Four-year real-world experience of secukinumab in a large Italian cohort of axial spondyloarthritis.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate in a real-life Italian multicenter cohort of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) (1) the 4-year effectiveness and safety of secukinumab, (2) the drug retention rate (DRR), and (3) the impact of the line of bDMARDs treatment, subtype of axSpA, and sex on achieving low disease activity (LDA) and very low disease activity (VLDA). Methods: Consecutive axSpA patients receiving secukinumab between 2016 and 2023 were prospectively evaluated. Data on disease characteristics, previous/ongoing treatments, comorbidities, and follow-up duration were collected. Treatment response was evaluated at 6 and 12 months after initiation and yearly up to 48 months (T48). DRR and effectiveness outcomes were evaluated according to bDMARDs treatment, axSpA subtype, and sex. Infections and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: We enrolled 272 patients (48.2% male; median age, 51; 39.7% HLA-B27+; 40.4% nr-axSpA), of whom 30.9% were naïve to secukinumab. Overall, secukinumab yielded improvement in effectiveness outcomes; the naïve patients maintained lower disease activity vs. the non-naïve ones. At T48, the LDA and VLDA rates were higher in naïve patients and in male individuals. Treatment was discontinued in 104 patients due to primary/secondary loss of effectiveness and in 34 patients due to AEs. The DRR at T48 was 67.4% in the whole population, regardless of treatment line, axSpA subtype, and sex. Conclusions: Secukinumab was safe and effective in all axSpA patients irrespective of treatment line, disease subtype, and sex. The patients achieved sustained 4-year remission and DRR.

Upadacitinib effectiveness and factors associated with minimal disease activity achievement in patients with psoriatic arthritis: preliminary data of a real-life multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib (UPA) is a selective JAK inhibitor recently approved for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In this post-approval study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UPA over 24 weeks and identify clinical predictors of response, in a multicentric cohort of patients affected by PsA. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients with PsA treated with UPA were enrolled in 10 Italian centres. UPA effectiveness outcomes, such as the proportion of patients with MDA status, DAPSA remission, and low disease activity, ASDAS-CRP inactive and low disease activity, and change from baseline in DAPSA and ASDAS-CRP scores, were evaluated every 12 weeks until week 24. The proportion of DAPSA minor, moderate, and major improvement, and ASDAS clinically important improvement (CII) and major improvement (MI) were considered as well. All treatment-related adverse events were collected during the observation period. Clinical predictors of MDA response at week 24 were evaluated through multivariate analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 124/126 (98%) and 54/126 (43%) patients showed peripheral and axial involvement, respectively; 110 (87%) patients were intolerant or resistant to biologic DMARDs.  At 24 weeks, MDA status, DAPSA remission, and ASDAS-CRP inactive disease were achieved in 47%, 23%, and 48% of patients, respectively. Minor, moderate, and major DAPSA improvement was observed in 67%, 39%, and 23%, respectively; while 65% and 35% achieved ASDAS-CRP CII and MI, respectively. The mean change from baseline was 15.9 ± 13.5 (p < 0.001) for DAPSA and 1.21 ± 0.97 (p < 0.001) for ASDAS-CRP. Thirteen patients (10%) discontinued UPA due to a lack of efficacy or non-serious adverse events. No serious adverse events were observed. Male gender (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.03-6.25 p = 0.043), being naïve to biological DMARDs (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.34-12.71, p = 0.013) and elevated baseline CRP (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.02-6.12, p = 0.046) were associated with MDA response at week 24. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first real-life studies supporting the effectiveness of UPA and its safety profile in PsA patients. Furthermore, the study identifies predictors of MDA response to UPA treatment at 6 months.

Early administration of tofacitinib in COVID-19 pneumonitis: An open randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Controversies on sub-populations most sensitive to therapy and the best timing of starting the treatment still surround the use of immunomodulatory drugs in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: We designed a multicentre open-label randomised controlled trial to test the effect of prompt adding of tofacitinib to standard therapy for hospitalised patients affected by mild/moderate COVID-19 pneumonitis. METHODS: Patients admitted to three Italian hospitals affected by COVID-19 pneumonitis not requiring mechanical ventilation were randomised to receive standard treatment alone or tofacitinib (10 mg/bid) for 2 weeks, starting within the first 24 h from admission. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were randomised; 49 in the experimental arm completed the 14-day treatment period, 9 discontinued tofacitinib as the disease worsened and were included in the analysis, and 1 died of respiratory failure. All 58 control patients completed the study. Clinical and demographic characteristics were similar between the study groups. In the tofacitinib group, 9/58 (15.5%) patients progressed to noninvasive ventilation (CPAP) to maintain SO2 > 93%, invasive mechanical ventilation or death by day 14 was 15.5%, significantly less than in the control group (20/58, 34.4%, RR 0,45, RRR -55%, NNT 5; p = .018). No differences in severe adverse effect incidence had been observed across the groups. CONCLUSION: High-dose tofacitinib therapy in patients with COVID pneumonitis is safe and may prevent deterioration to respiratory failure.

SARS-COV-2 Infection, Vaccination, and Immune-Mediated Diseases: Results of a Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Objectives: The relationship between infections or vaccine antigens and exacerbations or new onset of immune-mediated diseases (IMDs) has long been known. In this observational study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we evaluated the onset of clinical and laboratory immune manifestations related to COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Methods: Four groups of patients were evaluated: A) 584 COVID-19 inpatients hospitalized from March 2020 to June 2020 and from November 2020 to May 2021; B) 135 outpatients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, assessed within 6 months of recovery; C) outpatients with IMDs in remission and flared after SARS-COV-2 infection; D) outpatients with symptoms of probable immune-mediated origin after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Results: In cohort A we observed n. 28 (4.8%) arthralgia/myalgia, n. 2 (0.3%) arthritis, n. 3 (0.5%) pericarditis, n. 1 (0.2%) myocarditis, n. 11 (1.9%) thrombocytopenia or pancytopenia, and in the follow up cohort B we identified 9 (6.7%) cases of newly diagnosed IMDs after the recovery from COVID-19. In all cases, serological alterations were not observed.In cohort C we observed n.5 flares of pre-existing IMD after SARS-COV2 infection, and in the cohort D n. 13 IMD temporally close with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in 8 healthy subjects (with clinical classifiable IMD-like presentation) and in 5 patients affected by an anamnestic IMD. Also in these latter cases, except in 2 healthy subjects, there were not found serological alterations specific of a classifiable IMD. Conclusions: This study suggests that the interplay between SARS-CoV-2 and the host may induce complex immune-mediated reactions, probably induced by the anti-spike antibodies, in healthy people and IMD patients without specific serological autoimmunity. Moreover, our data suggest that the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies generated by the vaccination may cause in healthy subjects' clinical manifestations similar to well-definite IMDs. These findings support the hypothesis that SARS-Cov2 infection in COVID-19 induce an innate and adaptive immune response that may be both responsible of the symptoms correlated with the occurrence of the IMDs described in our study. And, in this context, the IMDs observed in healthy people in close temporal correlation with the vaccination suggest that the anti-Spike antibodies may play a key role in the induction of an abnormal and deregulated immune response.