Tailoring the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases by a better stratification and characterization of the clinical patient heterogeneity. Findings from a systematic literature review and experts' consensus

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases are different pathologic conditions associated with a deregulated immune response, codified along a spectrum of disorders, with autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases as two-end phenotypes of this continuum. Despite pathogenic differences, inflammatory rheumatic diseases are commonly managed with a limited number of immunosuppressive drugs, sometimes with partial evidence or transferring physicians' knowledge in different patients. In addition, several randomized clinical trials, enrolling these patients, did not meet the primary pre-established outcomes and these findings could be linked to the underlying molecular diversities along the spectrum of inflammatory rheumatic disorders. In fact, the resulting patient heterogeneity may be driven by differences in underlying molecular pathology also resulting in variable responses to immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, the identification of different clinical subsets may possibly overcome the major obstacles that limit the development more effective therapeutic strategies for these patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. This clinical heterogeneity could require a diverse therapeutic management to improve patient outcomes and increase the frequency of clinical remission. Therefore, the importance of better patient stratification and characterization is increasingly pointed out according to the precision medicine principles, also suggesting a new approach for disease treatment. In fact, based on a better proposed patient profiling, clinicians could more appropriately balance the therapeutic management. On these bases, we synthetized and discussed the available literature about the patient profiling in regard to therapy in the context of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, mainly focusing on randomized clinical trials. We provided an overview of the importance of a better stratification and characterization of the clinical heterogeneity of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases identifying this point as crucial in improving the management of these patients

The growing role of precision medicine for the treatment of autoimmune diseases; results of a systematic review of literature and Experts’ Consensus

Autoimmune diseases (AIDs) share similar serological, clinical, and radiological findings, but, behind these common features, there are different pathogenic mechanisms, immune cells dysfunctions, and targeted organs. In this context, multiple lines of evidence suggest the application of precision medicine principles to AIDs to reduce the treatment failure. Precision medicine refers to the tailoring of therapeutic strategies to the individual characteristics of each patient, thus it could be a new approach for management of AIDS which considers individual variability in genes, environmental exposure, and lifestyle. Precision medicine would also assist physicians in choosing the right treatment, the best timing of administration, consequently trying to maximize drug efficacy, and, possibly, reducing adverse events. In this work, the growing body of evidence is summarized regarding the predictive factors for drug response in patients with AIDs, applying the precision medicine principles to provide high-quality evidence for therapeutic opportunities in improving the management of these patients

Management of psoriatic arthritis: a consensus opinion by expert rheumatologists

Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory musculoskeletal disease involving several articular and extra-articular structures. Despite the important progresses recently made in all of the aspects of this disease, its management is still burdened by unresolved issues. The aim of this exercise was to provide a set of statements that may be helpful for the management of PsA. Methods: A group of 38 Italian rheumatologists with recognized expertise in PsA selected and addressed the following four topics: "early PsA," "axial-PsA," "extra-articular manifestations and comorbidities," "therapeutic goals." Relevant articles from the literature (2016-2022) were selected by the experts based on a PubMed search. A number of statements for each topic were elaborated. Results: Ninety-four articles were selected and evaluated, 68 out of the 1,114 yielded by the literature search and 26 added by the Authors. Each of the four topic was subdivided in themes as follows: transition from psoriasis to PsA, imaging vs. CASPAR criteria in early diagnosis, early treatment for "early PsA"; axial-PsA vs. axialspondyloarthritis, diagnosis, clinical evaluation, treatment, standard radiography vs. magnetic resonance imaging for "axial PsA"; influence of inflammatory bowel disease on the therapeutic choice, cardiovascular comorbidity, bone damage, risk of infection for "comorbidities and extra-articular manifestations"; target and tools, treat-to-target strategy, role of imaging for "therapeutic goals." The final document consisted of 49 statements. Discussion: The final product of this exercise is a set of statements concerning the main issues of PsA management offering an expert opinion for some unmet needs of this complex disease

Expert consensus on the treatment of patients with adult-onset still's disease with the goal of achieving an early and long-term remission

We performed a comprehensive systematic targeted literature review and used the Delphi method to formulate expert consensus statements to guide the treatment of adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) to achieve an early and long-term remission. Seven candidate statements were generated and reached consensus in the first round of voting by the panel of experts. We postulate: (i) In patients with AOSD with predominant arthritis at onset who achieved no disease control with glucocorticoids (GCs), the use of methotrexate can be considered, whereas the use of cyclosporin A and low-dose GCs should not (Statements 1–3); (ii) In patients with AOSD with poor prognostic factors at diagnosis, an IL-1 inhibitor (IL-1i) in addition to GCs should be taken into consideration as early as possible (Statement 4); (iii) A switch to an IL-6 inhibitor (IL-6i) may be considered in patients with AOSD with prevalent joint involvement, who are unresponsive or intolerant to IL-1i (Statement 5); (iv) Drug tapering or discontinuation may be considered in patients who achieved a sustained clinical and laboratory remission with IL-1i (Statement 6); (v) In patients with AOSD who failed to attain a good clinical response with an IL-1i, switching to an IL-6i may be considered in alternative to a different IL-1i. TNF-inhibitors may be considered as a further choice in patients with a prominent joint involvement (Statement 7). These statements will help clinicians in treatment decision making in patients with AOSD

Tailoring the treatment of inflammatory rheumatic diseases by a better stratification and characterization of the clinical patient heterogeneity. Findings from a systematic literature review and experts' consensus

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases are different pathologic conditions associated with a deregulated immune response, codified along a spectrum of disorders, with autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases as two-end phenotypes of this continuum. Despite pathogenic differences, inflammatory rheumatic diseases are commonly managed with a limited number of immunosuppressive drugs, sometimes with partial evidence or transferring physicians' knowledge in different patients. In addition, several randomized clinical trials, enrolling these patients, did not meet the primary pre-established outcomes and these findings could be linked to the underlying molecular diversities along the spectrum of inflammatory rheumatic disorders. In fact, the resulting patient heterogeneity may be driven by differences in underlying molecular pathology also resulting in variable responses to immunosuppressive drugs. Thus, the identification of different clinical subsets may possibly overcome the major obstacles that limit the development more effective therapeutic strategies for these patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. This clinical heterogeneity could require a diverse therapeutic management to improve patient outcomes and increase the frequency of clinical remission. Therefore, the importance of better patient stratification and characterization is increasingly pointed out according to the precision medicine principles, also suggesting a new approach for disease treatment. In fact, based on a better proposed patient profiling, clinicians could more appropriately balance the therapeutic management. On these bases, we synthetized and discussed the available literature about the patient profiling in regard to therapy in the context of inflammatory rheumatic diseases, mainly focusing on randomized clinical trials. We provided an overview of the importance of a better stratification and characterization of the clinical heterogeneity of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases identifying this point as crucial in improving the management of these patients

Continuous quality improvement in intensive care medicine. The GiViTI Margherita project - Report 2005

Aim. The assessment of the quality of intensive care medicine is mandatory in the modern healthcare system. In Italy, the GiViTI (Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli Interventi in Terapia Intensiva) network is working in this field since 1991 and it now involves 295 out of the about 450 Italian intensive care units (ICU). In 2002 GiViTI launched a project for the continuous quality assessment and improvement that is now joined by 180 ICUs. Data collected in 2005 are analyzed and presented. Methods. All admitted patients were entered in a validated software, which performs a multitude of validity checks during the data entry. Data were further reviewed by the co-ordinating center; patients admitted in months with more than 10% of incomplete or inconsistent records in each ICU were excluded from the analysis. Each year, a multivariate logistic regression model is fitted to identify predictors of hospital mortality. Starting from the SAPS 2 and the 2004 GiViTI model predictions of hospital mortality, two calibration tables and curves are presented. Results. In 2005, 180 Italian ICUs collected data on 55 246 patients. After excluding those admitted in months with an unjustified lower recruitment rate or with less than 90% of complete and consistent data, we had 52 816 (95.6%) valid cases. Although the rough hospital mortality in 2005 was 1% higher than in 2004 (22.6% vs 21.5%), the adjusted mortality shows a statistically significant 4% reduction (obser-ved-to-expected ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.97). Conclusion. Italian ICUs in 2005 performed better than in 2004, at a parity of patient severity

Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested the potential advantages of albumin administration in patients with severe sepsis, its efficacy has not been fully established. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 1818 patients with severe sepsis, in 100 intensive care units (ICUs), to receive either 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. In the albumin group, the target serum albumin concentration was 30 g per liter or more until discharge from the ICU or 28 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause at 90 days, the number of patients with organ dysfunction and the degree of dysfunction, and length of stay in the ICU and the hospital. RESULTS: During the first 7 days, patients in the albumin group, as compared with those in the crystalloid group, had a higher mean arterial pressure (P=0.03) and lower net fluid balance (P<0.001). The total daily amount of administered fluid did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.10). At 28 days, 285 of 895 patients (31.8%) in the albumin group and 288 of 900 (32.0%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk in the albumin group, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14; P=0.94). At 90 days, 365 of 888 patients (41.1%) in the albumin group and 389 of 893 (43.6%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; P=0.29). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloids, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not improve the rate of survival at 28 and 90 days

Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have suggested the potential advantages of albumin administration in patients with severe sepsis, its efficacy has not been fully established. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 1818 patients with severe sepsis, in 100 intensive care units (ICUs), to receive either 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. In the albumin group, the target serum albumin concentration was 30 g per liter or more until discharge from the ICU or 28 days after randomization. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 28 days. Secondary outcomes were death from any cause at 90 days, the number of patients with organ dysfunction and the degree of dysfunction, and length of stay in the ICU and the hospital. RESULTS: During the first 7 days, patients in the albumin group, as compared with those in the crystalloid group, had a higher mean arterial pressure (P=0.03) and lower net fluid balance (P<0.001). The total daily amount of administered fluid did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.10). At 28 days, 285 of 895 patients (31.8%) in the albumin group and 288 of 900 (32.0%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk in the albumin group, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.14; P=0.94). At 90 days, 365 of 888 patients (41.1%) in the albumin group and 389 of 893 (43.6%) in the crystalloid group had died (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.05; P=0.29). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe sepsis, albumin replacement in addition to crystalloids, as compared with crystalloids alone, did not improve the rate of survival at 28 and 90 days. (Funded by the Italian Medicines Agency; ALBIOS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00707122.