Nucleic acid aptamers capable of affine and specific binding to their molecular targets have now established themselves as a very promising alternative to monoclonal antibodies for diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Although the main focus in aptamers’ research and development for biomedicine is made on cardiovascular, infectious, and malignant diseases, the use of aptamers as therapeutic or diagnostic tools in the context of rheumatic diseases is no less important. In this review, we consider the main features of aptamers that make them valuable molecular tools for rheumatologists, and summarize the studies on the selection and application of aptamers for protein biomarkers associated with rheumatic diseases. We discuss the progress in the development of aptamer-based diagnostic assays and targeted therapeutics for rheumatic disorders, future prospects in the field, and issues that have yet to be addressed.

Osteoporosis is becoming a “silent pandemic” because of its ever-increasing prevalence and the absence of clinical manifestations until a bone fracture happens. The purpose of this review is to summarize the actual data on the pathogenesis of osteoporosis and its treatment options. The disease develops through a multifactorial process involving an imbalance between bone remodeling and different factors like genetics, non-coding RNA regulation, osteoimmune dysregulation, oxidative stress, cellular senescence, and fat–bone interactions. Existing medications have beneficial effects by preserving and increasing bone density and reducing the risk of fractures. Among them, there are bisphosphonates, strontium ranelate, calcitonin, estrogen-progestin therapy, selective estrogen receptor modulators, and parathyroid hormone analogues. Otherwise, they suffer from certain disadvantages, such as adverse effects, including serious ones, and limitations associated with comorbidity. Targeting pathways underlying bone metabolism could significantly improve the therapeutic options and provide new tools in the fight against osteoporosis. We consider here targeted therapeutics that are already in clinical practice, as well as the most promising novel agents that are now under development: antibodies, siRNAs, aptamers, and small molecules.

Background. Currently, observations are accumulating indicating the negative effect of therapy with a number of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) drugs on the course of COVID-19. These facts determine the relevance of studying the factors of severe course and unfavorable outcome in immuno-inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IIRD) patients treated with bDMARDs in order to develop tactics for managing this category of patients in a pandemic. Aim. To evaluate the influence of clinical and demographic factors on the risk of development, severity of the course and clinical outcomes of a new coronavirus infection in patients suffering from IIRD and receiving therapy with genetically engineered biological drugs. Materials and methods. A retrospective analysis of the database of the register of patients with IIRD receiving bDMARDs in the Novosibirsk region was performed, which included 318 patients, 94 of whom had indications of having suffered viral infection/pneumonia for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.12.2020. Results. According to the data obtained, at the time of the analysis, 94 people out of 318 patients with IIRD had a new coronavirus infection. Most (53%) of the patients had a mild infection. At the same time, the nosological form, the use of anti-rheumatic drugs and glucocorticoids did not increase the risks of severe coronavirus infection. When using bDMARDs, only anti-B-cell therapy (rituximab) associated with statistically significant increase in the risk of severe/extremely severe COVID-19. The mortality rate according to the analysis of the register was 6,38%. Conclusion. Patients with IIRD have a high risk of severe coronavirus infection, while the severity of the disease is associated with the type of therapy performed.

Background: fracture risks assessment and determination of bone mineral density are modern methods, generally accepted and widely used. However, they have limitations and disadvantages for the dynamic evaluation of bone remodeling processes in RA-patients with low BMD. The investigation of bone resorption markers is an important issue. Aims: to compare the antiresorptive activity of denosumab and alendronic acid in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis using β-CTX and osteocalcin (OC). Materials and methods: forty-two patients were included in the study (16 patients were treated with denosumab, 13 patients – with alendronic acid, 13 patients - control group without any osteoporosis treatment). The quantitative determination of β-CTX and OC as well as dual-energy X-ray absorptionometry (DXA) were carried out for all patients at the first visit with consecutive investigation of bone resorption markers 3 months after. The predictive capacity was determined using the ratio of observed fractures/expected fractures by FRAX. Results: The level of β-CTX 16% (median 861.6 pg/ml vs. 724.6 pg/ml, p = 0.049) and OC 39% (median 13.9 ng/ml vs 8.5 ng/ml, p = 0.047) decreased significantly in 3 month in RA patients treated with denosumab. The decrease of β-CTX (median 858.9 pg/ml vs. 821.8 pg/ml) and OC (median 14.8 ng/ml vs. 13.9 ng/ml) was observed in the group of patients treated with alendronic acid, but not reached statistical significance. Conclusions: denosumab had showed better antiresorptive activity compared with bisphosphonates, which was registered 3 month after the start of the treatment.

Vitaly Omelchenko, M.D., Elena Letyagina, M.D., Maxim Korolev, M.D.. J Rheum Dis -0001;0:. https://doi.org/10.4078/jrd.2024.0040

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly changed the understanding of the safety profile of therapies for immunoinflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). This is primarily due to the negative impact of a number of basic anti-inflammatory drugs (DMARDs) and biological DMARDs on the course and outcomes of a new coronavirus infection. A number of studies have shown that anti-B-cell therapy (rituximab) gave a statistically significant increase in the risk of severe COVID-19 and an increase in mortality. At the same time, the analysis of real clinical practice data dictated the need to establish a number of restrictions on the use of certain classes of biological DMARDs and to search for alternative therapy programs to maintain control over disease activity.Purpose of the study – to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the drug Artlegia® (olokizumab), solution for subcuta neous injection, 160 mg/ml – 0.4 ml, manufactured by R-Pharm JSC, Russia) for the treatment of patients with rheuma toid arthritis in real clinical practice after switching with rituximab during the COVID-19 pandemic.Materials and methods. The study included 14 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), who were previously on rituximab therapy at a dose of 1000–500 mg twice with an interval of 2 weeks, who received at least one course of therapy with this drug. As RA worsened, patients were switched to olokizumab against the background of standard DMARDs. At 4, 8, 12 weeks after the switch, the severity of pain was assessed on the VAS scale, the number of painful and swollen joints (TJC28 and TSC28), the level of acute phase markers of inflammation, the DAS28 disease activity index calculated using ESR and CRP, and the CDAI (clinical activity index), functional state index HAQ, as well as assessment of the safety profile of therapy.Results. Data analysis was performed using median values (Me) were used for data analysis. A significant decrease of TJC28 was after the injection of olokizumab (Artlegia®) in 8 and 12 weeks (Me baseline = 10; Me 8 weeks = 4; Me 12 weeks = 4; p<0.05) and a decrease of TSC28 in 4, 8 and 12 weeks (Me baseline = 9; Me 4 weeks = 3.5; Me 8 weeks = 2.5; Me 12 weeks = 2.0; p<0.05). Laboratory markers of inflammation showed a decrease in CRP and ESR levels after 4 weeks of treatment (CRP: Me baseline = 21, Me 4 weeks = 1 (p<0.05); ESR: Me baseline = 31, Me 4 weeks = 7 (p<0.05)). Positive dynamics persisted at 8 and 12 weeks (CRP: Me 8 weeks = 1, Me 12 weeks = 0; ESR: Me 8 weeks = 4, Me 12 weeks = 5). The level of CRP by the fourth week 4 became within the normal range, regardless of the initial values. All activity indices improved from the fourth week in each evaluation period compared to baseline: DAS28-ESR: Me baseline = 5.52, Me 4 weeks = 3.59, Me 8 weeks = 3.33, Me 12 weeks = 3.22 (p<0.05); DAS28-CRP: Me baseline = 5.39, Me 4 weeks = 3.71, Me 8 weeks = 3.35, Me 12 weeks = 3.45 (p<0.05); CDAI: Me baseline = 28.5, Me 4 weeks = 18.0, Me 8 weeks = 16.5, Me 12 weeks = 16.0 (p<0.05). All patients showed a reduction in pain (VAS scale) by week 8. The functional status of patients, according to the HAQ index, showed a significant decrease only by the 12th week of the study: Me baseline = 1.62, Me 12 weeks = 1.31 (p<0.05).Conclusion. The study found that switching from rituximab to olokizumab was effective and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.