| Literature DB >> 34307404 |
Antonio Vitale1, Laura Obici2, Marco Cattalini3, Giuseppe Lopalco4, Giampaolo Merlini2, Nicola Ricco1, Alessandra Soriano5, Francesco La Torre6, Elena Verrecchia7, Antonella Insalaco8, Lorenzo Dagna9, Masen Abdel Jaber10, Davide Montin11, Giacomo Emmi12, Luisa Ciarcia1, Sara Barneschi1, Paola Parronchi12, Piero Ruscitti13, Maria Cristina Maggio14, Ombretta Viapiana15, Jurgen Sota1, Carla Gaggiano16, Roberto Giacomelli17, Ludovico Luca Sicignano7, Raffaele Manna7, Alessandra Renieri18,19, Caterina Lo Rizzo18, Bruno Frediani20, Donato Rigante21,22, Luca Cantarini1.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the role of biotechnological therapies in patients with tumor necrosis factor receptor associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS) and to identify any predictor of complete response.Entities:
Keywords: biologic therapy; interleukin-1 inhibitors; personalized medicine; tocilizumab; tumor necrosis factor inhibitors; tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome
Year: 2021 PMID: 34307404 PMCID: PMC8295690 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.668173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Demographic features of patients enrolled; the table also summarizes TRAPS manifestations observed during flares along with laboratory markers recorded at the last flare before starting biologic treatments.
| Age at disease onset, years, median (IQR) | 9 (15.25) | 15.5 (18.5) | 5.5 (5.5) | 7 (10.75) |
| Age at diagnosis, years, mean ± SD | 31.5 ± 15.7 | 35.7 ± 15.3 | 27.9 ± 14.8 | 25.4 ± 11.8 |
| Age at the start of biologic treatment, years, median (IQR) or mean ± SD | 17 (28.5) | 15 (29.5) | 25.1 ± 16.6 | 13.7 ± 11.7 |
| Age at enrollment, years, mean ± SD or median (IQR) | 40.53 ± 17.3 | 45.32 ± 17.1 | 37.1 ± 18.2 | 40 (18) |
| Male/Female patients | 23/21 | 13/13 | 9/7 | 6/4 |
| Patients with pediatric onset-TRAPS, | 31 (70.5) | 16 (61.5) | 14 (87.5) | 8 (80) |
| Patients with adult onset-TRAPS, | 13 (29.5) | 10 (38.5) | 2 (12.5) | 2 (20) |
| High/low penetrance mutations | 18/24 | 11/15 | 8/8 | 3/7 |
| Family members with symptoms, | 18 (40.9) | 8 (22.2) | 10 (62.5) | 1 (10) |
| Relapsing-remitting disease course, | 34 (77.3) | 17 (65.4) | 14 (87.5) | 6 (60) |
| Chronic disease course, | 10 (22.7) | 9 (34.6) | 2 (12.5) | 4 (40) |
| Duration of flares, median (IQR) or mean ± SD | 10 (8) | 10.8 ± 5.4 | 9.6 ± 6.1 | 13.1 ± 7.5 |
| Flares/Year, median (IQR) | 4 (3) | 5 (3) | 3 (4) | 6.1 ± 3.8 |
| Amyloidosis at diagnosis (%) | 5 (11.4) | 4 (15.4) | 2 (12.5) | 1 (10) |
| Thoracic pain | 13 (29.5) | 9 (34.6) | 2 (12.5) | 4 (40) |
| Pericarditis | 11 (25) | 9 (34.6) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (20) |
| Pleuritis | 3 (6.8) | 1 (3.8) | 1 (6.3) | 0 (0) |
| Abdominal pain | 29 (65.1) | 13 (50) | 13 (81.3) | 7 (70) |
| Pharyngitis | 13 (29.5) | 10 (41.7) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (20) |
| Oral aphthosis | 11 (25) | 8 (30.8) | 1 (6.3) | 2 (20) |
| Skin rash | 19 (43.2) | 11 (42.3) | 4 (25) | 6 (60) |
| Limphoadenopathy | 15 (34.1) | 8 (30.8) | 1 (6.3) | 4 (40) |
| Myalgia | 24 (54.5) | 16 (61.5) | 4 (25) | 5 (50) |
| Arthralgia | 29 (65.1) | 20 (76.9) | 5 (31.3) | 9 (90) |
| Arthritis | 13 (29.5) | 7 (26.9) | 3 (18.8) | 3 (30) |
| Conjunctivitis | 7 (15.9) | 4 (15.4) | 1 (6.3) | 2 (20) |
| Periorbital pain | 6 (13.6) | 3 (11.5) | 1 (6.3) | 3 (30) |
| Eritrocyte sedimentation rate, mm/1 h mean ± SD | 69.9 ± 32.3 | 42.1 ± 20.7 | 70.8 ± 78.0 | 49.8 ± 41.5 |
| C-reactive protein, mg/dL (IQR) | 5 (7.75) | 2 (6) | 3 (13.3) | 12 (8) |
| Serum Amyloid A, mg/L (IQR) | 66.5 (202) | 128 (382) | 154 (155) | 100 (123) |
| Proteinuria, n (%) | 6 (13.6) | 5 (19.2) | 1 (6.3) | 1 (10) |
IQR, interquartile range; n, number of patients; SD, standard deviation; TNF, tumor necrosis factor.
Figure 1Posology strategies employed at the start of treatment and at the last assessment in the 55 treatment courses considered in the present study. The “On-label” posology for canakinumab corresponded to 150 mg/4 weeks (or 2 mg/Kg/4 weeks) to increase to 300 mg/4 weeks (or 4 mg/Kg/4 weeks) in case of unsatisfactory response to the former attempt. The “Posology usually used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis” along with the “on-label use in rheumatoid arthritis” were meant as 100 mg/day for anakinra, 50 mg/week for etanercept, 40 mg every other week for adalimumab, 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks for infliximab, 162 mg/week for tocilizumab. The 4 patients aged <16 years at the start of anakinra received the posology of 2–4 mg/Kg/day, which is considered “on-label” for patients with cryopyrinopathies, and were included in the group “Posology usually used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.” TNF, tumor necrosis factor; n, number of patients (and of treatment courses).
Figure 2Autoinflammatory disease activity index (AIDAI) recorded at the start of treatment courses (baseline) and during the following visits. Statistical differences resulting from pairwise comparisons between different follow-up visits were provided to better detail the overall significance (p < 0.0001). Of note, statistical analysis on AIDAI changes was restricted to 18 patients (22 treatment courses) starting treatments after 2014, year of the AIDAI publication. Error bars refer to one standard deviation.
Figure 3Details about 24 h proteinuria in six patients (eight biologic courses) presenting with pathologic proteinuria (i.e., >150 mg/24 h) at the start of biologic treatments (baseline), after 12 months and at the last assessment. The numbers added in the histograms indicate the median of the 24 h proteinuria values found in the eight biologic courses at the three time-points.
Figure 4Laboratory inflammatory markers observed at the start of treatment courses (baseline) and during the following visits. Graphics are referred to (A) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR); (B) C-reactive protein (CRP); (C) serum amyloid A (SAA). Error bars refer to one standard error.
Laboratory values of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C reactive protein (CRP), and serum amyloid A (SAA) at the start of treatment courses and at the following visits.
| Baseline | 44 (53.25) | 4.65 (11.1) | 143 (334.4) |
| 1-month assessment | 18 (19) | 0.38 (1.2) | 4.18 (14.55) |
| 3-month assessment | 12 (16) | 0.3 (0.7) | 4 (10) |
| 6-month assessment | 10 (12) | 0.3 (0.6) | 5.2 (11.3) |
| 12-month assessment | 8.50 (12) | 0.3 (0.6) | 5.58 (13.4) |
| Last assessment | 16 (35) | 0.4 (1.8) | 5.0 (28.1) |
Data are provided as median values and interquartile range in parentheses.
Figure 5Details about corticosteroid administration. (A) Patients taking corticosteroids at the start of biologic treatments (baseline) and at the following visits; the decrease is statistically significant (p = 0.025). The numbers contained in the histograms refer to the specific number of patients taking corticosteroids at the corresponding visit. (B) Median daily corticosteroid dosage (as prednisone or equivalent) among patients already treated with corticosteroids at the different follow-up visits; the decrease is statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Statistical differences regarding the daily corticosteroid dosage between different follow-up visits have also been provided in the figure.; error bars in (B) refer to one standard deviation.
Figure 6Use of corticosteroids in specific subgroups of patients. Number of patients requiring the use of corticosteroids at the different time-points, distinguishing biologic treatment courses according to: (A) the age at TRAPS onset (adult vs. pediatric onset); (B) penetrance of mutations (high- vs. low-penetrance) and (C) the line of biologic agents (first line vs. second or more line). As also reported in the text, the number of patients discontinuing corticosteroids was statistically significant higher in adult-onset TRAPS patients when compared to pediatric-onset patients at 3-month (p = 0.01) and 6-month (p = 0.02) assessments. Conversely, neither statistically significant difference was observed according to the different age at onset at the 12-month visit nor between subjects carrying low-penetrance and high-penetrance mutations or based on the biologic treatment line at the 3, 6, and 12-month assessments.
Figure 7Reasons for biologic discontinuation. Graphical representation of reasons leading to biologic treatment discontinuation. As better explained in the text (Cause of biologic withdrawal and safety concerns), the term “Others” includes a patient experiencing the onset of inflammatory bowel disease during canakinumab treatment and a patient experiencing paradoxical flares after infliximab administrations.
Figure 8Long-term drug retention rate of biologic treatment courses. Kaplan-Meier survival curve describing the overall drug retention rate assessed on 55 treatment courses. Time 0” corresponds to the start of biologic courses and the “event” represents the discontinuation of therapy because of primary or secondary inefficacy, adverse events, or lack of compliance.