Figure 1 Correlation between BMI and DAPSA and serum IL-17 levels in PsA obese and non-obese patients. (A) Correlation between BMI and DAPSA by Kendall's tau coefficient and Spearman's rho tests (*statistical significance is for values of 0.05, one tail). (B) Graphical representation of correlation between BMI and DAPSA by Spearman test. (C) Analysis of serum levels of IL-17 in 20 obese and 20 obese and 20 non-obese patients compared to 30 healthy controls. BMI, body mass index; HC, health control; IL, interleukin; PsA, psoriatic arthritis.

ObjectiveIn the light of the current COVID-19 epidemic and the availability of effective vaccines, this study aims to identify factors associated with non-response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as immunological alteration associated with immune rheumatic diseases (IRD) and immunosuppressive medications may impair the response to vaccination.MethodsVolunteers in the health profession community with IRD, age, and sex-matched controls (CTRL) who underwent vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 were recruited for this study. Anti-Trimeric Spike protein antibodies were assayed eight ± one weeks after the second vaccine dose. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with non-response and low antibody titers.ResultsSamples were obtained from 237 IRD patients (m/f 73/164, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-59]): 4 autoinflammatory diseases (AI), 62 connective tissue diseases (CTD), 86 rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 71 spondylarthritis (SpA) and 14 vasculitis (Vsc). 232 CTRL were recruited (m/f 71/161, mean age 57, CI 95% [56-58]). Globally, IRD had a lower seroconversion rate (88.6% vs 99.6%, CI 95% OR [1.61-5.73], p<0.001) and lower antibody titer compared to controls (median (IQR) 403 (131.5-1012) versus 1160 (702.5-1675), p<0.001). After logistic regression, age, corticosteroid (CCS), Abatacept and Mycophenolate Mofetil (MMF) use were associated with non-response. Lower antibody titer was associated with the use of MMF, ABA, CCS, Rituximab, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, JAK inhibitors, and higher age.ConclusionThe response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is often impaired in IRD patients under treatment and may pose them at higher risk of severe COVID-19. Specific vaccination protocols are desirable for these patients.

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by inflammation of axial joints and the pelvis. It is known that intestinal dysbiosis may exert direct pathogenic effects on gut homeostasis and may act as a triggering factor for the host innate immune system to activate and cause inflammation in extraintestinal sites in the so-called “gut-joint axis”, contributing to AS pathogenesis. However, although the intestinal microbiota’s influence on the clinical manifestation of AS is widely accepted, the mechanisms mediating the cross-talk between the intestinal lumen and the immune system are still not completely defined. Recent evidence suggests that the metabolism of microbial species may be a source of metabolites and small molecules participating in the complex network existing between bacteria and host cells. These findings may give inputs for further research of novel pharmacological targets and pave the way to applying dietary interventions to prevent the onset and ameliorate the clinical presentation of the disease. In this review, we discuss the role of some of the biological mediators of microbial origin, with a particular focus on short-chain fatty acids, tryptophan and vitamin B derivatives, and their role in barrier integrity and type 3 immunity in the context of AS.

BackgroundCurrent recommendations on the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) are based on a treat to target approach, nevertheless which biologic drug should be used in an unresponsive patient is not clarified (1). Such a strategy is essentially justified by the fact that no biotechnological drug has proved to be superior to any other (2).Recent studies have reported some disease or patient features that are associated with a greater or lesser likelihood of response (3). Nevertheless, an adapted therapy to the single patient and based on physiopathological mechanisms has not been acquired yet.ObjectivesAim of this study was to evaluate if the choice of a tailored therapy, based on patient and disease features, would be an effective strategy.MethodsFrom April 1st 2017, at our Department of Rheumatology of the University of Campania, each patient with RA has been characterized, at enrolment, for demographic and disease features, and started a biological Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug based on an established algorithm (Figure 1). Attainment of the targeted end point i.e. remission (R) as assessed by Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) <3.3 or at least low disease activity (LDA), SDAI<11, has been evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months.Figure 1ResultsForty-nine patients were admitted to our centre from April 1st2017 to December 31st2018. Out of them, 36 patients have been followed up at least for 3 months and were included in the study (algorithm+ patients). Out of them, 26 (72.2%) reached 6 months of treatment, while 16 (44.4%) 12 months of treatment. Among the 26 patients evaluated at 6 months, 23(88.5%) achieved the targeted end point. At 12 months, 16/16 patients (100%) preserved a status of remission or at least low disease activity. We compared our results to those registered, from January 2015 to September 2016, in a RA cohort of 79 patients (RA general cohort). We found a significant difference in regard to attainment of the target at 6 months (23/26 patients, 88.5% algorithm+ vs 45/67 patients, 67.2% RA general cohort; p=0.04) and at 12 months (16/16 patients, 100% algorithm+ vs 40/57 patients, 70.2% RA general cohort; p=0.01) (Table 1). Notably, 32 out of the 79 patients had undergone a biological drug which didn’t follow the predefined algorithm. These patients (algorithm- patients) presented a further lower incidence of response with regard to those enrolled according to the algorithm: 22/32 patients (68.7%) at 3 months; p=0.4; 17/29 (58.6%) at 6 months; p=0.001; 17/24 (70.8%) at 12 months; p=0.03).ConclusionThe choice of a personalized approach toward treatment of RA might be an effective strategy to achieve the targeted end point of remission or at least low disease activity in every patient.References[1] Smolen JS et al. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:960–77[2] Pierreisnard A et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2013;80:386-92.[3] Daïen CI et al. Mediators of Inflammation 2014;2014:386148Table 1 Comparison of percentage of response between Algorithm + patients (n.36) and RA general cohort (n.79) Algorithm+ patients ...

Background:EULAR recommendations focus the importance of Methotrexate (MTX) therapy as a key element in the treatment of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), alone as first line therapy and in combination with biological Disease Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drug (bDMARDs). Abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) in Europe is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in combination with MTX. Several patients, however, discontinue MTX for intolerance, side effects or contraindications, and real-life data demonstrate how, even in patients receiving therapy with MTX, compliance could be suboptimal. The only data on the use of abatacept in monotherapy come from the ORA-Registry, where a worse performance is observed in monotherapy patients.Objectives:To evaluate a multicenter cohort of RA patients treated with Abatacept in patients underwent combined MTX therapy vs monotherapy.Methods:We retrospectively evaluated RA patients, referring to 2 Italian rheumatology centers, treated with Abatacept monotherapy or in combination with MTX. We compared both persistence in therapy and the rate of remission/low disease activity according to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) between the 2 groups.Results:We enrolled 147 patients, out of them 66 patients were on monotherapy with Abatacept due to intolerance or controindications and 81 in therapy with Abatacept plus MTX. The two cohorts appeared homogeneous in age, gender, disease duration and baseline activity indexes, with the only difference being higher baseline Physician Global assessment (PhGA) values in monotherapy patients. During the follow-up (median duration 24±14 months), the retention rate of Abatacept treatment was 71.2% in MTX patients (median duration 27–15.6 months) and 62.1% in monotherapy patients (median duration 25.2–17.5; p=ns). No differences between the two groups in terms of retention rate, low-disease activity and CDAI remission (log rank p=ns), Breslow p=ns) were detected.Conclusion:In patients with RA with intolerance or contraindication to MTX use, Abatacept monotherapy could be an efficient and safe option even in the long term follow-up.References:[1]Abatacept monotherapy compared with abatacept plus disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients: data from the ORA registry.Truchetet ME et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016 Mar 30;18:72.Disclosure of Interests:DANIELA IACONO Speakers bureau: PFIZER, BRISTOL MAYERS SQUIBB, SANOFI, Ilenia Pantano: None declared, domenico birra: None declared, GIUSEPPE SCALISE: None declared, Melania Alessia Coscia: None declared, VALENTINA MESSINITI: None declared, Gabriella Loi: None declared, Anna Merchionda: None declared, Paolo Moscato: None declared, francesco ciccia Grant/research support from: pfizer, novartis, roche, Consultant of: pfizer, novartis, lilly, abbvie, Speakers bureau: pfizer, novartis, lilly, abbvie