A Pauci-Immune Synovial Pathotype Predicts Inadequate Response to TNF alpha-Blockade in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients

Objectives: To assess whether the histopathological features of the synovium before starting treatment with the TNFi certolizumab-pegol could predict clinical outcome and examine the modulation of histopathology by treatment. Methods: Thirty-seven RA patients fulfilling UK NICE guidelines for biologic therapy were enrolled at Barts Health NHS trust and underwent synovial sampling of an actively inflamed joint using ultrasound-guided needle biopsy before commencing certolizumab-pegol and after 12-weeks. At 12-weeks, patients were categorized as responders if they had a DAS28 fall >1.2. A minimum of 6 samples was collected for histological analysis. Based on H&E and immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining for CD3 (T cells), CD20 (B cells), CD138 (plasma cells), and CD68 (macrophages) patients were categorized into three distinct synovial pathotypes (lympho-myeloid, diffuse-myeloid, and pauci-immune). Results: At baseline, as per inclusion criteria, DAS28 mean was 6.4 \ub1 0.9. 94.6% of the synovial tissue was retrieved from the wrist or a metacarpophalangeal joint. Histological pathotypes were distributed as follows: 58% lympho-myeloid, 19.4% diffuse-myeloid, and 22.6% pauci-immune. Patients with a pauci-immune pathotype had lower levels of CRP but higher VAS fatigue compared to lympho- and diffuse-myeloid. Based on DAS28 fall >1.2, 67.6% of patients were deemed as responders and 32.4% as non-responders. However, by categorizing patients according to the baseline synovial pathotype, we demonstrated that a significantly higher number of patients with a lympho-myeloid and diffuse-myeloid pathotype in comparison with pauci-immune pathotype [83.3% (15/18), 83.3 % (5/6) vs. 28.6% (2/7), p = 0.022) achieved clinical response to certolizumab-pegol. Furthermore, we observed a significantly higher level of post-treatment tender joint count and VAS scores for pain, fatigue and global health in pauci-immune in comparison with lympho- and diffuse-myeloid patients but no differences in the number of swollen joints, ESR and CRP. Finally, we confirmed a significant fall in the number of CD68+ sublining macrophages post-treatment in responders and a correlation between the reduction in the CD20+ B-cells score and the improvement in the DAS28 at 12-weeks. Conclusions: The analysis of the synovial histopathology may be a helpful tool to identify among clinically indistinguishable patients those with lower probability of response to TNF\u3b1-blockade

B Cell Synovitis and Clinical Phenotypes in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Relationship to Disease Stages and Drug Exposure.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship of synovial B cells to clinical phenotypes at different stages of disease evolution and drug exposure in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Synovial biopsy specimens and demographic and clinical data were collected from 2 RA cohorts (n = 329), one of patients with untreated early RA (n = 165) and one of patients with established RA with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR; n = 164). Synovial tissue was subjected to hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemical staining and semiquantitative assessment for the degree of synovitis (on a scale of 0-9) and of CD20+ B cell infiltrate (on a scale of 0-4). B cell scores were validated by digital image analysis and B cell lineage-specific transcript analysis (RNA-Seq) in the early RA (n = 91) and TNFi-IR (n = 127) cohorts. Semiquantitative CD20 scores were used to classify patients as B cell rich (≥2) or B cell poor (<2). RESULTS: Semiquantitative B cell scores correlated with digital image analysis quantitative measurements and B cell lineage-specific transcripts. B cell-rich synovitis was present in 35% of patients in the early RA cohort and 47.7% of patients in the TNFi-IR cohort (P = 0.025). B cell-rich patients showed higher levels of disease activity and seropositivity for rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated protein antibody in early RA but not in established RA, while significantly higher histologic synovitis scores in B cell-rich patients were demonstrated in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: We describe a robust semiquantitative histologic B cell score that closely replicates the quantification of B cells by digital or molecular analyses. Our findings indicate an ongoing B cell-rich synovitis, which does not seem to be captured by standard clinimetric assessment, in a larger proportion of patients with established RA than early RA

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. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis

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. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Versus Arthritis

Suppression of Allograft Rejection by Tim-1-Fc through Cross-Linking with a Novel Tim-1 Binding Partner on T Cells

Engagement of T-cell immunoglobulin mucin (Tim)-1 on T cells with its ligand, Tim-4, on antigen presenting cells delivers positive costimulatory signals to T cells. However, the molecular mechanisms for Tim-1-mediated regulation of T-cell activation and differentiation are relatively poorly understood. Here we investigated the role of Tim-1 in T-cell responses and allograft rejection using recombinant human Tim-1 extracellular domain and IgG1-Fc fusion proteins (Tim-1-Fc). In vitro assays confirmed that Tim-1-Fc selectively binds to CD4+ effector T cells, but not dendritic cells or natural regulatory T cells (nTregs). Tim-1-Fc was able to inhibit the responses of purified CD4+ T cells that do not express Tim-4 to stimulation by anti-CD3/CD28 mAbs, and this inhibition was associated with reduced AKT and ERK1/2 phosphorylation, but it had no influence on nTregs. Moreover, Tim-1-Fc inhibited the proliferation of CD4+ T cells stimulated by allogeneic dendritic cells. Treatment of recipient mice with Tim-1-Fc significantly prolonged cardiac allograft survival in a fully MHC-mismatched strain combination, which was associated with impaired Th1 response and preserved Th2 and nTregs function. Importantly, the frequency of Foxp3+ cells in splenic CD4+ T cells was increased, thus shifting the balance toward regulators, even though Tim-1-Fc did not induce Foxp3 expression in CD4+CD25− T cells directly. These results indicate that Tim-1-Fc can inhibit T-cell responses through an unknown Tim-1 binding partner on T cells, and it is a promising immunosuppressive agent for preventing allograft rejection

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

HLA-B*5701 screening for hypersensitivity to Abacavir

Background Hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir is strongly associated with the presence of the HLA-B*5701 allele. This study was designed to establish the effectiveness of prospective HLA-B*5701 screening to prevent the hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. Methods This double-blind, prospective, randomized study involved 1956 patients from 19 countries, who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and who had not previously received abacavir. We randomly assigned patients to undergo prospective HLA-B*5701 screening, with exclusion of HLA-B*5701–positive patients from abacavir treatment (prospective-screening group), or to undergo a standard-of-care approach of abacavir use without prospective HLA-B*5701 screening (control group). All patients who started abacavir were observed for 6 weeks. To immunologically confirm, and enhance the specificity of, the clinical diagnosis of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir, we performed epicutaneous patch testing with the use of abacavir. Results The prevalence of HLA-B*5701 was 5.6% (109 of 1956 patients). Of the patients receiving abacavir, 72% were men, 84% were white, and 18% had not previously received antiretroviral therapy. Screening eliminated immunologically confirmed hypersensitivity reaction (0% in the prospective-screening group vs. 2.7% in the control group, P<0.001), with a negative predictive value of 100% and a positive predictive value of 47.9%. Hypersensitivity reaction was clinically diagnosed in 93 patients, with a significantly lower incidence in the prospective-screening group (3.4%) than in the control group (7.8%) (P<0.001). Conclusions HLA-B*5701 screening reduced the risk of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. In predominantly white populations, similar to the one in this study, 94% of patients do not carry the HLA-B*5701 allele and are at low risk for hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. Our results show that a pharmacogenetic test can be used to prevent a specific toxic effect of a drug