Heightened immune response to autocitrullinated porphyromonas gingivalis peptidylarginine deiminase: a potential mechanism for breaching immunologic tolerance in rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by autoimmunity to citrullinated proteins, and there is increasing epidemiologic evidence linking Porphyromonas gingivalis to RA. P gingivalis is apparently unique among periodontal pathogens in possessing a citrullinating enzyme, peptidylarginine deiminase (PPAD) with the potential to generate antigens driving the autoimmune response. Objectives: To examine the immune response to PPAD in patients with RA, individuals with periodontitis (PD) and controls (without arthritis), confirm PPAD autocitrullination and identify the modified arginine residues. Methods: PPAD and an inactivated mutant (C351A) were cloned and expressed and autocitrullination of both examined by immunoblotting and mass spectrometry. ELISAs using PPAD, C351A and another P gingivalis protein arginine gingipain (RgpB) were developed and antibody reactivities examined in patients with RA (n=80), individuals with PD (n=44) and controls (n=82). Results: Recombinant PPAD was a potent citrullinating enzyme. Antibodies to PPAD, but not to Rgp, were elevated in the RA sera (median 122 U/ml) compared with controls (median 70 U/ml; p<0.05) and PD (median 60 U/ml; p<0.01). Specificity of the anti-peptidyl citrullinated PPAD response was confirmed by the reaction of RA sera with multiple epitopes tested with synthetic citrullinated peptides spanning the PPAD molecule. The elevated antibody response to PPAD was abolished in RA sera if the C351A mutant was used on ELISA. Conclusions: The peptidyl citrulline-specific immune response to PPAD supports the hypothesis that, as a bacterial protein, it might break tolerance in RA, and could be a target for therapy

Adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics versus placebo for any indication

BACKGROUND: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases. OBJECTIVES:To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event. MAIN RESULTS: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; Iand#178; = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; Iand#178; = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; Iand#178; = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.</p

Rheumatoid arthritis and the role of oral bacteria

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontal disease (PD) have shown similar physiopathologic mechanisms such as chronic inflammation with adjacent bone resorption in an immunogenetically susceptible host; however, PD has a well-recognized bacterial etiology while the cause of RA is unclear. Some reports have indicated that an infectious agent in a susceptible host could be one possible trigger factor for RA, and it has been suggested that oral microorganisms, specialty periodontal bacteria could be the infectious agent (mainly Porphyromonas gingivalis). It has been reported that PD is more frequent and more severe in patients with RA, suggesting a positive association between both diseases. There have been reports regarding the detection of antibodies against periodontal bacteria while other studies have identified periodontal bacterial DNA in serum and synovial fluid of RA patients and have explored the possible pathways of transport of periodontal bacterial DNA. In conclusion, there is no question that RA and PD have pathologic features in common and there is strong evidence of an association between both diseases, but further studies, including experimental models, are needed to demonstrate the arthritogenicity of oral microorganisms

The association between rheumatoid arthritis and periodontal disease

Chronic, plaque-associated inflammation of the gingiva and the periodontium are among the most common oral diseases. Periodontitis (PD) is characterized by the inflammatory destruction of the periodontal attachment and alveolar bone, and its clinical appearance can be influenced by congenital as well as acquired factors. The existence of a rheumatic or other inflammatory systemic disease may promote PD in both its emergence and progress. However, there is evidence that PD maintains systemic diseases. Nevertheless, many mechanisms in the pathogenesis have not yet been examined sufficiently, so that a final explanatory model is still under discussion, and we hereby present arguments in favor of this. In this review, we also discuss in detail the fact that oral bacterial infections and inflammation seem to be linked directly to the etiopathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There are findings that support the hypothesis that oral infections play a role in RA pathogenesis. Of special importance are the impact of periodontal pathogens, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis on citrullination, and the association of PD in RA patients with seropositivity toward rheumatoid factor and the anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody

Antibiotics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Mesut OgrendikDivision Physical Therapy and Rheumatology, Nazilli State Hospital, Nazilli, TurkeyAbstract: Antibiotic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) commenced in the 1930s with the use of sulfasalazine. Later, tetracyclines were successfully used for the treatment of RA. In double-blind and randomized studies, levofloxacin and macrolide antibiotics (including clarithromycin and roxithromycin) were also shown to be effective in the treatment of RA. There have been several reports in the literature indicating that periodontal pathogens are a possible cause of RA. Oral bacteria are one possible cause of RA. In this review, we aimed to investigate the effects of different antibiotics in RA treatment.Keywords: oral bacteria, treatment, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, periodontiti