.1, 1.4, respectively; p<0.0001), and mean clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score (30.1, 24.3, 21.8, 20.4, respectively; p<0.0001). A progressive reduction (from 95 to 43% of patients) in the prescription of first-line TNF-α inhibitors toward other mechanisms of action has been observed. The rate of patients treated with b/tsDMARDs as monotherapy progressively increased (from 18 to 26%) especially among those not receiving a TNFα inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of the therapeutic armamentarium has changed the management strategy of RA over time towards an earlier introduction of targeted drugs (increasingly often as monotherapy) in patients with progressive lower disease activity and a history of failure with fewer previous conventional drugs.

Effectiveness and safety of filgotinib in rheumatoid arthritis patients: data from the GISEA registry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of filgotinib, a JAK1 preferential inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients included in Italian GISEA (Group for the Study of Early Arthritis) registry. METHODS: Data from RA patients treated with filgotinib, recorded in the GISEA registry, were analysed. Disease activity scores and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at baseline, as well as during 12-month follow-up. A difficult-to-treat (D2T) RA patient was defined according with EULAR criteria. Retention rate of filgotinib was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and factors influencing drug discontinuation were estimated by Cox regression models. RESULTS: 246 RA patients (female 89%, 57.6±12.2 years old) started filgotinib, mostly as second (22%) or further (43.9%) b/tsDMARDs line of treatment. At 3 and 12 months, 18.8% and 27.5% of patients achieved Clinical Diseases Activity Index based remission and 30.1% and 37.7% obtained a visual analogue scale of pain ≤20 (all p<0.01 vs. baseline). Filgotinib survival rate was 84.5% at the 6-month and 75.8% at 12-month follow-up, and was comparable either in monotherapy or combination therapy, and irrespective of glucocorticoid intake. b/tsDMARD naive patients had the lowest hazard ratio (HR) of filgotinib discontinuation (HR 0.29, 95%CI 0.14-0.64), while D2T-RA the highest (HR 1.82, 95%CI 1.01-3.3). Eight patients (3.3%) discontinued filgotinib due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In an Italian real-life setting, filgotinib is confirmed to be safe and with a good effectiveness profile both in monotherapy and without glucocorticoids.

The impact of EMA recommendations on the real-life use of Janus kinases inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis: the Expanded Risk Score in RA as a tool to quantify the risk of cardiovascular events.

Objective: To evaluate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) the impact of EMA recommendations on the real-life prescription of JAK inhibitors (JAKis) and the use of the Expanded Risk Score in RA (ERS-RA) to quantify the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of real-life RA patients treated with JAKis. Patients were classified as ineligible for JAKis if they fulfilled EMA criteria (>65 years-old, history of malignancy, or increased risk of venous thromboembolic events [VTE] or MACE including smoking). Risk of MACE was defined according to ORAL Surveillance trial inclusion criteria (ORALSURV) or by using the ERS-RA. Results: Of 194 patients enrolled, 57.9% were classified as ineligible according to EMA definition (ORALSURV criteria). The most frequent reason for ineligibility was increased MACE risk (70.2%), followed by age>65 (34.2%), smoking (30.7%), and increased risk of VTE (20.2%) or malignancy (7%). The use of the ERS-RA reduced the rate of patients carrying an increased CV risk to 18.6% (p<0.001 versus ORALSURV), leading to 46.4% overall ineligible patients. Over a drug-exposure of 337 patient/years, we observed 2 VTE, one MACE (non-fatal stroke), and one solid malignancy (all in the group of patients classified as ineligible according to both the definitions). Conclusions: Rigorous application of EMA indications in clinical practice could result in the exclusion of a large proportion of RA patients from treatment with JAKis. A proper quantification of the risk for MACE by dedicated tools as ERS-RA is advocated to better tailor the management of RA.

Immunosuppressant Treatment in Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases Does Not Inhibit Elicitation of Humoral Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Preserves Effector Immune Cell Populations.

COVID-19 has proven to be particularly serious and life-threatening for patients presenting with pre-existing pathologies. Patients affected by rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (RMD) are likely to have impaired immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 infection due to their compromised immune system and the prolonged use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), which include conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs or biologic and targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. To provide an integrated analysis of the immune response following SARS-CoV-2 infection in RMD patients treated with different classes of DMARDs we carried out an immunological analysis of the antibody responses toward SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and RBD proteins and an extensive immunophenotypic analysis of the major immune cell populations. We showed that RMD individuals under most DMARD treatments mount a sustained antibody response to the virus, with neutralizing activity. In addition, they displayed a sizable percentage of effector T and B lymphocytes. Among b-DMARDs, we found that anti-TNFα treatments are more favorable drugs to elicit humoral and cellular immune responses as compared to CTLA4-Ig and anti-IL6R inhibitors. This study provides a whole picture of the humoral and cellular immune responses in RMD patients by reassuring the use of DMARD treatments during COVID-19. The study points to TNF-α inhibitors as those DMARDs permitting elicitation of functional antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and adaptive effector populations available to counteract possible re-infections.

Corrigendum: The Impact of Anti-rheumatic Drugs on the Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: The MAINSTREAM Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.850858.].

The Impact of Anti-rheumatic Drugs on the Seroprevalence of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: The MAINSTREAM Study.

Objectives: Given the high occurrence of asymptomatic subsets, the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in rheumatic patients is still underestimated. This study aims to evaluate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMD) patients receiving immunomodulatory drugs. Methods: All consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) evaluated between 4th May and 16th June 2020 were included. All participants were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA) by ELISA and were questioned about previous COVID-19 symptoms and clinical course. Results were compared with healthy population from the same region and with a control group of healthy subjects diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19. Results: The study population includes 358 patients. The overall prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (18.4%) was higher than prevalence rate based on swab-positivity (1.12%) or clinically suspected cases (10.6%), but consistent with seroprevalence observed in the healthy population. Among seropositive patients 58% were asymptomatic. Mean anti-SARS-CoV-2 titer was comparable with the control group. No differences in seroprevalence were observed according to age, sex, rheumatic disease and treatment with conventional, biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, whereas glucocorticoids and comorbidities resulted in higher seroprevalence rate. Conclusions: The results of this study are reassuring about the low impact of RMDs and immunomodulatory therapies on the risk and clinical course of COVID-19 and on humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Clinical pharmacology of filgotinib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: current insights.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease, whose natural course has been deeply modified thanks to the development of new therapeutic approaches. The Janus kinase inhibitors (Jakinibs) represent the newest class of drugs introduced for treating RA. Among these, Filgotinib (FIL) has been developed as Janus kinase1 (JAK1) selective inhibitor, specifically targeting key pro-inflammatory mediators in RA pathogenesis. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review provides an overview on FIL as new therapeutic approach for RA, with focus on its pharmacological properties, clinical efficacy, and safety profile. The following electronic databases were adopted for the study search: PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and Abstract archive from the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. EXPERT OPINION: The phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed so far and their long-term extensions showed a comparable clinical efficacy of FIL to biologic treatments, with an acceptable safety profile. Thanks to these data, FIL was approved in Europe and Japan for the treatment of active RA, increasing the spectrum of therapeutic approaches and improving the possibility of a more tailored therapeutic strategy. Real-life data and head-to-head clinical trials will be needed to confirm its efficacy and safety.

Retention rate of a second line with a biologic DMARD after failure of a first-line therapy with abatacept, tocilizumab, or rituximab: results from the Italian GISEA registry.

OBJECTIVES: EULAR recommendations do not suggest which biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be preferred after failure of a first bDMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, few data are available regarding the effectiveness of a second-line bDMARD after failure of abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab (RTX). The aim of this study was to analyze the retention rate of a second line with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other mechanisms of action (MoAs), after the failure of either RTX, TCZ, or ABA. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-eight RA patients from the Italian GISEA registry were included in the study. RTX was the first bDMARD in 18% of patients, ABA in 45.7%, and TCZ in 36.3%, while the second bDMARD was a TNFi (group 1) in 129 patients and an agent with a different MoA (group 2) in 149. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 68), 129 patients discontinued their treatment; patients of group 1 discontinued the treatment more frequently than patients of group 2 (p<0.001) with retention rates of 33.6±5.7% and 63.6±4.6% after 104 weeks for group 1 and group 2, respectively (p<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the mechanism of action was the only predictor for the maintenance in therapy. CONCLUSIONS: According to our data, ABA, RTX, and TCZ seem to maintain a good retention rate also when used as a second-line therapy, suggesting their use after the failure of a non-TNFi as first-line therapy. However, specifically designed studies are needed to evaluate the more appropriate therapeutic strategies in RA, according to the first-line drug, including new targeted synthetic DMARDs. Key Points • A large proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients fail the first biologic DMARD. • Few data are available about the efficacy of biologic DMARD after the failure of a non-TNF inhibitor. • Abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab seem to maintain a good retention rate after the failure of a first-course therapy with a non-TNF inhibitor.

Clinical management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic raises a great challenge in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which are generally more susceptible to infection events because of the autoimmune condition itself and the treatment with immunomodulatory drugs. The use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biologics and targeted-synthetic DMARDs, has aroused particular interest because of both their immunosuppressive effects and their hypothetical potential in COVID-19 treatment.Areas covered: For this narrative review, a literature search was conducted between December 2019 and February 2021 on PubMed including epidemiological studies, gathering the main evidence available to date about the impact of COVID-19 on RA patients and the influence of anti-rheumatic drugs on patients' susceptibility to this infection. We also summarize the recommendations from the international guidelines on the management of rheumatic diseases and treatments in this pandemic context, especially focused on RA.Expert opinion: About a year after the outbreak of the pandemic, we are able to answer some of the most relevant questions regarding patients with RA and their management in this pandemic context. Our efforts must now be directed toward consolidating the currently available data with more rigorous studies and facing new issues and challenges including, foremost, vaccination.

Mild cognitive impairment in psoriatic arthritis: Prevalence and associated factors.

ABSTRACT: To assess the prevalence and factors associated with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in patients suffering from psoriatic arthritis (PsA).A cross-sectional evaluation was conducted in consecutive PsA patients. Sociodemographic data and the clinimetric variables related to PsA and psoriasis were collected for each patient. MCI was assessed through the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The cognitive performance of PsA patients was compared to healthy subjects using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The correlations among variables were studied by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to establish the predictors of MCI.The study involved 96 PsA patients and 48 healthy subjects. MCI (defined as a MoCA score < 26/30) was detected in 47 (48.9%) PsA patients. Compared to healthy subjects, the MoCA score resulted significantly lower in PsA patients (P = .015). The main differences involved the denomination and language domains. MoCA was negatively correlated with age (r = -0.354; P < .0001), HAQ-DI (r = -0.227; P = .026), and fatigue (r = -0.222; P = .029), and positively correlated with psoriasis duration (r = 0.316; P = .001) and DLQI (r = 0.226; P = .008).The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the duration of psoriasis (P = .0005), age (P = .0038), PASI (P = .0050), and HAQ-DI (P = .0193) as predictors of the MoCA score.MCI is present in a significant proportion of PsA patients, and is mainly determined by age, cutaneous variables, and disability.

Impact of corticosteroids and immunosuppressive therapies on symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort of patients with chronic inflammatory arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence and outcomes of coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 in relation to immunomodulatory medications are still unknown. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents on COVID-19 in a large cohort of patients with chronic immune-mediated inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: The study was conducted in the arthritis outpatient clinic at two large academic hospitals in the COVID-19 most endemic area of Northern Italy (Lombardy). We circulated a cross-sectional survey exploring the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 nasopharyngeal swab positivity and the occurrence of acute respiratory illness (fever and/or cough and/or dyspnea), administered face-to-face or by phone to consecutive patients from 25 February to 20 April 2020. COVID-19 cases were defined as confirmed or highly suspicious according to the World Health Organization criteria. The impact of medications on COVID-19 development was evaluated. RESULTS: The study population included 2050 adults with chronic inflammatory arthritis receiving glucocorticoids, conventional-synthetic (cs), or targeted-synthetic/biological (ts/b) disease-modifying drugs (DMARDs). Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and highly suspicious infection were recorded in 1.1% and 1.4% of the population, respectively. Treatment with glucocorticoids was independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted OR [95% CI] ranging from 1.23 [1.04-1.44] to 3.20 [1.97-5.18] depending on the definition used). Conversely, patients treated with ts/bDMARDs were at reduced risk (adjusted OR ranging from 0.46 [0.18-1.21] to 0.47 [0.46-0.48]). No independent effects of csDMARDs, age, sex, and comorbidities were observed. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 outbreak, treatment with immunomodulatory medications appears safe. Conversely, glucocorticoids, even at low-dose, may confer increased risk of infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered. Not applicable.

Personalized medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: How immunogenicity impacts use of TNF inhibitors.

Up to 40% of patients treated with tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) do not respond to therapy. Testing drug bioavailability and/or anti-drug antibody (ADAb) levels may justify dosage adjustment or switch to different drugs, enabling a personalized medicine approach. We report a multicenter cross-sectional study on different methods [ELISA and a cell based functional assay (reporter gene assay - RGA)] for drug/ADAb detection, and on the relationship between drug bioavailability and ADAb. 163 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with infliximab (IFX; n = 67), adalimumab (ADL; n = 49) or etanercept (ETA; n = 47) were tested for drug and ADAb levels. Furthermore, we report prospective data from additional 70 patients (59 RA and 11 juvenile idiopathic arthritis - JIA) tested for drug and ADAb levels at baseline (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6) of treatment with ADL or ETA only. IFX-treated patients were not included because of the increasing use of IFX biosimilars. Stringent inclusion criteria were used in order to avoid unwanted variables in both studies; none of the patients used TNFi before the study, and TNFi was used only in combination with methotrexate. Clinical response was defined according to EULAR response criteria. The two assays performed comparably in the comparison study. Accordingly, ELISA was selected for the prospective study because of its feasibility in the clinical setting. The cross-sectional study found ADAb in IFX and ADL treated groups only, that were associated with a decrease in pharmacological drug availability in the blood. Comparable results were found for the ADL-treated group in the prospective study which also showed a relationship between drug/ADAb levels and the loss of clinical response. Altogether our findings support drug and anti-drug Ab monitoring in the real-world clinical setting thus enabling individualized treatment and reducing disability in chronic inflammatory arthritis.

Retrospective evaluation of patient profiling and effectiveness of apremilast in an Italian multicentric cohort of psoriatic arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the baseline characteristics, the reasons for prescription, and the effectiveness/safety profile of real-life apremilast for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: PsA patients treated with apremilast were retrospectively extracted from an Italian multicentric cohort. Baseline population characteristics and reasons for apremilast prescription were analysed. Clinical response was defined as the proportion of patients achieving Disease Activity in PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) remission/low disease activity (LDA), minimal disease activity (MDA), and very low disease activity (VLDA). Six-month retention rate was computed by the Kaplan-Meier method, with a detailed analysis of reasons for discontinuation. Univariate and multivariate models were developed to examine predictors of clinical response and persistence. RESULTS: The study population included 131 patients mainly with oligoarticular PsA (58%), carrying at least one comorbidity (64.1%, in particular history of malignancies [25.9%] and latent tuberculosis [16.3%]) treated with apremilast as first-line targeted therapy (47.7%) or in biologics failures (52.3%). Contraindication to biologics (60.3%) and lack of poor prognostic factors (27.5%) were the most frequent reason for apremilast prescription. The 6-month retention rate was 72.1%. Inefficacy (n=7), diarrhoea (n=10), nausea (n=3), and headache (n=7) were the most frequent reasons for discontinuation. At 3 months DAPSA LDA/remission, MDA, and VLDA were observed in 40.3, 6.7, and 5.6% of patients, respectively. Female sex was a negative predictor of both retention rate and clinical response. CONCLUSIONS: In our real-life analysis apremilast was mainly used in oligoarticular PsA carrying comorbidities leading to contraindications to biologics. Effectiveness and safety profiles were consistent with clinical trials.

Upadacitinib and filgotinib: the role of JAK1 selective inhibition in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease characterized by joint involvement, extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities, and increased mortality. In the last few decades, the management of RA has been dramatically improved by the introduction of a treat-to-target approach aiming to prevent joint damage progression. Moreover, the increasing knowledge about disease pathogenesis allowed the development of a new drug class of biologic agents targeted on immune cells and proinflammatory cytokines involved in RA network. Despite the introduction of several targeted drugs, a significant proportion of RA patients still fail to achieve the clinical target; so, more recently the focus of research has been shifted toward the inhibition of kinases involved in the transduction of the inflammatory signal into immune cells. In particular, two Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, baricitinib and tofacitinib, have been licensed for the treatment of RA as a consequence of a very favorable profile observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted across different RA subpopulations. Both these new compounds are active on the majority of four JAK family members (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2), whereas the most recent emerging approach is directed toward the development of JAK1 selective inhibitors (upadacitinib and filgotinib) with the aim to improve the safety profile by minimizing the effects on JAK3 and, especially, JAK2. In this narrative review, we discuss the rationale for JAK inhibition in RA, with a special focus on the role of JAK1 selective blockade and a detailed description of available data from the results of clinical trials on upadacitinib and filgotinib.

Targeting Granulocyte-Monocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Signaling in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Future Prospects.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic, autoimmune disease that affects joints and extra-articular structures. In the last decade, the management of this chronic disease has dramatically changed with the introduction of several targeted mechanisms of action, such as tumor necrosis factor-α inhibition, T-cell costimulation inhibition, B-cell depletion, interleukin-6 blockade, and Janus kinase inhibition. Beyond its well-known hematopoietic role on the proliferation and differentiation of myeloid cells, granulocyte-monocyte colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is a proinflammatory mediator acting as a cytokine, with a proven pathogenetic role in autoimmune disorders such as RA. In vitro studies clearly demonstrated the effect of GM-CSF in the communication between resident tissue cells and activated macrophages at chronic inflammation sites, and confirmed the elevation of GM-CSF levels in inflamed synovial tissue of RA subjects compared with healthy controls. Moreover, a pivotal role of GM-CSF in the perception of pain has been clearly confirmed. Therefore, blockade of the GM-CSF pathway by monoclonal antibodies directed against the cytokine itself or its receptor has been investigated in refractory RA patients. Overall, the safety profile of GM-CSF inhibitors seems to be very favorable, with a particularly low incidence of infectious complications. The efficacy of this new mechanism of action is comparable with main competitors, even though the response rates reported in phase II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) appear to be numerically lower than the response rates observed with other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs already licensed for RA. Mainly because of this reason, nowadays the development program of most GM-CSF blockers for RA has been discontinued, with the exception of otilimab, which is under evaluation in two phase III RCTs with a head-to head non-inferiority design against tofacitinib. These studies will likely be useful for better defining the potential role of GM-CSF inhibition in the therapeutic algorithm of RA. On the other hand, the potential role of GM-CSF blockade in the treatment of other rheumatic diseases is now under investigation. Phase II trials are ongoing with the aim of evaluating mavrilimumab for the treatment of giant cell arteritis, and namilumab for the treatment of spondyloarthritis. Moreover, GM-CSF inhibitors have been tested in osteoarthritis and diffuse subtype of systemic sclerosis. This review aims to describe in detail the available evidence on the GM-CSF blocking pathway in RA management, paving the way to a possible alternative treatment for RA patients. Novel insights regarding the potential use of GM-CSF blockers for alternative indications will be also addressed.

Mavrilimumab: a unique insight and update on the current status in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, systemic, autoimmune disease, which affects joints and extra-articular structures. Nowadays, the armamentarium of therapeutic options is progressively expanding and embraces several mechanisms of action: TNF inhibition, B-cell depletion, T-cell co-stimulation inhibition, IL-6 blockade, and JAK-inhibition. Granulocyte-Monocyte-Colony-Stimulating-Factor (GM-CSF) is a mediator acting as a cytokine with a proven pathogenetic role in RA, providing a potential alternative target for the management of the disease. Mavrilimumab is a monoclonal antibody against GM-CSF receptor, which has been successfully tested in RA patients. Areas covered: Beginning with a description of the preclinical evidence and the rationale for GM-CSF blockade in RA, this review will provide a wide overview of mavrilimumab efficacy and safety profile by analyzing phase I/II RCTs conducted in patients with moderate to severe RA. Expert opinion: According to the promising results from phase I-II RCTs, mavrilimumab could be considered as an additional therapeutic option for RA patients multi-resistant to the available targeted drugs. However, the optimal dose and the profile of this new drug should be confirmed in phase III RCTs before the marketing.

The Use of Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index for Predicting Clinical Response and Retention Rate in a Cohort of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Receiving Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: To retrospectively evaluate the impact of comorbidities on treatment choice, 12-month clinical response, and 24-month retention rate in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with a first-line tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi), by using for the first time the Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (RDCI). METHODS: The study population was extracted from a local registry of RA patients receiving adalimumab or etanercept as first-line biologics between January 2001 and December 2013. The prevalence of comorbidities was computed, and patients were stratified according to RDCI for evaluating the role of comorbidities on TNFi choice, concomitant methotrexate, clinical response (1-year DAS28-ESR remission and low disease activity [LDA] and EULAR good-moderate response), and the 24-month retention rate. RESULTS: 346 patients (172 adalimumab and 174 etanercept) were included. A significantly higher EULAR good/moderate response (P = 0.020) and DAS28-ESR remission (P = 0.003) were obtained according to RDCI (0, 1, 2, or ≥3). Lower RDCI (P = 0.022), male sex (P = 0.006), higher baseline DAS28-ESR (P = 0.001), ETN (P < 0.001), and concomitant methotrexate (P = 0.016) were predictors of EULAR good/moderate response. Elevated RDCI was a predictor of discontinuation of biologics (P = 0.036), whereas treatment with etanercept (P < 0.001) and methotrexate (P = 0.007) was associated with a lower risk of TNFi withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity, measured by RDCI, is a negative predictor of TNFi persistence on treatment and of achieving a good clinical response. The use of RDCI may be very useful for identifying patients with RA carrying those comorbid conditions associated with poor prognostic outcomes and for defining new treatment targets in multimorbid RA patients.

Sex and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic and progressive autoimmune disease more common in women than men (3:1). Although sex-based differences may play a complex role in promoting an autoimmune dysfunction, to date the comprehensive knowledge of the link between sex and RA is still partially lacking. Furthermore, males and females have been demonstrated to differently deal with their chronic pathologies, modifying the perceived sex-based burden of disease. Gender medicine is a newly approach focusing on the impact of gender differences on human physiology, pathophysiology, and clinical features of diseases, analyzing the complex interrelation and integration of sex and psychological and cultural behavior. A better comprehension of possible factors influencing sexual dimorphism in RA susceptibility, pattern of presentation, disease activity, and outcome could contribute to a tailored approach, in order to limit the morbidity of the disease. RA disease activity seems to be higher in women, whereas the response rate to synthetic and biologic disease-modifying therapies appears to be better in males. Moreover, the common strategies for RA management may be affected by concomitant pregnancy or childbearing desire, with particular regard to treatments with potential teratogenic effects or impact on fertility. Finally, comorbidities, such as fibromyalgia, major depression, and osteoporosis, are more frequent in females, while the impact of sex on cardiovascular risk is still controversial. Moving from the role of sex in influencing RA pathogenesis, epidemiology, and disease characteristics, this review explores the evidence on how sex can have an impact on strategies for managing patients with RA.