Spatial Distribution of Macrophages During Callus Formation and Maturation Reveals Close Crosstalk Between Macrophages and Newly Forming Vessels

Macrophages are essential players in the process of fracture healing, acting by remodeling of the extracellular matrix and enabling vascularization. Whilst activated macrophages of M1-like phenotype are present in the initial pro-inflammatory phase of hours to days of fracture healing, an anti-inflammatory M2-like macrophage phenotype is supposed to be crucial for the induction of downstream cascades of healing, especially the initiation of vascularization. In a mouse-osteotomy model, we provide a comprehensive characterization of vessel (CD31+, Emcn+) and macrophage phenotypes (F4/80, CD206, CD80, Mac-2) during the process of fracture healing. To this end, we phenotype the phases of vascular regeneration-the expansion phase (d1-d7 after injury) and the remodeling phase of the endothelial network, until tissue integrity is restored (d14-d21 after injury). Vessels which appear during the bone formation process resemble type H endothelium (CD31hiEmcnhi), and are closely connected to osteoprogenitors (Runx2+, Osx+) and F4/80+ macrophages. M1-like macrophages are present in the initial phase of vascularization until day 3 post osteotomy, but they are rare during later regeneration phases. M2-like macrophages localize mainly extramedullary, and CD206+ macrophages are found to express Mac-2+ during the expansion phase. VEGFA expression is initiated by CD80+ cells, including F4/80+ macrophages, until day 3, while subsequently osteoblasts and chondrocytes are main contributors to VEGFA production at the fracture site. Using Longitudinal Intravital Microendoscopy of the Bone (LIMB) we observe changes in the motility and organization of CX3CR1+ cells, which infiltrate the injury site after an osteotomy. A transient accumulation, resulting in spatial polarization of both, endothelial cells and macrophages, in regions distal to the fracture site, is evident. Immunofluorescence histology followed by histocytometric analysis reveals that F4/80+CX3CR1+ myeloid cells precede vascularization

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

Objectives: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Development of prediction models to select older RA patients with comorbidities for treatment with chronic low-dose glucocorticoids

OBJECTIVE: To develop prediction models for individual patient harm and benefit outcomes in elderly patients with RA and comorbidities treated with chronic low-dose glucocorticoid therapy or placebo. METHODS: In the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) study, 451 RA patients ≥65 years of age were randomized to 2 years 5 mg/day prednisolone or placebo. Eight prediction models were developed from the dataset in a stepwise procedure based on prior knowledge. The first set of four models disregarded study treatment and examined general predictive factors. The second set of four models was similar but examined the additional role of low-dose prednisolone. In each set, two models focused on harm [the occurrence of one or more adverse events of special interest (AESIs) and the number of AESIs per year) and two on benefit (early clinical response/disease activity and a lack of joint damage progression). Linear and logistic multivariable regression methods with backward selection were used to develop the models. The final models were assessed and internally validated with bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: A few variables were slightly predictive for one of the outcomes in the models, but none were of immediate clinical value. The quality of the prediction models was sufficient and the performance was low to moderate (explained variance 12-15%, area under the curve 0.67-0.69). CONCLUSION: Baseline factors are not helpful in selecting elderly RA patients for treatment with low-dose prednisolone given their low power to predict the chance of benefit or harm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02585258

Remarkable international variability in reasons for ineligibility and non-participation in the GLORIA trial

L