METHODS: BV2 microglia cell suspensions were prepared with type I collagen and cast into culture plates. To characterise the BV2 microglia cultured in 3D, the cultures were evaluated for their viability, cell morphology and response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) activation. Conventional monolayer cultures (grown on uncoated and collagen-coated polystyrene) were set up concurrently for comparison.
RESULTS: BV2 microglia in 3D collagen matrices were viable at 48 hrs of culture and exhibit a ramified morphology with multiplanar cytoplasmic projections. Following stimulation with 1 μg/ml LPS, microglia cultured in 3D collagen gels increase their expression of nitric oxide (NO) and CD40, indicating their capacity to become activated within the matrix. Up to 97.8% of BV2 microglia grown in 3D cultures gained CD40 positivity in response to LPS, compared to approximately 60% of cells grown in a monolayer (P
METHODS: In this phase Ib, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients received AMG 557 210 mg (n = 10) or placebo (n = 10) weekly for 3 weeks, then every other week for 10 additional doses. The corticosteroid dosage was tapered to ≤7.5 mg/day by day 85, and immunosuppressants were discontinued by day 29. Primary end points on day 169 were safety, immunogenicity, the Lupus Arthritis Response Index (LARI; defined by a reduction in the tender and swollen joint counts), ≥1-letter improvement in the musculoskeletal domain of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index, and medication discontinuation. The secondary/exploratory end points were changes in the tender and swollen joint counts, BILAG index scores (musculoskeletal, global), and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI).
RESULTS: The incidence of adverse events, most of which were mild, was similar between groups. LARI responses occurred in 3 of 10 patients receiving AMG 557 and 1 of 10 patients receiving placebo (P = 0.58). More patients in the AMG 557 group achieved a ≥4-point improvement in the SLEDAI score on day 169 (7 of 10 patients) compared with the placebo group (2 of 10 patients) (P = 0.07). Patients treated with AMG 557 (versus placebo) had greater improvements from baseline in the global BILAG index scores (-36.3% versus -24.7%) and the SLEDAI score (-47.8% versus -10.7%) and in tender (-22.8% versus -13.5%) and swollen (-62.1% versus -7.8%) joint counts on day 169.
CONCLUSION: AMG 557 showed safety and potential efficacy, supporting further evaluation of the clinical efficacy of ICOSL blockade in patients with SLE.
METHODS: All the patients with end-stage heart failure (ESHF) and implanted LVAD who underwent LSG from2013 to January 2017 were studied.
RESULTS: Seven patients with end stage heart failure (ESHF) and implanted LVAD were included. The median age and median preoperative BMI were 39 years (range: 26-62) and 43.6 kg/m2 (range 36.7-56.7), respectively. The median interval between LVAD implantation and LSG was 38 months (range 15-48). The median length of hospital stay was 9 days (rang: 6-23) out of which 4 patients had planned postoperative ICU admission. Thirty-day complications were noted in 5 patients (3 major and 2 minor) without any perioperative mortality. The median duration of follow-up was 24 months (range 2-30). At the last available follow-up, the median BMI, %EWL, and %TWL were 37 kg/m2, 47%, and 16%, respectively. The median LVEF before LSG and at the last follow-up point (before heart transplant) was 19% (range 15-20) and 22% (range, 16-35), respectively. In addition, the median NYHA class improved from 3 to 2 after LSG. Three patients underwent successful heart transplantations.
CONCLUSION: Patients with morbid obesity, ESHF, and implanted LVAD constitute a high-risk cohort. Our results with 7 patients and result from other studies (19 patients) suggested that bariatric surgery may be a reasonable option for LVAD patients with severe obesity. Bariatric surgery appears to provide significant weight loss in these patients and may improve candidacy for heart transplantation.
RESULTS: iCLIP analysis found SAFB1 binding was enriched, specifically in exons, ncRNAs, 3' and 5' untranslated regions. SAFB1 was found to recognise a purine-rich GAAGA motif with the highest frequency and it is therefore likely to bind core AGA, GAA, or AAG motifs. Confirmatory RT-PCR experiments showed that the expression of coding and non-coding genes with SAFB1 cross-link sites was altered by SAFB1 knockdown. For example, we found that the isoform-specific expression of neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM1) and ASTN2 was influenced by SAFB1 and that the processing of miR-19a from the miR-17-92 cluster was regulated by SAFB1. These data suggest SAFB1 may influence alternative splicing and, using an NCAM1 minigene, we showed that SAFB1 knockdown altered the expression of two of the three NCAM1 alternative spliced isoforms. However, when the AGA, GAA, and AAG motifs were mutated, SAFB1 knockdown no longer mediated a decrease in the NCAM1 9-10 alternative spliced form. To further investigate the association of SAFB1 with splicing we used exon array analysis and found SAFB1 knockdown mediated the statistically significant up- and downregulation of alternative exons. Further analysis using RNAmotifs to investigate the frequency of association between the motif pairs (AGA followed by AGA, GAA or AAG) and alternative spliced exons found there was a highly significant correlation with downregulated exons. Together, our data suggest SAFB1 will play an important physiological role in the central nervous system regulating synaptic function. We found that SAFB1 regulates dendritic spine density in hippocampal neurons and hence provide empirical evidence supporting this conclusion.
CONCLUSIONS: iCLIP showed that SAFB1 has previously uncharacterised specific RNA binding properties that help coordinate the isoform-specific expression of coding and non-coding genes. These genes regulate splicing, axonal and synaptic function, and are associated with neuropsychiatric disease, suggesting that SAFB1 is an important regulator of key neuronal processes.
METHODS: In this phase Ib, randomised, multiple-dose escalation study (NCT00818948), subjects without LN were randomised to subcutaneous AMG 811 (6, 20 or 60 mg) or placebo and subjects with LN were randomised to subcutaneous AMG 811 (20, 60 or 120 mg) or placebo every four weeks for three total doses. Outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs); pharmacokinetics; levels of serum proteins (CXCL-10, interleukin 18, monocyte chemotactic protein-1); changes in gene transcript profiles and clinical parameters (Safety of Estrogen in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment-Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SELENA-SLEDAI) scores, proteinuria, anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibodies, C3 complement, C4 complement).
RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects enrolled (28 SLE without LN; 28 with LN). Baseline mean SELENA-SLEDAI scores were 2.2 and 12.0 for SLE subjects without and with LN, respectively. Most subjects reported an AE; no meaningful imbalances were observed between AMG 811 and placebo. Pharmacokinetic profiles were similar and mostly dose-proportional in subjects without or with LN. AMG 811 treatment reduced CXCL-10 protein levels and blood-based RNA IFN-γ Blockade Signature compared with placebo. Reductions were less pronounced and not sustained in subjects with LN, even at the highest dose tested, compared with subjects without LN. No effect on SELENA-SLEDAI scores, proteinuria, C3 or C4 complement levels, or anti-dsDNA antibodies was observed.
CONCLUSION: AMG 811 demonstrated favourable pharmacokinetics and acceptable safety profile but no evidence of clinical impact. IFN-γ-associated biomarkers decreased with AMG 811; effects were less pronounced and not sustained in LN subjects.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00818948; results.
METHODS: The study was based on data from 7035 fully vaccinated respondents to the online COVAD questionnaire with SLE (N = 852), rAIDs (N = 3098), or nrAIDs (N = 414), and HCs (N = 2671). BI was defined as COVID-19 infection occurring in individuals vaccinated with ≥ 2 doses (or 1 dose of J&J) ≥ 14 days after vaccination and not after 6 months since the last vaccine dose. Data were analysed using linear and logistic regression models.
RESULTS: A total of 91/852 (10.7%) SLE patients reported at least one BI. The frequency of BIs in SLE patients was comparable to that among HCs (277/2671; p = 0.847) and patients with nrAID (39/414; p = 0.552) but higher than that among patients with other rAIDs (235/3098; p = 0.005). No demographic factors or treatments were associated with BIs in SLE patients (p ≥ 0.05 for all). Joint pain was more frequent in SLE patients than in HCs (odds ratio [OR]: 3.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.89-6.04; p
METHODS: Demographics, diagnosis, comorbidities, disease activity, treatments and PROMIS instrument data were analysed. Primary outcomes were PROMIS Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores. Factors affecting GPH and GMH scores in IIMs were identified using multivariable regression analysis.
RESULTS: We analysed responses from 1582 IIM, 4700 non-IIM AIRD and 545 nrAID patients and 3675 controls gathered through 23 May 2022. The median GPH scores were the lowest in IIM and non-IIM AIRD patients {13 [interquartile range (IQR) 10-15] IIMs vs 13 [11-15] non-IIM AIRDs vs 15 [13-17] nrAIDs vs 17 [15-18] controls, P
METHODS: The first and second COVAD patient self-reported e-surveys were circulated from March to December 2021, and February to June 2022 (ongoing). We collected data on demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 infection and vaccination history, reasons for hesitancy, and patient reported outcomes. Predictors of hesitancy were analysed using regression models in different groups.
RESULTS: We analysed data from 18 882 (COVAD-1) and 7666 (COVAD-2) respondents. Reassuringly, hesitancy decreased from 2021 (16.5%) to 2022 (5.1%) (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.24, 0.30, P
METHODS: The COVAD surveys were used to extract data on flare demographics, comorbidities, COVID-19 history, and vaccination details for patients with AIRDs. Flares following vaccination were identified as patient-reported (a), increased immunosuppression (b), clinical exacerbations (c) and worsening of PROMIS scores (d). We studied flare characteristics and used regression models to differentiate flares among various AIRDs.
RESULTS: Of 15 165 total responses, the incidence of flares in 3453 patients with AIRDs was 11.3%, 14.8%, 9.5% and 26.7% by definitions a-d, respectively. There was moderate agreement between patient-reported and immunosuppression-defined flares (K = 0.403, P = 0.022). Arthritis (61.6%) and fatigue (58.8%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. Self-reported flares were associated with higher comorbidities (P = 0.013), mental health disorders (MHDs) (P
METHODS: The COVAD-1 and -2 global surveys were circulated in early 2021 and 2022, respectively, and we captured demographics, comorbidities, AIRDs details, COVID-19 infection history and vaccination details. Flares of IIMs were defined as (a) patient self-reported, (b) immunosuppression (IS) denoted, (c) clinical sign directed and (d) with >7.9-point minimal clinically significant improvement difference worsening of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) PROMISPF10a score. Risk factors of flares were analysed using regression models.
RESULTS: Of 15 165 total respondents, 1278 IIMs (age 63 years, 70.3% female, 80.8% Caucasians) and 3453 AIRDs were included. Flares of IIM were seen in 9.6%, 12.7%, 8.7% and 19.6% patients by definitions (a) to (d), respectively, with a median time to flare of 71.5 (10.7-235) days, similar to AIRDs. Patients with active IIMs pre-vaccination (OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.03, 1.6, P = 0.025) were prone to flares, while those receiving rituximab (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1, 0.7, P = 0.010) and AZA (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1, 0.8, P = 0.016) were at lower risk. Female gender and comorbidities predisposed to flares requiring changes in IS. Asthma (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.05, 2.50, P = 0.028) and higher pain visual analogue score (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.11, 1.27, P
METHODS: Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares and AID-related treatment modifications were analysed upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine.
RESULTS: Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, P = 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, P = 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, P
METHODS: A validated patient self-reporting e-survey was circulated by the COVAD study group to collect data on COVID-19 infection and vaccination in 2022. BIs were defined as COVID-19 occurring ≥14 days after two vaccine doses. We compared BI characteristics and severity among patients with IIMs, patients with other autoimmune rheumatic and non-rheumatic diseases (AIRD, nrAID), and healthy controls (HCs). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess the risk factors for BI, severe BI ,and hospitalizations among patients with IIMs.
RESULTS: Among the 9449 included responses, BIs occurred in 1447 respondents (15.3%). The median age was 44 years [interquartile range (IQR) 21], 77.4% were female, and 182 BIs (12.9%) occurred among the 1406 patients with IIMs. Multivariable Cox regression among the data for patients with IIMs showed increasing age to be a protective factor for BIs [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97-0.99], and HCQ and SSZ use were risk factors (HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.24-2.64, and HR = 3.79, 95% CI = 1.69-8.42, respectively). Glucocorticoid use was a risk factor for a severe BI (HR = 3.61, 95% CI = 1.09-11.8). Non-white ethnicity (HR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.03-6.59) was a risk factor for hospitalization. Compared with other groups, patients with IIMs required more supplemental oxygen therapy (IIMs = 6.0% vs AIRDs = 1.8%, nrAIDs = 2.2% and HCs = 0.9%), intensive care unit admission (IIMs = 2.2% vs AIRDs = 0.6%, nrAIDs and HCs = 0%), advanced treatment with antiviral or monoclonal antibodies (IIMs = 34.1% vs AIRDs = 25.8%, nrAIDs = 14.6% and HCs = 12.8%) and had more hospitalization (IIMs = 7.7% vs AIRDs = 4.6%, nrAIDs = 1.1% and HCs = 1.5%).
CONCLUSION: Patients with IIMs are susceptible to severe COVID-19 BIs. Age and immunosuppressive treatments were related to the risk of BIs.