Marc Ardizzone

In vivo expression pattern of MICA and MICB and its relevance to auto-immunity and cancer.

Non-conventional MHC class I MIC molecules interact not with the TCR, but with NKG2D, a C-type lectin activatory receptor present on most NK, γδ and CD8+ αβ T cells. While this interaction is critical in triggering/calibrating the cytotoxic activity of these cells, the actual extent of its in vivo involvement, in man, in infection, cancer or autoimmunity, needs further assessment. The latter has gained momentum along with the reported expansion of peripheral CD4+CD28−NKG2D+ T cells in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We first initiated to extend this report to a larger cohort of not only RA patients, but also those affected by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and Sjögrens syndrome (SS). In RA and SS, this initial observation was further tested in target tissues: the joint and the salivary glands, respectively. In conclusion and despite occasional and indiscriminate expansion of the previously incriminated T cell subpopulation, no correlation could be observed between the CD4+CD28−NKG2D+ and auto-immunity. Moreover, in situ, the presence of NKG2D matched that of CD8+, but not that of CD4+ T cells. In parallel, a total body tissue scan of both MICA and MICB transcription clearly shows that despite original presumptions, and with the exception of the central nervous system, both genes are widely transcribed and therefore possibly translated and membrane-bound. Extending this analysis to a number of human tumors did not reveal a coherent pattern of expression vs. normal tissues. Collectively these data question previous assumptions, correlating a tissue-specific expression/induction of MIC in relevance to auto-immune or tumor processes.

Exposure to abatacept or rituximab in the first trimester of pregnancy in three women with autoimmune diseases.

The use of biological therapies for treating autoimmune diseases is increasing. These therapies are sometimes administered to pregnant women as part of a planned therapeutic regimen or to women with unexpected or unplanned pregnancies. The safety of biological therapies in this setting is a major issue. Here, we describe three young pregnant patients with autoimmune disorders: two patients with rheumatoid arthritis and one with idiopathic thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. These patients were exposed to rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) or abatacept (fusion protein CTLA4Ig) during the first trimester of their pregnancies. No significant adverse effects or complications were observed during the pregnancies, and all three patients delivered healthy newborns. In the rituximab cases, this result might be explained in part by the very low transplacental maternofetal transfer of rituximab during the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite these favorable outcomes, the use of these two biological agents must follow international recommendations. Their use is not currently allowed during pregnancy except in cases where the potential benefit to the mother justifies the potential risk to the fetus. In the case of exposure to the single agent rituximab during the first trimester, current data suggest that the low risk to the fetus may be outweighed by the potential benefit to the mother.

Recommendations for using TNFα antagonists and French Clinical Practice Guidelines endorsed by the French National Authority for Health.

The use of TNFα antagonists must follow specific guidelines to ensure optimal effectiveness and safety. The French Society for Rheumatology (SFR) and Task Force on Inflammatory Joint Diseases (CRI), in partnership with several French learned societies, asked the French National Authority for Health (HAS) to develop and endorse good practice guidelines for the prescription and monitoring of TNFα antagonist therapy by physicians belonging to various specialties. These guidelines were developed, then, validated by two multidisciplinary panels of experts based on an exhaustive review of the recent literature and in compliance with the methodological rules set forth by the HAS. They pertain to the initial prescription of TNFα antagonists and to a variety of clinical situations that can arise during the follow-up of patients receiving TNFα antagonists (infections, malignancies, pregnancy, vaccination, paradoxical adverse events, surgery, use in older patients, and vasculitides).

Non–TNF-Targeted Biologic vs a Second Anti-TNF Drug to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients With Insufficient Response to a First Anti-TNF Drug: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance One-third of patients with rheumatoid arthritis show inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors; little guidance on choosing the next treatment exists. Objective To compare the efficacy of a non-TNF-targeted biologic (non-TNF) vs a second anti-TNF drug for patients with insufficient response to a TNF inhibitor. Design, Setting, and Participants A total of 300 patients (conducted between 2009-2012) with rheumatoid arthritis, with persistent disease activity (disease activity score in 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR]  ≥ 3.2 [range, 0-9.3]) and an insufficient response to anti-TNF therapy were included in a 52-week multicenter, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial. The final follow-up date was in August 2013. Interventions Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a non-TNF-targeted biologic agent or an anti-TNF that differed from their previous treatment. The choice of the biologic prescribed within each randomized group was left to the treating clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with good or moderate response according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) scale at week 24. Secondary outcomes included the EULAR response at weeks 12 and 52; at weeks 12, 24, and 52; DAS28ESR, low disease activity (DAS28 ≤3.2), remission (DAS28 ≤2.6); serious adverse events; and serious infections. Results Of the 300 randomized patients (243 [83.2%] women; mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.2] years; baseline DAS28-ESR, 5.1 [1.1]), 269 (89.7%) completed the study. At week 24, 101 of 146 patients (69%) in the non-TNF group and 76 (52%) in the second anti-TNF group achieved a good or moderate EULAR response (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.27-3.37; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%). The DAS28-ESR was lower in the non-TNF group than in the second anti-TNF group (mean difference adjusted for baseline differences, -0.43; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.14; P = .004). At weeks 24 and 52, more patients in the non-TNF group vs the second anti-TNF group showed low disease activity (45% vs 28% at week 24; OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.27 to 3.43; P = .004 and 41% vs 23% at week 52; OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.33 to 3.86; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis previously treated with anti-TNF drugs but with inadequate primary response, a non-TNF biologic agent was more effective in achieving a good or moderate disease activity response at 24 weeks than was the second anti-TNF medication. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000441.

Efficacy of anakinra in calcium pyrophosphate crystal-induced arthritis: a report of 16 cases and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES Calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal-induced arthritis occurs particularly in elderly people. This population has frequently associated comorbidities and treatments, which could limit the use of conventional therapies (colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids). The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of anakinra in patients with CPP crystal-induced arthritis. METHODS We performed a multicentric retrospective chart review of patients who received anakinra for CPP crystal-induced arthritis. Demographic information, comorbidities, co-prescription, short-term treatment outcomes, adverse event, complication and subsequent flares were reviewed. RESULTS A total of 16 patients (12 females, mean age: 80.2±11.1 years) received anakinra (100 mg subcutaneously per day). The mean number of anakinra injection was 15.5±42.9 per patient (median: 3). All patients had contraindication and/or failure to conventional therapies. The majority (14 [87.5%]) of patients with CPP crystal-induced arthritis demonstrated a beneficial response to anakinra therapy: 10 good responses and four partial responses. A relapse occurred in six (37.5%) patients (mean time to relapse: 3.4±4.9 months). One patient had an acute bacterial pneumonitis. CONCLUSION Our results suggest that anakinra is relatively well tolerated and could be a good option in the treatment of CPP crystal-induced arthritis, illustrating that IL-1β blockade may be helpful to control flares in patients having CPP crystal-induced arthritis for which conventional therapies are ineffective or contra-indicated.

Long-term efficacy and safety of antitumour necrosis factor alpha treatment in rhupus: an open-label study of 15 patients

Background The efficacy of antitumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF-α) treatment is well recognised in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but remains controversial in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Therefore, the role of anti-TNF-α treatment in ‘Rhupus’, a disease sharing features of RA and SLE, is still debated. Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of anti-TNF-α in patients with rhupus. Methods Fifteen patients with rhupus with Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS 28) >3.2 despite conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were included in an open-label study. Patients were monitored at months (M) 3, 6, 12, 24 and 60 with SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) and DAS 28. Statistical analyses were performed using Bayesian methods and Prob >97.5% was considered significant. Results Twelve patients were treated with etanercept for a median duration of 62.5 (range: 6–112) months and three patients by adalimumab during 36.0 (range: 4–52) months. At baseline, median DAS 28 and SLEDAI were 5.94 (4.83–8.09) and 6 (4–8), respectively. DAS 28 and SLEDAI decreased significantly after 3 months, respectively, to 3.70 (1.80–6.42) and 4 (0–6) (Prob >99.9%, for both). These changes persisted at M6, M12, M24 and M60 (Prob >99.9%, for all). Median prednisone dose decreased significantly from 15 (5–35) mg/day to 5 (0–20) mg/day after 6 months and over the follow-up (Prob >99.9%, for all). Tolerance was acceptable, with a severe infection rate of 3.0 per 100 patient-years. Conclusion This pilot study suggests that anti-TNF-α is effective in patients with rhupus with refractive arthritis and has an acceptable safety profile.