- Academic Editor
Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease
that causes progressive joint damage. The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAK-I)
represent a new therapeutic option for RA patients, blocking the intracellular
JAK-STAT pathway. Today, no studies have been conducted to determine whether new
biomarkers could better reflect disease activity in patients treated with JAK-I
than traditional disease activity indicators. Thus, the aim of our study was to
determine additional disease activity biomarkers in RA patients receiving
selective JAK-1 inhibitors. Methods: we enrolled 57 patients with RA: 34
patients were treated with Upadacitinib (UPA) and 23 patients with Filgotinib
(FIL). All patients were evaluated for clinimetry with DAS28 and Crohn’s Disease
Activity Index (CDAI), number of tender and swollen joints, Visual Analogic Scale
(VAS), Physician Global Assessment (PhGA), and Health Assessment Questionnaire
(HAQ), at baseline and at the 12th week of treatment. Lymphocyte subpopulations,
complete blood count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-Reactive Protein
(CRP), anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (APCA), rheumatoid factor
(RF) IgM, interleukin 6 (IL-6), circulating calprotectin (cCLP), tumor necrosis
factor
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disorder that induces gradual joint damage, lowering the quality of life and increasing functional disability [1, 2, 3, 4]. The pathogenesis of RA is unknown, but over the past 20 years, there have been significant advancements in understanding the disease’s pathogenic mechanisms, leading to significant changes in RA therapies. In fact, to improve patient management, it is crucial the interpretation of the radiographic and clinical treatment data, disease activity measurement, adverse reactions against the therapeutic agents, and finally, therapy response assessment.
Currently, there are many measurement tools available in clinical practice for
determining and tracking RA disease activity [5]. In particular, composite
indices, the most widely used in clinical trials [6], include the Disease
Activity Score 28 joints (DAS28) [7], Simplified Disease Activity Index [8], and
Clinical Disease Activity Index. These indices have all been recommended to
assess the treatment of disease response [6]. RA is a disorder that alters the
physiology of multiple joints as a result of uncontrolled bone erosion and
cartilage degradation arising from several factors [9]. Various cells of the
myeloid and leukocyte lineage, including neutrophils, monocytes/macrophages, as
well as mast cells, B lymphocytes, and subsets of T helper cells, mediate this
intrinsic chain of events. Moreover, cytokines, including tumor necrosis
factor
The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (JAK-I), now known as targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), represent a new treatment possibility for RA patients [11, 12]. Unlike biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), which regulate inflammatory cytokines, Tor B-lymphocytes, small molecule JAK inhibitors are the oral targeted DMARDs that block the intracellular JAK-STAT pathway (mediated by multiple cytokines) involved in the immune-mediated inflammatory response in RA. There are currently no studies to determine which biomarker, as different from conventional activity indicators, better represents disease activity in patients treated with JAK-I. However, precision medicine has identified over time a series of soluble biomarkers (MRP myeloid-related protein 8/14), cellular and autoantibodies (APCA, Carp, 14-3-3 PAD3/4) predictive of diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response in the RA [13].
In light of these premises, the goal of this study was to identify, for the first time, new biomarkers that may reflect changes in disease activity of RA patients who have been treated for 12 weeks with selective JAK-1 inhibitors like Upadacitinib (UPA) and Filgotinib (FIL).
In this study, we enrolled 57 RA patients defined by the ACR-2010 criteria [14]:
34 were treated with Upadacitinib 15 mg/day while 23 with Filgotinib 200 mg/day.
All patients were evaluated and followed up by Dr. M.B. and Dr. F.L.G. in common
clinical practice at the Rheumatology Unit of the S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital in
Florence (Italy). The demographic characteristics of the patients are reported in
Table 1. In the UPA group, the mean age was 64.02
Upadacitinib patients | Filgotinib patients | ||
Patients (n) | 34 | Patients (n) | 23 |
Age | 64.02 |
Age | 69.26 |
Sex | 31F/3M | Sex | 22F/1M |
Smokers (n) | 4 | Smokers (n) | 2 |
Hormone therapy | 0 | Hormone therapy | 0 |
Previous MACE (n) | 3 | Previous MACE (n) | 0 |
Diabetes (n) | 3 | Diabetes (n) | 1 |
Hypertension (n) | 16 | Hypertension (n) | 12 |
Disease duration (days) | 86.11 |
Disease duration (days) | 85.56 |
Steroid dose (mg) | 2.75 |
Steroid dose (mg) | 2.34 |
DAS28 | 4.39 |
DAS28 | 4.50 |
CDAI | 19.11 |
CDAI | 19.17 |
ESR (mm/hr+DS?) | 34.82 |
ESR (mm/hr+DS?) | 36.65 |
CRP (mg/dL) | 0.85 |
CRP (mg/dL) | 0.96 |
Tender joints | 6.05 |
Tender joints | 6.13 |
Swollen joints | 3.94 |
Swollen joints | 4.04 |
VAS | 33.52 |
VAS | 33.47 |
PGA | 33.82 |
PGA | 31.73 |
HAQ | 1.19 |
HAQ | 1.11 |
Creatinine mg/dL | 0.77 |
Creatinine mg/dL | 0.68 |
AST (UI/L) | 21.64 |
AST (UI/L) | 22.52 |
ALT (UI/L) | 20.58 |
ALT (UI/L) | 19.65 |
Hb (g/dL) | 13.08 |
Hb (g/dL) | 13.14 |
ACPA (UI/mL) | 32 | ACPA (UI/mL) | 23 |
RF (UI/mL) | 30 | RF (UI/mL) | 23 |
Tot. Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 207.41 |
Tot. Cholesterol (mg/dL) | 208.91 |
LDL (mg/dL) | 126.15 |
LDL (mg/dL) | 128.39 |
HDL (mg/dL) | 53.61 |
HDL (mg/dL) | 53.52 |
Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 128.55 |
Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 128.69 |
MACE, major adverse cardiovascular events; CDAI, Crohn’s Disease Activity Index; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-Reactive Protein; HAQ, Health Assessment Questionnaire; ACPA, Anti-Citrullinated Peptide Antibody; RF, rheumatoid factor; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high density lipoprotein; PGA, physician global assessment; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; Hb, Hemoglobin; VAS, Visual Analogic Scale.
In the UPA group, only 6.25% did not receive any previous biological therapy,
12.5% had failed one biological therapy, and 50%, 18.75%, and 12.50% received
two, three, and four biological therapies, respectively. In the FIL group, only
4.3% had not received previous biological therapies, 30.2% had failed one
biological therapy, and 39.12%, 17.7%, and 8.67% received two, three, and four
biological therapies, respectively. Only 6.25% of UPA patients and 4.3% of FIL
patients were in monotherapy; the other patients were taking combination therapy
with Methotrexate (mean dose respectively 11.5
All patients were evaluated for clinimetry with DAS28 [7] and Crohn’s Disease
Activity Index (CDAI) [15], number of tender and swollen joints VAS (Visual
Analogic Scale), PhGA (Physician Global Assessment), HAQ (Health Assessment
Questionnaire) at baseline and at 12th week of treatment and underwent assessment
of the following laboratory parameters: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)
(Alifax, Padova, Italy), C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (Unicel Coulter DxC 800
Synchron Central System; Beckman Coulter Inc, Brea, CA, USA), anti-cyclic
citrullinated peptide antibodies (APCA) (EliA CCP; Phadia AB, Uppsala, Sweden),
rheumatoid factor (RF) IgM (N Latex RF; Siemens AG, Munich, Germany), interleukin
6 (IL-6) (Human IL-6 Instant ELISA kit; Invitrogen, Bender MedSystem GmbH,
Vienna, Austria); circulating calprotectin (cCLP) (Calprest, Eurospital, Trieste,
Italy), TNF
Moreover, all patients were examined for (i) renal, hepatic, and lipid
parameters; (ii) CD3
The descriptive statistics were expressed by the mean, standard error mean
(SEM), and standard deviation (SD). The significance of all statistical analyses
was defined as p
The clinimetric data DAS28, CDAI, HAQ, VAS, physician global assessment (PGA),
number of tenders and swollen joints, and laboratory parameters at baseline and
after 12 weeks of treatment are reported in Table 2. There was a significant
decrease in the clinimetric parameters of DAS28, CDAI, number of tender and
swollen joints, VAS, PhGA, and HAQ in both groups of patients. Significant
differences were highlighted for ESR (34.82
Upadacitinib patients | Filgotinib patients | ||||||
Baseline | 3 Months | p | Baseline | 3 Months | p | ||
N/L (%) | 2.18 |
2.41 |
0.34 | N/L % | 2.52 |
2.50 |
0.63 |
PLT/L (%) | 171.05 |
157.44 |
0.45 | PLT/L % | 176.53 |
154.59 |
0.049 |
M/L (%) | 0.26 |
0.3 |
0.18 | M/L % | 0.39 |
0.28 |
0.09 |
ACPA (UI/mL) | 367.42 |
436.07 |
0.62 | ACPA (UI/mL) | 397.18 |
427.1 |
0.46 |
cCLP (mcg/mL) | 5.72 |
1.99 |
0.029 | cCLP (mcg/mL) | 3.72 |
3.10 |
0.14 |
RF (UI/mL) | 189.14 |
282.73 |
0.61 | RF (UI/mL) | 230.16 |
183.29 |
0.08 |
CL (%) | 107.57 |
108.67 |
0.63 | CL (%) | 115.54 |
107.1 |
0.63 |
MBL (%) | 53.45 |
48.5 |
0.74 | MBL (%) | 51.4 |
42.41 |
0.56 |
AP (%) | 99.22 |
96.48 |
0.57 | AP (%) | 94.58 |
81.88 |
0.11 |
TNF |
22.81 |
21.91 |
0.67 | TNF |
22.09 |
31.61 |
0.62 |
CD3 |
1517.71 |
1574.8 |
0.37 | CD3 |
1260.25 |
1326.76 |
0.33 |
CD3 |
1053.94 |
1079.58 |
0.67 | CD4 |
869.54 |
907.18 |
0.27 |
(cell/mcL) | |||||||
CD3 |
453.97 |
477.73 |
0.37 | CD8 |
388.68 |
413.06 |
0.62 |
CD56 |
258.51 |
243.57 |
0.76 | CD56 |
254.79 |
254.41 |
0.56 |
CD19 |
184.47 |
179.08 |
0.04 | CD19 |
126.32 |
132.76 |
0.24 |
IL-6 (pg/mL) | 16.59 |
4.55 |
0.049 | IL-6 (pg/mL) | 23.2 |
11.78 |
0.002 |
suPAR (ng/mL) | 6.57 |
4.33 |
0.049 | suPAR (ng/mL) | 4.93 |
3.71 |
0.0004 |
ESR (mm/hr) | 34.82 |
22.5 |
0.02 | ESR (mm/hr) | 36.65 |
32.12 |
0.0352 |
CRP (mg/dL) | 0.85 |
0.27 |
0.005 | CRP (mg/dL) | 0.96 |
0.41 |
0.039 |
DAS28 | 4.39 |
2.7 |
0.0001 | DAS28 | 4.50 |
2.78 |
0.0001 |
CDAI | 19.11 |
9.12 |
0.0001 | CDAI | 19.17 |
13.18 |
0.0001 |
VAS | 33.52 |
16.66 |
0.0001 | VAS | 33.47 |
11.18 |
0.0001 |
PhGA | 33.52 |
14.84 |
0.0001 | PhGA | 31.73 |
13.53 |
0.0001 |
HAQ | 1.19 |
0.6 |
0.0001 | HAQ | 1.11 |
0.69 |
0.0001 |
NTJ | 6.05 |
1.6 |
0.0001 | NTJ | 6.13 |
2.12 |
0.0001 |
NSJ | 3.94 |
1.06 |
0.0001 | NSJ | 4.04 |
1.65 |
0.0001 |
CL, Classical pathway; MBL, mannitol-binding lectin; AP, Alternative pathway.
Our research data showed similarities and differences in the two patients’ groups treated with UPA and FIL regarding the selected biomarkers in RA.
In detail, we found that both JAK-I inhibitors cause a decrease in circulating levels of IL-6. The IL-6 level reduction is expected as both JAK-I inhibitors exhibit an ability to interfere with the JAK-1 selectivity system. In whole blood models, the inhibition percentage of IL-6 JAK-1/STAT-1 on monocytes is respectively 53% for FIL and 69% for UPA with a time above IC-50 (Inhibitor concentration-50) of 15 and 21 hours [16].
Moreover, both JAK-I inhibitors showed a decrease in circulating levels of
suPAR. Indeed, in recent years, Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) protease
has been robustly linked to the pathogenetic development and progression of
cartilage injury in RA. This physiological system modulates the cytokine
production fibrinolysis and cell activation/migration [17, 18]. Each of these
activities is initiated by an interaction between uPA and its receptor, uPAR,
which results in tissue remodeling and T-cell stimulation [19]. Furthermore,
higher uPA expression and lower tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) expression
have been correlated to the severity of RA disease [20]. Moreover, the uPA/uPAR
interaction regulates the functionality of synovial cells such as fibroblast-like
synoviocytes (FLS), macrophages, endothelial cells, and chondrocytes, inducing
the production of a variety of chemokines, cytokines, and growth factors that
affect the RA progression [21]. uPA/uPAR expression suppresses osteoclast
differentiation/formation in the absence of macrophage colony-stimulating factor
(M-CSF) via upregulation of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein
kinase (AMPK) [22]. A further investigation has demonstrated that uPAR promotes
osteoclast differentiation through a PI3K/Akt-dependent mechanism in the presence
of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) [23]. Additionally, it can
activate nuclear factor kappa B (NF-
In our study, based on the increasing use of suPAR as a biomarker for Systemic
Chronic Inflammation (SCI) monitoring [25], we investigated the effects of
uPA/uPAR interaction in immune cells involved in the RA progression [26]. Serum
levels of suPAR have been found to correlate with disease activity in early RA
and to reflect joint damage over time [27]. In patients treated with UPA, unlike
FIL, we observed a reduction in cCLP levels. The binding with its receptor TLR-4
determines through the NF-
The cCLP levels also predicted the response to both methotrexate and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy [36, 37, 38, 39], decreasing consistently with treatment success [36]. Hurnakova et al. [40] described cCLP as a more sensitive biomarker than ESR and CRP. Furthermore, the use of CRP as an inflammatory biomarker is compromised in patients treated with IL-6 blocking therapies (e.g., TCZ) because the CRP production by the liver is stimulated by IL-6, making the cCLP a useful alternative biomarker, outperforming ESR and CRP in diagnostic performance. In agreement with these results, it has been suggested that the inclusion of cCLP as an inflammatory marker would improve diagnostic performance in RA diagnosis [41]. Bettner et al. [42] demonstrated that adding high cCLP levels to RF and ACPA positivity resulted in a high positive predictive value (i.e., 53%) for the development of RA within 3 years or less, which could be crucial in RA prevention.
In our patients, we also evaluated the Systemic Inflammation Index [43], an index of disease activity that demonstrated changes in cohorts of patients with RA treated with tofacitinib and baricitinib [44]. Only the group of patients treated with FIL showed a reduction in the PLT/L ratio. Previous studies have reported a significantly higher platelet count in the synovial fluid of RA patients when compared to patients with osteoarthritis. Significant positive correlations were also observed between platelet count and total white cell count, neutrophil count, phosphatase and 5-nucleosidase activity, and measures of increased disease activity [45]. In addition, recent reports documented an abundance of platelet microparticles in the synovial fluid of RA patients [45]. These microparticles can cause fibroblast-like synoviocytes to release proinflammatory cytokines like IL-6 and IL-8 [45]. It is thinkable that the JAK-1 selectivity of FIL over IL-6 with reduced effects on JAK-2 could result in a decrease of this ratio due to the action of FIL on lymphocytes in the absence of thrombocythemia induced by JAK-2 selectivity [16]. No other laboratory parameters, soluble and cellular biomarkers were significantly modified by the treatment with the two JAK-inhibitors.
In light of current evidence, this is the first study evaluating the behavior of biomarkers in response to JAK inhibitors. These biomarkers could represent the expression of two different RA pathophenotypes directing FIL toward a lymphocyte-poor form and UPA toward a myeloid form of rheumatoid arthritis. The baseline suPAR and cCLP levels could therefore guide the different therapeutic choices with UPA or FIL.
The data supporting the findings of this study are available under reasonable request to the corresponding author AA and ER.
Conceptualization, MB; Methodology, MB and FLG; Software, FLG, PF, VG, AD; Validation, VG, MM, MI, Formal Analysis, PF, VG; ER, AD, SG, AA. Investigation, MB and FLG; Data Curation, FLG; Writing— Original Draft Preparation, MB; Writing, Review and Editing, ER, MM, MI; Visualization, ER; Supervision, AA, SG; Project Administration, MB. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. All authors have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to its accuracy or integrity.
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The study involving human participants has been reviewed and approved by the Comitato Etico Area Vasta Centro Florence (Italy) (N.13725). Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
We thank MD Gianluca Pecetti for the statistical analysis.
This research received no external funding.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. AA is serving as one of the editorial board members and the guest editor of this journal. ER served as one of the guest editors of this journal before. We declare that AA and ER had no involvement in the peer review of this article and have no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to GP.
Publisher’s Note: IMR Press stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.