CONTROVERSIAL ROLES OF MAST CELLS IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background Mast cells are tissue-resident cells of the innate immunity implicated in the pathogenesis of many autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In fact, they are present in synovia and their activation has been linked to the inflammatory responses driving the development of RA. However, their exact contribution to the development of RA is still unclear. In particular, their interactions with other immune cells at synovial levels and their correlation to disease outcomes have never been investigated in a systematic fashion. Objective Aim of this PhD project was to elucidate the role of mast cells in rheumatoid arthritis, by studying their cellular interaction at synovial levels, their influence on the activation of immune cells and, finally, their correlation with disease outcomes. Results In the synovia of RA patients, mast cells correlated with the degree of local inflammations and cellular infiltration. In particular, higher numbers of mast cells were associated with the presence of lymphoid aggregates, and mast cells were localized in close proximity of cellular aggregates of B and T cells. In vitro, mast cells were able to modulate the responses of immune cells, suppressing the pro-inflammatory activation of monocytes and supporting B cells survival, differentiation and antibody production. In patients with early RA, high numbers of synovial mast cells were associated with antibody positive disease and with systemic inflammatory markers. At the 12 months follow-up, baseline mast cells represented an independent predictor of radiographic progression. Conclusions Mast cells, as part of the inflammatory infiltrate in the synovia of RA patients, are able to induce both pro- and anti-inflammatory immune responses, which might explain the conflicting results obtained so far with experimental models not taking into account their tunable immunomodulatory properties. The ex vivo analysis performed in the synovia of early RA patients indicate that mast cell presence can be used to further dissect the disease heterogeneity, as mast cells clustered with antibody positivity and with a higher degree of local and system inflammation. Interestingly, independently from these associations, mast cell presence at baseline represented a predictor of radiographic progression at 1 year. Overall, our data suggest that mast cells play a multifaceted role in the pathogenesis of RA, warranting additional investigations to further assess their involvement in disease development, progression and response to therapy

Automated segmentation of rheumatoid arthritis immunohistochemistry stained synovial tissue

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a chronic, autoimmune disease which primarily affects the joint's synovial tissue. It is a highly heterogeneous disease, with wide cellular and molecular variability observed in synovial tissues. Over the last two decades, the methods available for their study have advanced considerably. In particular, Immunohistochemistry stains are well suited to highlighting the functional organisation of samples. Yet, analysis of IHC-stained synovial tissue samples is still overwhelmingly done manually and semi-quantitatively by expert pathologists. This is because in addition to the fragmented nature of IHC stained synovial tissue, there exist wide variations in intensity and colour, strong clinical centre batch effect, as well as the presence of many undesirable artefacts present in gigapixel Whole Slide Images (WSIs), such as water droplets, pen annotation, folded tissue, blurriness, etc. There is therefore a strong need for a robust, repeatable automated tissue segmentation algorithm which can cope with this variability and provide support to imaging pipelines. We train a UNET on a hand-curated, heterogeneous real-world multi-centre clinical dataset R4RA, which contains multiple types of IHC staining. The model obtains a DICE score of 0.865 and successfully segments different types of IHC staining, as well as dealing with variance in colours, intensity and common WSIs artefacts from the different clinical centres. It can be used as the first step in an automated image analysis pipeline for synovial tissue samples stained with IHC, increasing speed, reproducibility and robustness

Mast Cells in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis

NIHR Transitional Research Fellowshi

The urokinase/urokinase receptor system in mast cells: effects of its functional interaction with fmlf receptors

Mast cell and basophils express the high affinity receptor for IgE (FcRI) and are primary effector cells of allergic disorders. The urokinase (uPA)-mediated plasminogen activation system is involved in physiological and pathological events based on cell migration and tissue remodelling, such as inflammation, wound healing, angiogenesis and metastasis. uPA is a serine protease that binds uPAR, a high affinity glycosyl-phosphatidyl-inositol (GPI)- anchored receptor. uPAR focuses uPA activity at the cell surface and activates intracellular signaling through lateral interactions with integrins, receptor tyrosine kinases and the G-protein-coupled family of fMLF chemotaxis receptors (FPRs). We investigated the expression of the uPAuPAR system and its functional interaction with FPRs in human mast cells (MCs). Differently from basophils, MCs produced uPA that was able to induce their chemotaxis. Indeed, MCs also expressed uPAR, both in the intact and in a cleaved form (DIIDIII-uPAR) that can expose, at the N-terminus, the SRSRY sequence, able to interact with FPRs and to mediate cell chemotaxis. MCs also expressed mRNAs for FPRs that were functionally active; indeed, uPA and a soluble peptide (uPAR84-95), containing the SRSRY chemotactic sequence of uPAR and able to interact with FPRs, were able to induce MCs chemotaxis. Thus, uPA is a potent chemoattractant for MCs acting through the exposure of the chemotactic epitope of uPAR, that is an endogenous ligand for FPRs. The same mechanism could be involved in VEGF-A secretion by human MCs, also induced by uPA and uPAR84-95 stimulation

Rituximab versus tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: synovial biopsy-based biomarker analysis of the phase 4 R4RA randomized trial

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive highly targeted biologic therapies without previous knowledge of target expression levels in the diseased tissue. Approximately 40% of patients do not respond to individual biologic therapies and 5–20% are refractory to all. In a biopsy-based, precision-medicine, randomized clinical trial in RA (R4RA; n = 164), patients with low/absent synovial B cell molecular signature had a lower response to rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) compared with that to tocilizumab (anti-IL6R monoclonal antibody) although the exact mechanisms of response/nonresponse remain to be established. Here, in-depth histological/molecular analyses of R4RA synovial biopsies identify humoral immune response gene signatures associated with response to rituximab and tocilizumab, and a stromal/fibroblast signature in patients refractory to all medications. Post-treatment changes in synovial gene expression and cell infiltration highlighted divergent effects of rituximab and tocilizumab relating to differing response/nonresponse mechanisms. Using ten-by-tenfold nested cross-validation, we developed machine learning algorithms predictive of response to rituximab (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.74), tocilizumab (AUC = 0.68) and, notably, multidrug resistance (AUC = 0.69). This study supports the notion that disease endotypes, driven by diverse molecular pathology pathways in the diseased tissue, determine diverse clinical and treatment–response phenotypes. It also highlights the importance of integration of molecular pathology signatures into clinical algorithms to optimize the future use of existing medications and inform the development of new drugs for refractory patients

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

Safety of procuring research tissue during a clinically indicated kidney biopsy from patients with lupus: data from the Accelerating Medicines Partnership RA/SLE Network

Objectives In lupus nephritis the pathological diagnosis from tissue retrieved during kidney biopsy drives treatment and management. Despite recent approval of new drugs, complete remission rates remain well under aspirational levels, necessitating identification of new therapeutic targets by greater dissection of the pathways to tissue inflammation and injury. This study assessed the safety of kidney biopsies in patients with SLE enrolled in the Accelerating Medicines Partnership, a consortium formed to molecularly deconstruct nephritis.Methods 475 patients with SLE across 15 clinical sites in the USA consented to obtain tissue for research purposes during a clinically indicated kidney biopsy. Adverse events (AEs) were documented for 30 days following the procedure and were determined to be related or unrelated by all site investigators. Serious AEs were defined according to the National Institutes of Health reporting guidelines.Results 34 patients (7.2%) experienced a procedure-related AE: 30 with haematoma, 2 with jets, 1 with pain and 1 with an arteriovenous fistula. Eighteen (3.8%) experienced a serious AE requiring hospitalisation; four patients (0.8%) required a blood transfusion related to the kidney biopsy. At one site where the number of cores retrieved during the biopsy was recorded, the mean was 3.4 for those who experienced a related AE (n=9) and 3.07 for those who did not experience any AE (n=140). All related AEs resolved.Conclusions Procurement of research tissue should be considered feasible, accompanied by a complication risk likely no greater than that incurred for standard clinical purposes. In the quest for targeted treatments personalised based on molecular findings, enhanced diagnostics beyond histology will likely be required

Rituximab versus tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: synovial biopsy-based biomarker analysis of the phase 4 r4ra randomized trial

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive highly targeted biologic therapies without previous knowledge of target expression levels in the diseased tissue. Approximately 40% of patients do not respond to individual biologic therapies and 5–20% are refractory to all. In a biopsy-based, precision-medicine, randomized clinical trial in RA (R4RA; n = 164), patients with low/absent synovial B cell molecular signature had a lower response to rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) compared with that to tocilizumab (anti-IL6R monoclonal antibody) although the exact mechanisms of response/nonresponse remain to be established. Here, in-depth histological/molecular analyses of R4RA synovial biopsies identify humoral immune response gene signatures associated with response to rituximab and tocilizumab, and a stromal/fibroblast signature in patients refractory to all medications. Post-treatment changes in synovial gene expression and cell infiltration highlighted divergent effects of rituximab and tocilizumab relating to differing response/nonresponse mechanisms. Using ten-by-tenfold nested cross-validation, we developed machine learning algorithms predictive of response to rituximab (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.74), tocilizumab (AUC = 0.68) and, notably, multidrug resistance (AUC = 0.69). This study supports the notion that disease endotypes, driven by diverse molecular pathology pathways in the diseased tissue, determine diverse clinical and treatment–response phenotypes. It also highlights the importance of integration of molecular pathology signatures into clinical algorithms to optimize the future use of existing medications and inform the development of new drugs for refractory patients

Stratification of biological therapies by pathobiology in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (STRAP and STRAP-EU): two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, randomised trials

Background Despite highly effective targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis, about 40% of patients respond poorly, and predictive biomarkers for treatment choices are lacking. We did a biopsy-driven trial to compare the response to rituximab, etanercept, and tocilizumab in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified for synovial B cell status. Methods STRAP and STRAP-EU were two parallel, open-label, biopsy-driven, stratified, randomised, phase 3 trials done across 26 university centres in the UK and Europe. Biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR)–European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were included. Following ultrasound-guided synovial biopsy, patients were classified as B cell poor or B cell rich according to synovial B cell signatures and randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous rituximab (1000 mg at week 0 and week 2), subcutaneous tocilizumab (162 mg per week), or subcutaneous etanercept (50 mg per week). The primary outcome was the 16-week ACR20 response in the B cell-poor, intention-to-treat population (defined as all randomly assigned patients), with data pooled from the two trials, comparing etanercept and tocilizumab (grouped) versus rituximab. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, 2014-003529-16 (STRAP) and 2017-004079-30 (STRAP-EU). Findings Between June 8, 2015, and July 4, 2019, 226 patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n=73), tocilizumab (n=74), and rituximab (n=79). Three patients (one in each group) were excluded after randomisation because they received parenteral steroids in the 4 weeks before recruitment. 168 (75%) of 223 patients in the intention-to-treat population were women and 170 (76%) were White. In the B cell-poor population, ACR20 response at 16 weeks (primary endpoint) showed no significant differences between etanercept and tocilizumab grouped together and rituximab (46 [60%] of 77 patients vs 26 [59%] of 44; odds ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·47–2·17], p=0·97). No differences were observed for adverse events, including serious adverse events, which occurred in six (6%) of 102 patients in the rituximab group, nine (6%) of 108 patients in the etanercept group, and three (4%) of 73 patients in the tocilizumab group (p=0·53). Interpretation In this biologic-naive population of patients with rheumatoid arthrtitis, the dichotomic classification into synovial B cell poor versus rich did not predict treatment response to B cell depletion with rituximab compared with alternative treatment strategies. However, the lack of response to rituximab in patients with a pauci-immune pathotype and the higher risk of structural damage progression in B cell-rich patients treated with rituximab warrant further investigations into the ability of synovial tissue analyses to inform disease pathogenesis and treatment response