Phosphorylation of protein kinase A (PKA) regulatory subunit RIα by protein kinase G (PKG) primes PKA for catalytic activity in cells.

cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKAc) is a pivotal signaling protein in eukaryotic cells. PKAc has two well-characterized regulatory subunit proteins, RI and RII (each having α and β isoforms), which keep the PKAc catalytic subunit in a catalytically inactive state until activation by cAMP. Previous reports showed that the RIα regulatory subunit is phosphorylated by cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) in vitro, whereupon phosphorylated RIα no longer inhibits PKAc at normal (1:1) stoichiometric ratios. However, the significance of this phosphorylation as a mechanism for activating type I PKA holoenzymes has not been fully explored, especially in cellular systems. In this study, we further examined the potential of RIα phosphorylation to regulate physiologically relevant "desensitization" of PKAc activity. First, the serine 101 site of RIα was validated as a target of PKGIα phosphorylation both in vitro and in cells. Analysis of a phosphomimetic substitution in RIα (S101E) showed that modification of this site increases PKAc activity in vitro and in cells, even without cAMP stimulation. Numerous techniques were used to show that although Ser101 variants of RIα can bind PKAc, the modified linker region of the S101E mutant has a significantly reduced affinity for the PKAc active site. These findings suggest that RIα phosphorylation may be a novel mechanism to circumvent the requirement of cAMP stimulus to activate type I PKA in cells. We have thus proposed a model to explain how PKG phosphorylation of RIα creates a "sensitized intermediate" state that is in effect primed to trigger PKAc activity

Influence of safety warnings on the prescribing attitude of JAK 2inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis in Italy

The Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) tofacitinib (TOFA), baricitinib (BARI), upadacitinib (UPA) and 74 filgotinib (FILGO) are effective drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the US 75 Food & Administration (FDA) raised concerns on the safety of TOFA after its approval. This 76 prompted the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to issue two safety warnings for limiting TOFA 77 use then extended in a third warning to all Jaki in patients at high risk of developing serious adverse 78 events (SAE). These included thrombosis, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and cancer. Thepurpose of this work was to analyze how the first two safety warnings from EMA affected the pre- 80 scribing of Jaki by rheumatologists in Italy. All patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had been 81 prescribed JAKi for the first time in a 36-month period from July 1, 2019, to June 30, 2022 were con- 82 sidered. Data were obtained from the medical records of 29 Italian tertiary referral rheumatology 83 centers. Patients were divided into three groups of 4 months each, depending on whether the JAKi 84 prescription had occurred before the EMA's first safety alert (July 1-October 31, 2019, Group 1), 85 between the first and second alerts (November 1, 2019-February 29, 2020, Group 2), or between the 86 second and third alerts (March 1, 2021-June 30, 2021, Group 3). Percentage and absolute changes in 87 patients prescribed the individual JAKi were analyzed. Differences among the three Groups of pa- 88 tients in demographic and clinical characteristics were also assessed. A total of 864 patients were 89 prescribed a JAKi during the entire period considered. Of these, 343 were identified in Group 1, 233 90 in Group 2 and 288 in Group 3. An absolute reduction of 32% was observed in the number of patients 91 prescribed a JAKi between Group 1 and Group 2 and 16% between Group 1 and Group 3. In contrast, 92 there was a 19% increase in the prescription of a JAKi in patients between Group 2 and Group 3. In 93 the first Group, BARI was the most prescribed drug (227 prescriptions, 66.2% of the total), followed 94 by TOFA (115, 33.5%) and UPA (1, 0.3%). In the second Group, the most prescribed JAKi was BARI 95 (147, 63.1%), followed by TOFA (65, 27.9%) and UPA (33, 11.5%). In the third Group, BARI was still 96 the most prescribed JAKi (104 prescriptions, 36.1%), followed by UPA (89, 30.9%), FILGO (89, 21.5%) 97 and TOFA (33, 11.5%). The number of patients prescribed TOFA decreased significantly between 98 Group 1 and Group 2 and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p ˂ 0.01). Patients who were prescribed 99 BARI decreased significantly between Group 1 and Group 2 and between Group 2 and Group 3 (p 100 ˂ 0.01). In contrast, patients prescribed UPA increased between Group 2 and Group 3 (p ˂ 0.01). 101 These data suggest that the warnings issued for TOFA were followed by a reduction in total JAKi 102 prescriptions. However, the more selective JAKi (UPA and FILGO) were perceived by prescribers 103 as favorable in terms of risk/benefit ratio and their use gradually increased at the expense of the 104 other molecules

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry

Funding Information: Competing interests JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Funding Information: Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JAS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. ZSW reports grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/ Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. MG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534; JY). KLH reports she has received speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study. KLH is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories such as, among other institutions, AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. LG reports research grants from Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Aventis and UCB, all unrelated to this study. EFM reports that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharma Kern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AD-G has no disclosures relevant to this study. His work is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. KMD is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). PD has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai and Pfizer, and performed consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche and Janssen, unrelated to this work. NS is supported by the RRF Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G reports grant support from Janssen and Pfizer. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis and Pfizer (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). JL has received research funding from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. PS reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports honorarium for doing social media for American College of Rheumatology journals (<$10 000). PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all <$10 000). PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and travel assistance from Roche (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has performed consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this project. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. Results Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. Conclusions People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Semi Automatic Detection of Synovial Boundaries in Water-Immersion Ultrasound Examination

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic multisystemic autoimmune disease. Its early diagnosis and activity assessment are essential to adjust the proper therapy. Ultrasonography (US) allows direct visualization of early inflammatory joint changes, while being rapidly performed and easily accepted by patients. We propose an algorithm to semi automatically detect synovial boundaries on US images, making minimal use of a priori information on the morphological shape or on the appearance of the joint and of the synovia. After an image denoising step, three joint landmarks are manually identified. In order to identify the synovia-bone and the synovia-soft tissues interfaces, and to tackle the morphological variability of diseased joints, a cascade of two different active contours is developed, whose composition identifies the whole synovial boundary. By comparison with a manual segmentation performed by two radiologists, we obtained an overall mean sensitivity of 86.4% \ub1 11.6%, and a mean value of 76.8% \ub1 7.8% for Dice's similarity index

Cost-effectiveness of etanercept treatment in early active rheumatoid arthritis followed by dose adjustment.

Objectives: To explore the cost-effectiveness of early biologic treatment, followed by dose-reduction in the case of remission, of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), compared with standard treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in Sweden.Methods: Effectiveness (function, disease activity, erosions) in early RA for both alternatives was taken from a clinical trial comparing etanercept (ETA) combined with MTX to MTX alone. Patients discontinuing treatment can switch to another or their first biologic treatment. For patients in remission (Disease Activity Score [DAS28] < 2.6), ETA is reduced to half the dose. Return to full dose occurs when DAS28 reaches ≥ 3.2 again. Costs and utilities by level of functional capacity from an observational study are used. The model is analyzed as a micro-simulation and results are presented from the societal perspective for Sweden, for 10 years; costs (€2008) and effects are discounted at 3 percent. Sensitivity analysis was performed for the perspective, the time horizon, switching, and dose-reduction.Results: The main analysis conservatively assumes 50 percent switching at discontinuation. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with early ETA/MTX treatment is €13,500 (societal perspective, incremental cost of €15,500 and incremental QALYs of 1.15). With 75 percent switching, the cost per QALY gained was €10,400. Over 20 years, the cost per QALY gained was €8,200. Results were further sensitive to the time patients remained on half dose and the perspective.Conclusions and Policy Implications: This study combines clinical trial and clinical practice data to explore cost-effective treatment scenarios in early RA, including the use of biologics. Our results indicate that a situation where a considerable proportion of patients achieve remission, dose-adjustments will increase the cost-effectiveness of treatment

Calprotectin in rheumatic diseases

none7Calprotectin is a heterodimer formed by two proteins, S100A8 and S100A9, which are mainly produced by activated monocytes and neutrophils in the circulation and in inflamed tissues. The implication of calprotectin in the inflammatory process has already been demonstrated, but its role in the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and monitoring of rheumatic diseases has gained great attention in recent years. Calprotectin, being stable at room temperature, is a candidate biomarker for the follow-up of disease activity in many autoimmune disorders, where it can predict response to treatment or disease relapse. There is evidence that a number of immunomodulators, including TNF-α inhibitors, may reduce calprotectin expression. S100A8 and S100A9 have a potential role as a target of treatment in murine models of autoimmune disorders, since the direct or indirect blockade of these proteins results in amelioration of the disease process. In this review, we will go over the biologic functions of calprotectin which might be involved in the etiology of rheumatic disorders. We will also report evidence of its potential use as a disease biomarker.noneOmetto, Francesca; Friso, Lara; Astorri, Davide; Botsios, Costantino; Raffeiner, Bernd; Punzi, Leonardo; Doria, AndreaOmetto, Francesca; Friso, Lara; Astorri, Davide; Botsios, Costantino; Raffeiner, Bernd; Punzi, Leonardo; Doria, Andre

Self-reported flares are predictors of radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis patients in 28-joint disease activity score remission: a 24-month observational study

Disease flares are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are related to structural damage. However, few data on the impact of flares reported by patients on radiographic progression are available. Our aim was to investigate whether overall flares (OF), self-reported flares (SRF) and short flares assessed at the visit (SF) predict radiographic progression in RA patients in DAS28 (28-joint disease activity score) remission

Methods used to assess remission and low disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.

The aim of the treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is to prevent articular damage and functional loss by decreasing the activity of the disease. The overall goal is the full suppression of the activity of the disease, also called clinical remission. The most reliable indices to assess RA activity were defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the International League Against Rheumatism (ILAR) and are habitually used for the evaluation of remission. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) established three increasingly restrictive categories of disease remission: complete clinical response, major clinical response, and remission. Then, OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials) advanced the concept of low disease activity state (LDAS) or minimal disease activity (MDA). Thus, those reported by FDA are the only criteria for remission which consider radiographic arrest of the disease. This review aims to describe the criteria for RA remission and to discuss their advantages and limitations

Phosphorylation of protein kinase A (PKA) regulatory subunit RIα by protein kinase G (PKG) primes PKA for catalytic activity in cells.

cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKAc) is a pivotal signaling protein in eukaryotic cells. PKAc has two well-characterized regulatory subunit proteins, RI and RII (each having α and β isoforms), which keep the PKAc catalytic subunit in a catalytically inactive state until activation by cAMP. Previous reports showed that the RIα regulatory subunit is phosphorylated by cGMP-dependent protein kinase (PKG) in vitro, whereupon phosphorylated RIα no longer inhibits PKAc at normal (1:1) stoichiometric ratios. However, the significance of this phosphorylation as a mechanism for activating type I PKA holoenzymes has not been fully explored, especially in cellular systems. In this study, we further examined the potential of RIα phosphorylation to regulate physiologically relevant "desensitization" of PKAc activity. First, the serine 101 site of RIα was validated as a target of PKGIα phosphorylation both in vitro and in cells. Analysis of a phosphomimetic substitution in RIα (S101E) showed that modification of this site increases PKAc activity in vitro and in cells, even without cAMP stimulation. Numerous techniques were used to show that although Ser101 variants of RIα can bind PKAc, the modified linker region of the S101E mutant has a significantly reduced affinity for the PKAc active site. These findings suggest that RIα phosphorylation may be a novel mechanism to circumvent the requirement of cAMP stimulus to activate type I PKA in cells. We have thus proposed a model to explain how PKG phosphorylation of RIα creates a "sensitized intermediate" state that is in effect primed to trigger PKAc activity