OBJECTIVE To develop criteria for disease activity in systemic sclerosis (SSc) that are valid, reliable, and easy to use. METHODS Investigators from 19 European centres completed a standardised clinical chart for a consecutive number of patients with SSc. Three protocol management members blindly evaluated each chart and assigned a disease activity score on a semiquantitative scale of 0–10. Two of them, in addition, gave a blinded, qualitative evaluation of disease activity (“inactive to moderately active” or “active to very active” disease). Both these evaluations were found to be reliable. A final disease activity score and qualitative evaluation of disease activity were arrived at by consensus for each patient; the former represented the gold standard for subsequent analyses. The correlations between individual items in the chart and this gold standard were then analysed. RESULTS A total of 290 patients with SSc (117 with diffuse SSc (dSSc) and 173 with limited SSc (lSSc)) were enrolled in the study. The items (including Δ-factors—that is, worsening according to the patient report) that were found to correlate with the gold standard on multiple regression were used to construct three separate 10-point indices of disease activity: (a) Δ-cardiopulmonary (4.0), Δ-skin (3.0), Δ-vascular (2.0), and Δ-articular/muscular (1.0) for patients with dSSc; (b) Δ-skin (2.5), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) >30 mm/1st h (2.5), Δ-cardiopulmonary (1.5), Δ-vascular (1.0), arthritis (1.0), hypocomplementaemia (1.0), and scleredema (0.5) for lSSc; (c) Δ-cardiopulmonary (2.0), Δ-skin (2.0), ESR >30 mm/1st h (1.5), total skin score >20 (1.0), hypocomplementaemia (1.0), scleredema (0.5), digital necrosis (0.5), Δ-vascular (0.5), arthritis (0.5), Tlco <80% (0.5) for all patients with SSc. The three indexes were validated by the jackknife technique. Finally, receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed in order to define the value of the index with the best discriminant capacity for “active to very active” patients. CONCLUSIONS Three feasible, reliable, and valid preliminary indices to define disease activity in SSc were constructed.

Metformin (dimethyl biguanide) is a synthetic derivative of guanidine, isolated from the extracts of Galega officinalis, a plant with a prominent antidiabetic effect. Since its discovery more than 50 years ago, metformin represents a worldwide milestone in treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Recent evidence in humans indicates novel pleiotropic actions of metformin which span from its consolidated role in T2D management up to various regulatory properties, including cardio- and nephro-protection, as well as antiproliferative, antifibrotic, and antioxidant effects. These findings, together with ground-breaking studies demonstrating its ability to prolong healthspan and lifespan in mice, provided the basis for defining metformin as a potential antiaging molecule. Moreover, emerging in vivo and in vitro evidence support the novel hypothesis that metformin can exhibit immune-modulatory features. Studies suggest that metformin interferes with key immunopathological mechanisms involved in systemic autoimmune diseases, such as the T helper 17/regulatory T cell balance, germinal centers formation, autoantibodies production, macrophage polarization, cytokine synthesis, neutrophil extracellular traps release, and bone or extracellular matrix remodeling. These effects may represent a powerful contributor to antiaging and anticancer properties exerted by metformin and, from another standpoint, may open the way to assess whether metformin can be a candidate molecule for clinical trials involving patients with immune-mediated diseases. In this article, we will review the available preclinical and clinical evidence regarding the effect of metformin on individual cells of the immune system, with emphasis on immunological mechanisms related to the development and maintenance of autoimmunity and its potential relevance in treatment of autoimmune diseases.

Objectives MAXIMISE (Managing AXIal Manifestations in psorIatic arthritis with SEcukinumab) trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of secukinumab in the management of axial manifestations of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods This phase 3b, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centre 52-week trial included patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with PsA and classified by ClASsification criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) criteria, with spinal pain Visual Analogue Score ≥40/100 and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) score ≥4 despite use of at least two non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were randomised (1:1:1) to secukinumab 300 mg, secukinumab 150 mg or placebo weekly for 4 weeks and every 4 weeks thereafter. At week 12, placebo patients were re-randomised to secukinumab 300/150 mg. Primary endpoint was ASAS20 (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society) response with secukinumab 300 mg at week 12. Results Patients were randomly assigned; 167 to secukinumab 300 mg, 165 to secukinumab 150 mg and 166 to placebo. Secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg significantly improved ASAS20 response versus placebo at week 12 (63% and 66% vs 31% placebo). The OR (95% CI) comparing secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg versus placebo, using a logistic regression model after multiple imputation, was 3.8 (2.4 and 6.1) and 4.4 (2.7 and 7.0; p<0.0001). Conclusions Secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg provided significant improvement in signs and symptoms of axial disease compared with placebo in patients with PsA and axial manifestations with inadequate response to NSAIDs. Trial registration number NCT02721966.

Objective: To further assess the construct validity of the three European Scleroderma Study Group (EScSG) preliminary activity indices for systemic sclerosis (SSc): for SSc as a whole, for diffuse SSc (dcSSc), and for limited SSc (lcSSc). Methods: 30/290 SSc clinical charts collected for the EScSG study used to develop activity criteria for SSc were selected and sent to four clinical experts in SSc. The experts ranked the charts from 1 to 30 (1=lowest activity, 30=highest activity). The relationships among the ranks given by each investigator and each of the three scores, and between any two of the ranks were investigated. Results: A consistently significant correlation (r_s=0.530–0.712) was found between the ranks given by each of the four investigators and the index for the entire patient group. A similar level of agreement was detected between each couple of the four experts (r_s=0.428–0.720). Moreover, the ranks given in patients with an index >3 were significantly higher than those given for patients with an index ⩽3. This cut off point had previously been shown to best discriminate patients with active disease. Conclusions: Of the originally developed activity indexes, the whole series index has been externally validated. The index comprises the first preliminary, but necessary, groundwork to improve the concept of disease activity in SSc, which is still ill defined. It can be used as a preliminary activity index in clinical investigational studies.