Effects of subcutaneous and intravenous golimumab on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a phase 1, randomized, open-label trial

Inflammatory markers in rheumatic diseases

Immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs) are a broad group of pathological conditions based on impaired immunological tolerance to one’s own tissues leading to inflammation and irreversible organ damage. Laboratory diagnosis of IMRDs includes a wide range of biomarkers (autoantibodies, acute phase proteins, cytokines, markers of endothelial damage, components of the complement system, immunoglobulins, cryoglobulins, lymphocyte subpopulations, indicators of bone metabolism, apoptosis markers, genetic markers, etc). One of the leading aspects of laboratory diagnosis of IMRDs is the study of the level of inflammation markers in the blood (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein (CRP), serum amyloid protein (CAA), ferritin, procalcitonin, apolipoprotein AI, calprotectin, etc). The analysis of inflammation markers makes it possible to assess the disease activity, the nature of the progression and the prognosis of the outcomes of a chronic inflammatory process, as well as the effectiveness of the therapy. The review presents the latest data on the role of the most frequently studied inflammatory markers such as CRP, CAA and ferritin.

Pentosan polysulfate regulates hepcidin 1-facilitated formation and function of osteoclast derived from canine bone marrow

Hepcidin which is the crucial regulator of iron homeostasis, produced in the liver in response to anemia, hypoxia, or inflammation. Recent studies have suggested that hepcidin and iron metabolism are involved in osteoporosis by inhibiting osteoblast function and promoting osteoclastogenesis. Pentosan polysulfate (PPS) is a heparin analogue and promising novel therapeutic for osteoarthritis (OA). This study was undertaken to determine whether PPS inhibits hepcidin-facilitated osteoclast (OC) differentiation and iron overload. Canine (n = 3) bone marrow mononuclear cells were differentiated to OC by macrophage colony-stimulating factor and receptor-activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand with the treatment of hepcidin1 (200, 400, 800, 1200 nmol/L) and PPS (1, 5, 10, 20, 40 μg/mL). Differentiation and function of OC were accessed using tartrate-resistant acid phosphate staining and bone resorption assay while monitoring ferroportin1 (FPN1) and iron concentration by immunocytochemistry. Gene expression of OC for cathepsin K (CTK), matrix metallopeptidase-9, nuclear factor of activated-T-cells cytoplasmic 1 and FPN1 was examined. Hepcidin1 showed significant enhancement of OC number at 800 nmol/L (p<0.01). PPS impeded hepcidin-facilitated OC at 1, 5 and 10 μg/mL and reduction of resorption pits at 5 and 10 μg/mL (p< 0.01). All OC specific genes were downregulated with PPS, specifically in significant manner with CTK at higher concentrations. However, heparin induced FPN1 internalization and degradation was inhibited at higher concentrations of PPS while restoring iron-releasing capability of OC. We demonstrate for the first time that PPS is a novel-inhibitor of hepcidin-facilitated OC formation/function which might be beneficial for treatment of OA and osteoporosis.

Serum Amyloid A in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases: A Compendious Review of a Renowned Biomarker

Serum amyloid A (SAA) is an acute phase protein with a significant importance for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD). The central role of SAA in pathogenesis of IRD has been confirmed by recent discoveries, including its involvement in the activation of the inflammasome cascade and recruitment of interleukin 17 producing T helper cells. Clinical utility of SAA in IRD was originally evaluated nearly half a century ago. From the first findings, it was clear that SAA could be used for evaluating disease severity and monitoring disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and secondary amyloidosis. However, cost-effective and more easily applicable markers, such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), overwhelmed its use in clinical practice. In the light of emerging evidences, SAA has been discerned as a more sensitive biomarker in a wide spectrum of IRD, especially in case of subclinical inflammation. Furthermore, a growing number of studies are confirming the advantages of SAA over many other biomarkers in predicting and monitoring response to biological immunotherapy in IRD patients. Arising scientific discoveries regarding the role of SAA, as well as delineating SAA and its isoforms as the most sensitive biomarkers in various IRD by recently developing proteomic techniques are encouraging the revival of its clinical use. Finally, the most recent findings have shown that SAA is a biomarker of severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this review is to discuss the SAA-involving immune system network with emphasis on mechanisms relevant for IRD, as well as usefulness of SAA as a biomarker in various IRD. Therefore, over a hundred original papers were collected through an extensive PubMed and Scopus databases search. These recently arising insights will hopefully lead to a better management of IRD patients and might even inspire the development of new therapeutic strategies with SAA as a target.

Anaemia of chronic diseases: Pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment

Anaemia of chronic disease (ACD) is generated by the activation of the immune system by autoantigens, microbial molecules or tumour antigens resulting in the release of cytokines that cause an elevation of serum hepcidin, hypoferraemia, suppression of erythropoiesis, decrease in erythropoietin (EPO) and shortening of the half-life of red blood cells. Anaemia is usually normocytic and normochromic, which is the most prevalent after iron deficiency anaemia, and it is the most frequent in the elderly and in hospitalized patients. If the anaemia is severe, the patient's quality of life deteriorates, and it can have a negative impact on survival. Treatment is aimed at controlling the underlying disease and correcting anaemia. Sometimes intravenous iron and EPO have been used, but the therapeutic future is directed against hepcidin, which is the final target of anaemia.

Anemia of Chronic Diseases: Wider Diagnostics-Better Treatment?

Anemia of chronic diseases is a condition that accompanies a specific underlying disease, in which there is a decrease in hemoglobin, hematocrit and erythrocyte counts due to a complex process, usually initiated by cellular immunity mechanisms and pro-inflammatory cytokines and hepcidin. This is the second most common type of anemia after iron deficiency anemia in the world. Its severity generally correlates with the severity of the underlying disease. This disease most often coexists with chronic inflammation, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and kidney failure. Before starting treatment, one should undertake in-depth diagnostics, which includes not only assessment of complete blood count and biochemical parameters, but also severity of the underlying disease. The differential diagnosis of anemia of chronic diseases is primarily based on the exclusion of other types of anemia, in particular iron deficiency. The main features of anemia of chronic diseases include mild to moderate lowering of hemoglobin level, decreased percentage of reticulocyte count, low iron and transferrin concentration, but increased ferritin. Due to the increasingly better knowledge of the pathomechanism of chronic diseases and cancer biology, the diagnosis of this anemia is constantly expanding with new biochemical indicators. These include: the concentration of other hematopoietic factors (folic acid, vitamin B₁₂), hepcidin, creatinine and erythropoietin. The basic form of treatment of anemia of chronic diseases remains supplementation with iron, folic acid and vitamin B₁₂ as well as a diet rich in the above-mentioned hematopoietic factors. The route of administration (oral, intramuscular or intravenous) requires careful consideration of the benefits and possible side effects, and assessment of the patient’s clinical status. New methods of treating both the underlying disease and anemia are raising hopes. The novel methods are associated not only with supplementing deficiencies, but also with the administration of drugs molecularly targeted to specific proteins or receptors involved in the development of anemia of chronic diseases.

Role and mechanism of miR-144-5p in LPS-induced macrophages

The aim of the present study was to explore the possible role of microRNA-144-5p (miR-144-5p) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the associated mechanism. Following the induction of THP-1 cell differentiation into macrophages by phorbol ester (100 ng/ml) treatment, an in vitro inflammatory model of RA was established by treating the THP-1 macrophages with 1 µg/ml lipopolysaccharide (LPS). The level of miR-144-5p was subsequently measured using reverse transcription-quantitative PCR, which found that the expression of miR-144-5p was significantly reduced in LPS-treated THP-1 macrophages. Bioinformatics analysis and a dual-luciferase reporter assay were used to predict and confirm TLR2 as a direct target of miR-144-5p, respectively. Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) was then validated as a target gene of miR-144-5p. The effects of miR-144-5p upregulation and TLR2 silencing on LPS-treated THP-1 macrophages were then determined by transfection with miR-144-5p mimic and TLR2-siRNA, respectively. Cell viability was subsequently measured using a Cell Counting Kit-8 assay, whilst the expression of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8 secreted by THP-1 macrophages was measured using ELISA. Western blotting was performed to measure p65 phosphorylation (p-p65) in the NK-κB signaling pathway. It was found that miR-144-5p overexpression reduced macrophage cell viability, reduced the expression of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8, and reduced the expression of TLR2 and p-p65 compared with the control group. Likewise, TLR2 silencing also reduced macrophage cell viability and reduced the expression of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8 in THP-1 macrophages. In conclusion, the data from the present study suggested that miR-144-5p overexpression reduced THP-1 macrophage cell viability and inhibited the expression of TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8 in cells, possibly by inhibiting the expression of TLR2 and suppressing the activation of NK-κB signaling. Therefore, miR-144-5p may serve as a novel therapeutic target for the treatment of RA.

Anti-TNF-α Monoclonal Antibody Therapy Improves Anemia through Downregulating Hepatocyte Hepcidin Expression in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Anemia is one of the most common complications in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Hepcidin as a key regulator of iron metabolism is pivotal in mediating the occurrence of anemia of chronic disease. Herein, we analyzed the levels of hepcidin in sera from IBD patients by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and investigated its potential role in regulating the anemia in IBD. We observed that the levels of serum hepcidin were increased in active IBD patients compared with those in remitted IBD patients and healthy controls and that serum hepcidin was associated with disease activity, CRP, and ESR, respectively. Importantly, we found that the increased levels of serum hepcidin were positively correlated with the severity of anemia and the imbalance of iron metabolism in anemic UC and CD patients. Proinflammatory factors (e.g., IL-6, IL-17, and TNF-α) were positively correlated with the concentrations of serum hepcidin in IBD patients. Interestingly, hepcidin was found to be decreased in patients with Crohn's disease after successful therapy with anti-TNF-α mAb (i.e., infliximab), indicating the underlying association between TNF-α and hepcidin expression. To investigate the specific mechanisms involved, we cultured LO2 and HepG2 cell lines in vitro under stimulation with TNF-α and observed that the levels of hepcidin mRNA were markedly upregulated in caspase-3/8- and NF-κB-dependent manners. Therefore, our data suggest that TNF-α stimulates the expression of hepcidin in IBD patients, resulting in aggravated anemia and that blockage of TNF-α or the caspase-3/8 and NF-κB pathways could downregulate hepcidin expression. This study provides inspiration for the therapy and management of anemia in IBD.

Hepcidin as a therapeutic target for anemia and inflammation associated with chronic kidney disease

INTRODUCTION

Anemia is a common manifestation of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The pathogenesis of CKD-associated anemia is multifactorial. Our understanding of the molecular control of iron metabolism has improved dramatically because of the discovery of hepcidin and attempts to introduce new drugs to stimulate erythropoiesis or affect the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway have recently emerged. Areas covered: We examine the possible role of hepcidin in iron metabolism and regulation and the potential therapeutic options involving hepcidin and hepcidin-ferroportin axis in renal anemia treatment. We focus on therapeutic targeting of hepcidin, the hepcidin-ferroportin axis and key molecules such as anti-hepcidin antibodies, spigelmers, and anticalins. We also discuss compounds affecting the bone morphogenetic protein receptor [BMP/BMPR] complex and molecules that influence hepcidin, such as hypoxia-inducible factor 1 stabilizers. Expert opinion: Hepcidin is a key regulator of iron availability and is a potential future therapeutic target for managing anemia that is associated with CKD. There are potential risks and benefits associated with novel sophisticated therapies and there are several novel options on the horizon; however, clinical data are currently limited and need development. Inhibition of hepcidin via various pathways might be a viable adjunctive therapeutic option in other clinical situations.

The Effectiveness of Intravenous Golimumab Administered Directly After Infliximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Purpose

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who do not respond or lose response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics, switching to a different anti-TNF can be an effective means to manage symptoms and disease progression. This study examined the utilization and effectiveness of intravenous golimumab within a real-world population of patients with RA switching directly from infliximab, a potent anti-TNF.

Methods

Patient charts (n = 113) were collected from five US-based rheumatology practices. Patient demographics, treatment characteristics, infliximab and intravenous golimumab utilization data, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Physician Global Assessment (PhGA), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) scores were extracted from charts. The effectiveness of intravenous golimumab was assessed by comparing disease activity status pre- and post-initiation of intravenous golimumab therapy.

Findings

Significant decreases in patient disease activity were observed following treatment with intravenous golimumab. Mean CDAI and PhGA scores significantly decreased, and a significantly increased proportion of the population exhibited low disease activity or remission in the post intravenous golimumab period (p < 0.05). Limited changes were observed through the RAPID3 and PtGA.

Conclusions

Findings from this study indicate that intravenous golimumab is effective in managing RA in a population of patients switching directly from infliximab (mean last dose 7.4 mg/kg).

Serum hepcidin level and rheumatoid arthritis disease activity

Objective

The present study aimed to determine the relationship between the serum hepcidin level and disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This study was conducted on 80 patients with RA (36 cases with anemia of chronic disease [ACD] and 44 patients without ACD). Disease activity was measured by the 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). According to the DAS28-ESR score, 52 and 28 cases were categorized as inactive to moderately active RA (DAS28-ESR≤5.1) and highly active RA (DAS28-ESR>5.1), respectively. In addition, the serum hepcidin level was evaluated in all patients to determine its correlation with the DAS28-ESR score.

Results

There was no significant difference between the RA with ACD and RA without ACD groups in terms of the median (interquartile range) hepcidin level (1207 [985.2] vs. 923.8 [677.3] ng/mL; P=0.57). Likewise, no significant difference was observed between the active RA and inactive to moderately active RA groups in this regard (1131.8 [991.3] vs. 1090.9 [631.4] ng/mL; P=0.53).

Conclusion

Hepcidin has no association with disease activity in RA. Therefore, it is not necessary to measure hepcidin to determine the RA activity.

Established and Emerging Concepts to Treat Imbalances of Iron Homeostasis in Inflammatory Diseases

Inflammation, being a hallmark of many chronic diseases, including cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic kidney disease, negatively affects iron homeostasis, leading to iron retention in macrophages of the mononuclear phagocyte system. Functional iron deficiency is the consequence, leading to anemia of inflammation (AI). Iron deficiency, regardless of anemia, has a detrimental impact on quality of life so that treatment is warranted. Therapeutic strategies include (1) resolution of the underlying disease, (2) iron supplementation, and (3) iron redistribution strategies. Deeper insights into the pathophysiology of AI has led to the development of new therapeutics targeting inflammatory cytokines and the introduction of new iron formulations. Moreover, the discovery that the hormone, hepcidin, plays a key regulatory role in AI has stimulated the development of several therapeutic approaches targeting the function of this peptide. Hence, inflammation-driven hepcidin elevation causes iron retention in cells and tissues. Besides pathophysiological concepts and diagnostic approaches for AI, this review discusses current guidelines for iron replacement therapies with special emphasis on benefits, limitations, and unresolved questions concerning oral versus parenteral iron supplementation in chronic inflammatory diseases. Furthermore, the review explores how therapies aiming at curing the disease underlying AI can also affect anemia and discusses emerging hepcidin antagonizing drugs, which are currently under preclinical or clinical investigation.

Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials

Objective

Adaptive designs can enable highly sophisticated and efficient early phase trials, but the clinical inference from these trials is surrounded by complexity, and currently there is a paucity but steadily increasing amount of use of these designs in all fields of medicine. We aim to review early phase trials in RA to discover those that have used adaptive designs and benchmark trial characteristics.

Methods

From an OVID search for journal articles reporting the results of early phase trials in rheumatology, 35 studies were found, with 9 subsequently excluded; 11 were added from manual searches and 19 from searching the references. Study characteristics were extracted from the 56 papers (describing 62 trials), including the number of arms, number of patients, the primary outcome and when it was measured.

Result

One early phase trial using an adaptive design was found. The benchmark early phase trial in RA is a phase II double-blinded randomized trial, with four arms (one control and three intervention), each with 34 patients, and ACR20 measured at 16 weeks as the primary outcome.

Conclusion

The one adaptive design reviewed here, and a simulation study found in the search, both indicate that adaptive designs can be applied to early phase trials in RA. We have described the benchmark, which the efficiency of early phase trials using an adaptive design needs to exceed. These efficient designs could drive down numbers required, time for data collection and thus cost. Changes have been suggested, but more needs to be done.

Anti-TNF-α effects on anemia in rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis

A key role in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is played by inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), which are also involved in inducing inflammatory anemia. We have followed 67 RA patients and 64 PsA patients for 1 year to evaluate the effects of TNF-α inhibitors on disease activity and on inflammatory anemia. Patients were divided into three different treatment groups, according to a randomized assignment to receive therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab. Treatment with anti-TNF-α resulted in a significant reduction in disease activity score-28 (DAS28) values both in RA and PsA patients, already from the third month of treatment ( P = 0.01). In both populations, there was an increase in hemoglobin (HB) levels already after 3 months of treatment ( P = 0.001), and HB levels were inversely proportional to the disease activity, regardless of the type of medication used. The increased HB values and the reduction of DAS28 values during the observation period suggest the existence of a negative correlation between them both in RA and PsA, regardless of the type of anti-TNF-α used. Our data suggest a pleiotropic action of anti-TNF-α, such as the well-known action on the activity of the disease, and the improvement in inflammatory anemia.

Hepcidin plasma levels are not associated with changes in haemoglobin in early rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVE

A reduction in haemoglobin level is a frequent complication among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Hepcidin has been linked to disturbed erythropoiesis. The objective of this study was to investigate the longitudinal changes in hepcidin in patients with early RA.

METHOD

Hepcidin plasma concentrations were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in patients with early RA (n = 80) and healthy volunteers (HV, n = 40). Haemoglobin and other iron-related proteins were also measured. At baseline, all patients had active disease and were treatment naïve. Patients were treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and with additional adalimumab (ADA, n = 42) or placebo (PLA, n = 38) during 52 weeks, using a treat-to-target strategy, aiming for a 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) < 3.2.

RESULTS

At baseline, hepcidin levels [median (interquartile range)] were 9.7 ng/mL (5.2-19.4 ng/mL) in DMARD + ADA and 11.3 ng/mL (5.9-19.1 ng/mL) in DMARD + PLA. Both were significantly higher than seen in HV (6.0 ng/mL (3.3-9.3 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). After 12 months, both treatment regimens resulted in normalization of hepcidin. DAS28 correlated with hepcidin at baseline (r = 0.48, p < 0.001). No correlation was observed between levels of haemoglobin and hepcidin at baseline or during the 52 week follow-up. No change in haemoglobin levels was seen as a function of hepcidin changes. In a mixed statistical model, no single factor was connected with the regulation of haemoglobin in early RA.

CONCLUSION

The changes in hepcidin were not associated with changes in haemoglobin levels. Thus, hepcidin could not be used as a prognostic marker in patients with early RA.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Antimicrobial Activity of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Current Status and New Perspectives of Antimicrobial Peptide-Based Therapies

While mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs)-based therapy appears to be promising, there are concerns regarding possible side effects related to the unwanted suppression of antimicrobial immunity leading to an increased risk of infection. Conversely, recent data show that MSCs exert strong antimicrobial effects through indirect and direct mechanisms, partially mediated by the secretion of antimicrobial peptides and proteins (AMPs). In fact, MSCs have been reported to increase bacterial clearance in preclinical models of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and cystic fibrosis-related infections. This article reviews the current evidence regarding the direct antimicrobial effector function of MSCs, focusing mainly on the role of MSCs-derived AMPs. The strategies that might modulate the expression and secretion of these AMPs, leading to enhanced antimicrobial effect, are highlighted. Furthermore, studies evaluating the presence of AMPs in the cargo of extracellular vesicles (EVs) are underlined as perspective opportunities to develop new drug delivery tools. The antimicrobial potential of MSCs-derived EVs can also be heightened through cell conditioning and/or drug loading. Finally, improving the pharmacokinetics and delivery, in addition to deciphering the multi-target drug status of AMPs, should synergistically lead to key advances against infections caused by drug-resistant strains.

Role of hepcidin-ferroportin axis in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of anemia of chronic inflammation

Anemia of chronic inflammation (ACI) is a frequently diagnosed anemia and portends an independently increased morbidity and poor outcome associated with multiple underlying diseases. The pathophysiology of ACI is multifactorial, resulting from the effects of inflammatory cytokines which both directly and indirectly suppress erythropoiesis. Recent advances in molecular understanding of iron metabolism provide strong evidence that immune mediators, such as IL-6, lead to hepcidin-induced hypoferremia, iron sequestration, and decreased iron availability for erythropoiesis. The role of hepcidin-ferroportin axis in the pathophysiology of ACI is stimulating the development of new diagnostics and targeted therapies. In this review, we present an overview of and rationale for inflammation-, iron-, and erythropoiesis-related strategies currently in development.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Antimicrobial Activity of Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Current Status and New Perspectives of Antimicrobial Peptide-Based Therapies

While mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs)-based therapy appears to be promising, there are concerns regarding possible side effects related to the unwanted suppression of antimicrobial immunity leading to an increased risk of infection. Conversely, recent data show that MSCs exert strong antimicrobial effects through indirect and direct mechanisms, partially mediated by the secretion of antimicrobial peptides and proteins (AMPs). In fact, MSCs have been reported to increase bacterial clearance in preclinical models of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and cystic fibrosis-related infections. This article reviews the current evidence regarding the direct antimicrobial effector function of MSCs, focusing mainly on the role of MSCs-derived AMPs. The strategies that might modulate the expression and secretion of these AMPs, leading to enhanced antimicrobial effect, are highlighted. Furthermore, studies evaluating the presence of AMPs in the cargo of extracellular vesicles (EVs) are underlined as perspective opportunities to develop new drug delivery tools. The antimicrobial potential of MSCs-derived EVs can also be heightened through cell conditioning and/or drug loading. Finally, improving the pharmacokinetics and delivery, in addition to deciphering the multi-target drug status of AMPs, should synergistically lead to key advances against infections caused by drug-resistant strains.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Pharmacological Targeting of the Hepcidin/Ferroportin Axis

The iron regulatory hormone hepcidin limits iron fluxes to the bloodstream by promoting degradation of the iron exporter ferroportin in target cells. Hepcidin insufficiency causes hyperabsorption of dietary iron, hyperferremia and tissue iron overload, which are hallmarks of hereditary hemochromatosis. Similar responses are also observed in iron-loading anemias due to ineffective erythropoiesis (such as thalassemias, dyserythropoietic anemias and myelodysplastic syndromes) and in chronic liver diseases. On the other hand, excessive hepcidin expression inhibits dietary iron absorption and leads to hypoferremia and iron retention within tissue macrophages. This reduces iron availability for erythroblasts and contributes to the development of anemias with iron-restricted erythropoiesis (such as anemia of chronic disease and iron-refractory iron-deficiency anemia). Pharmacological targeting of the hepcidin/ferroportin axis may offer considerable therapeutic benefits by correcting iron traffic. This review summarizes the principles underlying the development of hepcidin-based therapies for the treatment of iron-related disorders, and discusses the emerging strategies for manipulating hepcidin pathways.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

Hepcidin: A Promising Therapeutic Target for Iron Disorders: A Systematic Review

Iron is required for most forms of organisms, and it is the most essential element for the functions of many iron-containing proteins involved in oxygen transport, cellular respiration, DNA replication, and so on. Disorders of iron metabolism are associated with diverse diseases, including anemias (e.g., iron-deficiency anemia and anemia of chronic diseases) and iron overload diseases, such as hereditary hemochromatosis and β-thalassemia. Hepcidin (encoded by Hamp gene) is a peptide hormone synthesized by hepatocytes, and it plays an important role in regulating the systematic iron homeostasis. As the systemic iron regulator, hepcidin, not only controls dietary iron absorption and iron egress out of iron storage cells, but also induces iron redistribution in various organs. Deregulated hepcidin is often seen in a variety of iron-related diseases including anemias and iron overload disorders. In the case of iron overload disorders (e.g., hereditary hemochromatosis and β-thalassemia), hepatic hepcidin concentration is significantly reduced.Since hepcidin deregulation is responsible for iron disorder-associated diseases, the purpose of this review is to summarize the recent findings on therapeutics targeting hepcidin.Continuous efforts have been made to search for hepcidin mimics and chemical compounds that could be used to increase hepcidin level. Here, a literature search was conducted in PubMed, and research papers relevant to hepcidin regulation or hepcidin-centered therapeutic work were reviewed. On the basis of literature search, we recapitulated recent findings on therapeutic studies targeting hepcidin, including agonists and antagonists to modulate hepcidin expression or its downstream signaling. We also discussed the molecular mechanisms by which hepcidin level and iron metabolism are modulated.Elevating hepcidin concentration is an optimal strategy to ameliorate iron overload diseases, and also to relieve β-thalassemia phenotypes by improving ineffective erythropoiesis. Relative to the current conventional therapies, such as phlebotomy and blood transfusion, therapeutics targeting hepcidin would open a new avenue for treatment of iron-related diseases.

Prediagnostic serum inflammatory markers in relation to breast cancer risk, severity at diagnosis and survival in breast cancer patients

Inflammation has been linked to cancer but its role in breast cancer is unclear. We investigated common serum markers of inflammation: C-reactive protein (CRP), albumin, haptoglobin and white blood cells (WBC) in relation to breast cancer incidence, severity and survival. A total of 155179 women aged 20 and older without any history of cancer were selected from a large Swedish cohort. Hazard ratios (HRs) for breast cancer were estimated with Cox regression, adjusting for potential confounders. Ordered and binomial logistic regression models were used to assess the associations of serum inflammatory markers with breast cancer severity and oestrogen receptor (ER) positivity at diagnosis, on the other. Cumulative incidence functions by levels of inflammatory markers were assessed for early death from breast cancer and all causes. During a mean follow-up of 18.3 years, 6606 women were diagnosed with breast cancer, of whom 1474 died. A positive association with incident breast cancer was seen for haptoglobin ≥ 1.4g/l [HR 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.18] compared to lower levels. No association was observed between inflammatory markers and breast cancer severity or ER positivity. Higher haptoglobin was linked to risk of early death from breast cancer (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.02-1.59), whereas higher risk of early death from all causes was additionally found with CRP ≥ 10mg/l (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.04-1.36) and WBC ≥ 10×10(9)/l (HR: 1.57, 1.14-2.16). Our findings indicate that prediagnostic serum inflammatory markers were weakly linked to incident breast cancer but corresponded to worse survival after diagnosis.

The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), and subcutaneous (SC) are the three most frequently used injection routes in medication administration. Comparative studies of SC versus IV, IM versus IV, or IM versus SC have been sporadically conducted, and some new findings are completely different from the dosage recommendation as described in prescribing information. However, clinicians may still be ignorant of such new evidence-based findings when choosing treatment methods.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Sciences™ Core Collection to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of SC, IV, and IM administration in head-to-head comparative studies.

RESULTS

"SC better than IV" involves trastuzumab, rituximab, antitumor necrosis factor medications, bortezomib, amifostine, recombinant human granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, recombinant interleukin-2, immunoglobulin, epoetin alfa, heparin, and opioids. "IV better than SC" involves ketamine, vitamin K1, and abatacept. With respect to insulin and ketamine, whether IV has advantages over SC is determined by specific clinical circumstances. "IM better than IV" involves epinephrine, hepatitis B immu-noglobulin, pegaspargase, and some antibiotics. "IV better than IM" involves ketamine, morphine, and antivenom. "IM better than SC" involves epinephrine. "SC better than IM" involves interferon-beta-1a, methotrexate, human chorionic gonadotropin, hepatitis B immunoglobulin, hydrocortisone, and morphine. Safety, efficacy, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics are four principles governing the choice of injection route. Safety and efficacy must be the preferred principles to be considered (eg, epinephrine should be given intramuscularly during an episode of systemic anaphylaxis). If the safety and efficacy of two injection routes are equivalent, clinicians should consider more about patient preference and pharmacoeconomics because patient preference will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction, while pharmacoeconomic concern will help alleviate nurse shortages and reduce overall health care costs. Besides the principles, the following detailed factors might affect the decision: patient characteristics-related factors (body mass index, age, sex, medical status [eg, renal impairment, comorbidities], personal attitudes toward safety and convenience, past experience, perception of current disease status, health literacy, and socioeconomic status), medication administration-related factors (anatomical site of injection, dose, frequency, formulation characteristics, administration time, indication, flexibility in the route of administration), and health care staff/institution-related factors (knowledge, human resources).

CONCLUSION

This updated review of findings of comparative studies of different injection routes will enrich the knowledge of safe, efficacious, economic, and patient preference-oriented medication administration as well as catching research opportunities in clinical nursing practice.

Serum amyloid A as a marker of persistent inflammation and an indicator of cardiovascular and renal involvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic, inflammatory disease. Serum amyloid A (SAA) is an acute-phase protein, involved in pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. The aim of the study was to assess serum concentration of SAA in RA patients, with reference to other inflammatory parameters and markers of extra-articular involvement.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 140 RA patients, low/moderate disease activity (L/MDA) in 98 (70%) patients and high disease activity (HDA) in 42 (30%). Comprehensive clinical and laboratory assessment was performed with evaluation of electrocardiogram and carotid intima-media thickness.

RESULTS

The mean SAA concentration [327.0 (263.4) mg/L] was increased highly above the normal value, even in patients with L/MDA. Simultaneously, SAA was significantly higher in patients with HDA versus L/MDA. The mean SAA concentration was significantly higher in patients treated with glucocorticoids, was inversely associated with QTc duration, and was markedly higher in patients with atherosclerotic plaques, emphasizing increased CV risk. SAA was significantly higher in patients with increased cystatin-C level.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients, high serum SAA concentration was strongly associated with activity of the disease and risk of CV and renal involvement. Recurrent assessment of SAA may facilitate searching patients with persistent inflammation and risk of extra-articular complications.

Manipulation of the hepcidin pathway for therapeutic purposes

Hepcidin, the liver-produced peptide hormone, is a principal regulator of iron homeostasis. Abnormal hepcidin production has emerged as a causative factor in several common iron disorders. Hepcidin insufficiency results in iron overload in hereditary hemochromatosis and iron-loading anemias, whereas hepcidin excess causes or contributes to the development of iron-restricted anemias in inflammatory diseases, infections, some cancers and chronic kidney disease. Not surprisingly, hepcidin and related pathways have become the target for the development of novel therapeutics for iron disorders. In this review, we will summarize the strategies and development programs that have been devised for agonizing or antagonizing hepcidin and its receptor ferroportin.

Increase of hemoglobin levels by anti-IL-6 receptor antibody (tocilizumab) in rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

To compare the effect of tocilizumab (TCZ) with other biologic therapies in improving anemia of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

We compared the change of hemoglobin (Hb) levels in a cohort of 147 consecutive RA patients who were treated with biologics for more than 12 weeks. Twenty eight patients were treated with TCZ, and 119 patients were treated with biologics other than TCZ (87 with TNF inhibitors and 32 with abatacept). The change of Hb levels from baseline to week 12 was compared between the TCZ and the non-TCZ groups. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses with adjustment of potential confounders such as baseline characteristics, concomitant treatment, and the clinical response to treatment.

Results

Hb levels generally increased after biologic therapies both in the TCZ and the non-TCZ groups. The increase of Hb levels was greater in the TCZ group than in the non-TCZ groups (1.1 g/dL in the TCZ group vs 0.3 g/dL in the non-TCZ group, p = 0.009). Univariate analysis revealed that increase of Hb levels was also significantly associated with lower Hb, higher Low Hemoglobin Density, and higher CRP levels at baseline and greater reduction in the clinical disease activity index. TCZ therapy was significantly associated with the increase of Hb levels even after adjustment for these factors by multivariate analysis (p<0.001, effect size 0.08–0.12).

Conclusion

TCZ therapy is an independent factor associated with the increase of Hb level after biologic therapies in RA patients. It will help in selecting appropriate biologics for RA patients with anemia.

The pathophysiology and pharmacology of hepcidin

Inappropriate production of the iron-regulatory hormone hepcidin contributes to the pathogenesis of common iron disorders. Absolute or relative deficiency of hepcidin causes iron overload in hereditary hemochromatosis and iron-loading anemias. Elevated hepcidin causes iron restriction in inflammatory conditions including autoimmune disease, critical illness, some cancers, and chronic kidney disease. Multiple agents targeting hepcidin and its regulators are under development as novel therapeutics for iron disorders. This review summarizes hepcidin biology and discusses the current landscape for hepcidin-targeting therapeutic strategies.