Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by articular and systemic manifestations, such as anemia, fatigue, osteoporosis, and increased risk for cardiovascular diseases. The pathogenesis of RA is driven by a complex network of proinflammatory cytokines, with a pivotal role of IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF). The management of RA has been dramatically changed during the last years by the introduction of a treat-to-target approach aiming to achieve an acceptable disease control. Nowadays, TNF inhibitors (TNFis) are the most frequently prescribed class of biologic therapies, but the significant proportion of patients experiencing the failure of a TNFi led to the development of alternative therapeutic options targeted on different pathways. Considering the increasing number of targeted therapeutic options for RA, there is a growing interest in the identification of potential predictors of clinical response to each available mechanism of action, with the aim to drive the management of the disease toward a personalized approach according to the concept of precision medicine. Tocilizumab (TCZ) is the first humanized anti-IL-6 receptor subunit alpha (anti-IL-6R) monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of RA refractory to methotrexate or TNFis. TCZ inhibits both the cis- and trans-signaling cascades involving the Janus kinase-signal transducer and the activator of transcription pathway, playing a crucial role in modulating not only joint inflammation but also the previously mentioned extra-articular manifestations and comorbidities of RA, such as fatigue, anemia, bone loss, depression, type 2 diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk. In this review, moving from pathogenetic insights and evidence-based clinical data from randomized controlled trials and real-life observational studies, we will discuss the drivers for the selection of patient candidates to receive TCZ, in order to clarify the current positioning of this drug in the treatment algorithm of RA.

In recent years the use of biotechnological agents has drastically revolutionized the therapeutic approach and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, interleukin-6 (IL-6) has been demonstrated as a pivotal cytokine in the pathogenesis of the disease by contributing to both the innate and the adaptive immune system perturbation, and to the production of acute-phase proteins involved in the systemic expression of the disorder. The first marketed IL-6 blocker was tocilizumab, a humanized anti-IL-6 receptor (anti-IL-6R) monoclonal antibody. The successful use of tocilizumab in RA has encouraged the development of other biologic agents specifically targeting the IL-6 pathway, either directed against IL-6 cytokine (sirukumab, olokizumab, and clazakizumab) or IL-6 receptor (sarilumab). One Phase II and six Phase III randomized controlled trials demonstrated a broad efficacy of sarilumab across all RA patient subtypes, ranging from methotrexate (MTX) to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor insufficient responders. In particular, sarilumab as monotherapy demonstrated a clear head-to-head superiority over adalimumab in MTX-intolerant subjects. In addition, compared with tocilizumab, sarilumab showed a similar safety profile with significantly higher affinity and longer half-life, responsible for a reduction of the frequency of administration (every other week instead weekly). All these aspects may be important in defining the strategy for positioning sarilumab in the treatment algorithm of RA. Indeed, observational data coming from post-marketing real-life studies may provide crucial additional information for better understanding the role of sarilumab in the management of the disease. This review summarizes both the biological role of IL-6 in RA and the clinical data available on sarilumab as an alternative therapeutic option in RA patients.

Objective: To evaluate the 12‐year survival of the first tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, comparing the between‐groups discontinuation rates for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab.Methods: RA patients treated with their first TNFi were investigated from a local registry. Before and after adjusting for propensity scores, overall and by individual TNFi 12‐year drug retention was evaluated. Drug survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan‐Meier method and compared by the Cox extended model. Subanalyses were performed according to concomitant methotrexate (MTX) and discontinuation reasons.Results: Of 583 patients, 222 were treated with infliximab, 179 with etanercept, and 182 with adalimumab; 33.7% and 26% discontinued the first TNFi because of inefficacy or adverse events, respectively. The overall 12‐year drug survival rate for the unmatched population was 23.4%. In the propensity score–adjusted population, the hazard ratio (HR) for treatment discontinuation was significantly greater for adalimumab and infliximab versus etanercept (HR 2.89 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.2–3.78] and HR 2.56 [95% CI 1.92–3.4], respectively), and no difference was found between and for adalimumab versus infliximab (HR 1.16 [95% CI 0.91–1.47]). The incidence of withdrawal due to secondary inefficacy was stable from 3 to 12 years for etanercept, but progressively increased for the monoclonal antibodies. Concomitant MTX significantly increased the survival of both adalimumab and etanercept (HR 1.48 [95% CI 1.18–1.86]).Conclusion: The overall 12‐year drug survival rate was 23.4%, being significantly higher for etanercept than adalimumab and infliximab. Etanercept discontinuations for inefficacy did not increase from 3 to 12 years. Concomitant MTX increased adalimumab and etanercept drug survival.

Objective To study, in a real-life setting, the construct validity, the reliability, and the interpretability of the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID-12) questionnaire in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods In 144 consecutive patients with PsA (81 men and 63 women, mean age of 51.4 ± 12.8 yrs, and 77 receiving biologic treatment), the PsAID-12 and other patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were collected, such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Each patient underwent articular and skin assessment. Results Construct validity: Factor analysis revealed a 2-factor result defined as the PsAID Symptom Score and the PsAID Skin Score. In determining convergent validity, significant correlations were found between the PsAID-12 and the clinical Disease Activity index for Psoriatic Arthritis (cDAPSA; ρ = 0.867, p < 0.0001). Multivariable analysis showed that the PsAID-12 is determined by the articular disease activity (cDAPSA, p < 0.0001), severity of psoriasis (PsO; physician’s global assessment, p < 0.0001), and the presence of a coexisting fibromyalgia (FM; p < 0.0001). Reliability: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.93 for the total PsAID-12. Interpretability: Applying the cDAPSA categorization of disease activity states, the PsAID-12 cutoff values resulted in 1.4 between remission and low disease activity (LDA), 4.1 between LDA and moderate disease activity (MDA), and 6.7 between MDA and high disease activity. Conclusion The PsAID-12 is an excellent PRO to evaluate the effect of PsA. It should be carefully handled in patients with coexisting FM.