Background Based on current evidence, recent guidelines of the National Institute of Health, USA indicated the use of remdesivir and dexamethasone for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with mild-moderate disease, not requiring high-flow oxygen. No therapeutic agent directed against the immunologic pathogenic mechanisms related to the cytokine release syndrome complicating the disease was indicated. Objectives The purpose of this review was to assess the clinical impact of different therapies for COVID-19; thus, helping to identify the optimal management of the disease. To explain the rationale for the different therapeutic approaches, the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, the pathogenesis of COVID-19, and the immune response triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection were reported. Methods The efficacy assessment of the different treatments was performed by a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Available English language published articles including randomised controlled trials, open-label trials of antivirals and immune therapies extracted from Medline, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv databases were analysed. For inclusion, the primary end point of the trials had to be the efficacy as measured by the improvement of clinical features, or mortality, or the Intensive Care Unit Admission rate, or the discharge number. Case reports, paediatric studies, and studies without control group were excluded. The literature search was extended up to August 15, 2020. Results After the removal of duplicate articles, and the exclusion of studies not meeting the eligibility criteria, 2 trials of lopinavir/ritonavir, 1 of favipiravir, 3 of remdesivir, 1 of dexamethasone, 3 of hydroxychloroquine, 2 of colchicine, 6 of tocilizumab, 1 of sarilumab, 1 of siltuximab, 2 of anakinra, 3 of baricitinib, 1 of ruxolitinib, 1 of mavrilimumab, and 1 of itolizumab were suitable for the review. Among antivirals, only remdesivir significantly reduced the time to recovery, and mortality. Data for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were largely inconclusive. In a large trial, dexamethasone 6 mg/day reduced mortality by one-third. Trials of tocilizumab and sarilumab did not definitively demonstrate efficacy. Anakinra significantly reduced the mortality in 2 trials. Three retrospective trials on a cumulative number of 145 patients, reported the efficacy of baricitinib, with significant reduction of intensive care unit admission, and deaths. These results were recently confirmed by the ACTT-2 trial. Due to paucity of studies and to the small size clinical series, the results of other immune therapies were not conclusive. Conclusions Beyond the supportive therapy, up to now the best therapeutic approach for COVID-19 may be a three-step combination therapy, including remdesivir 100 mg/day (200 mg loading dose on first day) in the first stage of the disease, and combined dexamethasone 6 mg/day plus baricitinib 4 mg/day to target the immune dysregulation triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The promising results of anakinra should be confirmed by the ongoing RCTs.

Objective To describe demographic, clinical and laboratory features of systemic sclerosis sine scleroderma (ssSSc) in a large multicentre systemic sclerosis (SSc) cohort. Methods Data involving 1808 SSc patients from Italian Systemic sclerosis PRogression INvestiGation registry were collected. The ssSSc was defined by the absence of any cutaneous sclerosis and/or puffy fingers. Clinical and serological features of ssSSc were compared with limited cutaneous (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc) subsets. Results Among patients with SSc, only 61 (3.4%) were classified as having ssSSc (F/M=19/1). Time from Raynaud’s phenomenon (RP) onset to diagnosis was longer in ssSSc (3 years, IQR 1–16.5) than lcSSc (2 years, IQR 0–7), and dcSSc (1 year, IQR 0–3) (p<0.001). Clinical ssSSc phenotype was comparable to lcSSc, except for digital pitting scars (DPS) (19.7% vs 42%, p=0.01), but significantly milder than dcSSc, particularly for digital ulcers (DU) (6.6% vs 35.7%, p<0.001), oesophagus (46.2% vs 63.5%, p=0.009), lung (mean diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide 72.2±19.6 vs 62.4±22.8, p=0.009; mean forced vital capacity 105.6±21.7 vs 89.2±20.9, p<0.001) and major videocapillaroscopic alterations (late pattern 8.6% vs 47.6%, p<0.001). Moreover, in ssSSc the percentages of anticentromere and antitopoisomerase were comparable to lcSSc (40% and 18.3% vs 36.7% and 26.6%), but divergent respect to dcSSc (8.6% and 67.4%, p<0.001). Conclusion The ssSSc is a quite rare disease variant characterised by clinico-serological features comparable to lcSSc, but significantly different from dcSSc. Overall, longer RP duration, low percentages of DPS and peripheral microvascular abnormalities, and increased anti-centromere seropositivity distinguish ssSSc. Further investigations based on national registries might provide useful insights on the actual relevance of the ssSSc within the scleroderma spectrum.

Intravenous iloprost is a first-line option for the treatment of scleroderma-related digital vasculopathy, and some studies have suggested its favourable role on disease progression. The aim of our study is to evaluate the disease progression, specifically in terms of cardiopulmonary function, in a group of consecutive patients chronically treated with intravenous iloprost. Our retrospective study enrolled 68 scleroderma patients (68 F, 54.4 ± 12.3 years) treated with iloprost for 7.1 ± 2.9 years, with a schedule of 5–6 consecutive daily infusions per month (6 h/day, 0.5–2.0 ng/kg/min). In all patients, modified Rodnan skin score (4.7 ± 5.3 vs. 3.7 ± 5.3, p < 0.0001), systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (sPAP) (30.9 ± 6.4 vs. 24.0 ± 3.2 mmHg, p < 0.0001), tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (22.1 ± 2.4 vs. 23.8 ± 3.5 mm, p = 0.0001), pro-brain natriuretic peptide (97.2 ± 69.3 vs. 65.8 ± 31.7 pg/ml, p = 0.0005) showed statistically significant improvement from baseline. In the subgroup of patients with baseline sPAP ≥36 mmHg (n = 17), a significant sPAP reduction was observed (from 39.5 ± 3.8 to 25.1 ± 4.5 mmHg, p < 0.0001) after 7.6 ± 2.5 years of follow-up. The number of patients with digital ulcers (DUs) at follow-up was reduced from baseline (42.6 vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001), and none of the free-DU patients at baseline presented DUs at follow-up. An intensive and chronic regimen of IV iloprost administration seems to stabilize and potentially improve the long-term development of disease in SSc patients, as suggested by stabilization or significant improvement of cardiopulmonary parameters and vasculopathy.

Scleroderma-like disorders include a set of entities involving cutis, subcutis and, sometimes, even muscular tissue, caused by several pathogenetic mechanisms responsible for different clinical–pathological pictures. The absence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), Raynaud’s phenomenon and capillaroscopic anomalies constitutes an important element of differential diagnosis with systemic sclerosis. When scleroderma can be excluded, on the basis of the main body sites, clinical evolution, any associated pathological conditions and specific histological features, it is possible to make a correct diagnosis.

Background: Tofacitinib (TOFA) was the first Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, data on the retention rate of TOFA therapy are still far from definitive. Objective: The goal of this study is to add new real-world data on the TOFA retention rate in a cohort of RA patients followed for a long period of time. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study of RA subjects treated with TOFA as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) was conducted in 23 Italian tertiary rheumatology centers. The study considered a treatment period of up to 48 months for all included patients. The TOFA retention rate was assessed with the Kaplan–Meier method. Hazard ratios (HRs) for TOFA discontinuation were obtained using Cox regression analysis. Results: We enrolled a total of 213 patients. Data analysis revealed that the TOFA retention rate was 86.5% (95% CI: 81.8–91.5%) at month 12, 78.8% (95% CI: 78.8–85.2%) at month 24, 63.8% (95% CI: 55.1–73.8%) at month 36, and 59.9% (95% CI: 55.1–73.8%) at month 48 after starting treatment. None of the factors analyzed, including the number of previous treatments received, disease activity or duration, presence of rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrullinated protein antibody, and presence of comorbidities, were predictive of the TOFA retention rate. Safety data were comparable to those reported in the registration studies. Conclusions: TOFA demonstrated a long retention rate in RA in a real-world setting. This result, together with the safety data obtained, underscores that TOFA is a viable alternative for patients who have failed treatment with csDMARD and/or biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs). Further large, long-term observational studies are urgently needed to confirm these results.