Proteomics to predict the response to tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis using a supervised cluster-analysis based protein score

Biomarker-driven development of new therapies for autoimmune diseases: current status and future promises

INTRODUCTION

Auto-immune diseases are complex and heterogeneous. Various types of biomarkers can be used to support precision medicine approaches to autoimmune diseases, ensuring that the right patient receives the most appropriate therapy to improve treatment outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

We review the recent progress made in modeling several autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, primary Sjogren Syndrome, and Rheumatoid Arthritis following extensive molecular profiling of large cohorts of patients. From this knowledge, BMKs are being identified which support diagnostic as well as patient stratification and prediction of response to treatment. The identification of biomarkers should be initiated early in drug development and properly validated during subsequent clinical trials. To ensure the robustness and reproducibility of biomarkers, the PERMIT Consortium recently established recommendations highlighting the importance of relevant study design, sample size, and appropriate validation of analytical methods.

EXPERT OPINION

The integration by AI-powered analytics of massive data provided by multi-omics technologies, high-resolution medical imaging and sensors borne by patients will eventually allow the identification of clinically relevant BMKs, likely in the form of combinatorial predictive algorithms, to support future drug development for autoimmune diseases.

IL-10 Induced by mTNF Crosslinking-Mediated Reverse Signaling in a Whole Blood Assay Is Predictive of Response to TNFi Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

(1) Background: To date, the response of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to the various biologic DMARD available cannot be predicted due to a lack of reliable biomarkers. Based on our preliminary work on tmTNF reverse signaling, we developed a whole-blood assay measuring tmTNF crosslinking-induced IL-10 production to predict the response to TNF inhibitor (TNFi) therapy. (2) Methods: This prospective study included patients with active RA. Depending on the clinical judgment of the attending rheumatologist, either therapy with a TNF or JAK inhibitor was initiated. Clinical parameters and blood samples were obtained at baseline and after 8 weeks of therapy. The blood samples were collected using a newly developed whole-blood assay based on the principle of tmTNF reverse signalling. Subsequently, IL-10 was measured via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. (3) Results: 63 patients with RA were enrolled. In fifteen patients, TNFi therapy was initiated, while eight patients started a JAKi treatment. The cross-sectional analysis of all patients showed a positive correlation between tmTNF crosslinking-induced IL-10 and parameters of disease activity (CRP [r = 0.4091, p = 0.0009], DAS28 [r = 0.3303, p = 0.0082]) at baseline. In the TNFi treatment study, IL-10 was found to be significantly higher in EULAR responders than in non-responders (p = 0.0033). After initiation of JAKi treatment, in contrast, IL-10 induction was not linked to response. Longitudinal analysis of the TNFi-treated patients revealed IL-10 to decrease in responders (p = 0.04), but not in non-responders after 8 weeks of therapy. Of importance, the IL-10 production at baseline correlated inversely with TNFi response determined by ΔDAS28 in patients with TNFi treatment (r = −0.5299, p = 0.0422) while no such link was observed under JAKi therapy (p = 0.22). Receiver operation characteristics (ROC) analysis demonstrated a high performance of tmTNF/crosslinking-induced IL-10 in predicting a TNFi therapy response according to the EULAR criteria (AUC = 0.9286, 95% Confidence interval 0.7825–1.000, p = 0.0055). (4) Conclusions: In this pilot investigation, we demonstrated the feasibility of a whole-blood assay measuring tmTNF-induced IL-10 to predict clinical response to TNF inhibitor treatment. This approach might support rheumatologists in their decision for an individually tailored RA therapy.

Novel approaches to develop biomarkers predicting treatment responses to TNF-blockers

Introduction: Chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) cause significant morbidity and are a considerable burden for the patients in terms of pain, impaired function, and diminished quality of life. Important progress in CID treatment has been obtained with biological therapies, such as tumor-necrosis-factor blockers. However, more than a third of the patients fail to respond to these inhibitors and are exposed to the side effects of treatment, without the benefits. Therefore, there is a strong interest in developing tools to predict response of patients to biologics. Areas covered: The authors searched PubMed for recent studies on biomarkers for disease assessment and prediction of therapeutic responses, focusing on the effect of TNF blockers on immune responses in spondyloarthritis (SpA), and other CID, in particular rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Conclusions will be drawn about the possible development of predictive biomarkers for response to treatment. Expert opinion: No validated biomarker is currently available to predict treatment response in CID. New insight could be generated through the development of new bioinformatic modeling approaches to combine multidimensional biomarkers that explain the different genetic, immunological and environmental determinants of therapeutic responses.

Anti-TROVE2 Antibody Determined by Immune-Related Array May Serve as a Predictive Marker for Adalimumab Immunogenicity and Effectiveness in RA

Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) development is associated with secondary therapeutic failure in biologic-treated rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. With a treat-to-target goal, we aimed to identify biomarkers for predicting ADAb development and therapeutic response in adalimumab-treated patients. Three independent cohorts were enrolled. In Cohort-1, 24 plasma samples (6 ADAb-positive and 6 ADAb-negative patients at baseline and week 24 of adalimumab therapy, respectively) were assayed with immune-related microarray containing 1,636 correctly folded functional proteins. Next, we executed statistically powered autoantibody profiling analysis of 50 samples in Cohort-2 (24 ADAb-positive and 26 ADAb-negative patients). Subsequently, immunofluorescence assay was performed on 48 samples in Cohort-3 to correlate with ADAb titers and drug levels. The biomarkers were identified for predicting ADAb development and therapeutic response using the immune-related microarray and machine learning approach. ADAb-positive patients had lower drug levels at week 24 (median = 0.024 μg/ml) compared with ADAb-negative patients (median = 6.38 μg/ml, p < 0.001). ROC analysis based on the ADAb status revealed the top 20 autoantibodies with AUC ≥ 0.7 in differentiating both groups in Cohort-1. Analysis of Cohort-2 dataset identified a panel of 8 biomarkers (TROVE2, SSB, NDE1, ZHX2, SH3GL1, CARD9, PTPN20, and KLHL12) with 80.6% specificity, 77.4% sensitivity, and 79.0% accuracy in discriminating poor from EULAR responders. Immunofluorescence assay validated that anti-TROVE2 antibody could highly predict ADAb development and poor EULAR response (AUC 0.79 and 0.89, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis proved anti-TROVE2 antibody to be an independent predictor for developing ADAb. Immune-related protein microarray and replication analysis identified anti-TROVE2 antibody as a useful biomarker for predicting ADAb development and therapeutic response in adalimumab-treated patients.

Multiple biomarker approach for the diagnosis and therapy of rheumatoid arthritis

The lack of specific clinical symptoms for patients in the early stage of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has created strong interest in the laboratory diagnosis of RA. The main laboratory markers of RA, rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs), can be found in patients with other pathologies and in healthy donors. Even today, there is no single laboratory test that can diagnosis RA with high sensitivity and specificity. To improve the diagnosis and treatment of RA, alternative biomarkers, including 14-3-3η protein, connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), antibodies against PAD4, antibodies against BRAF, and anti-acetylated and anti-carbamylated protein antibodies have been studied extensively. The use of a multiple biomarker approach, the simultaneous measurement of a set of biomarkers, is an alternative strategy for the diagnosis of RA and for predicting the therapeutic effect of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, despite the large number of studies, only a few biomarker combinations have been validated and can be applied in clinical practice. In this article, results of studies focused on the multiple biomarker approach (both multiplex and combined single-analyte assays) to diagnose RA and to predict response to biological drug therapy are reviewed. Additionally, general factors limiting the use of multiplex analysis in RA diagnostics and therapy are discussed.

Using the Immunophenotype to Predict Response to Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α is a key mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and its discovery led to the development of highly successful anti-TNF therapy. Subsequently, other biologic drugs targeting immune pathways, namely interleukin-6 blockade, B cell depletion, and T cell co-stimulation blockade, have been developed. Not all patients respond to a biologic drug, leading to a knowledge gap between biologic therapies available and the confident prediction of response. So far, genetic studies have failed to uncover clinically informative biomarkers to predict response. Given that the targets of biologics are immune pathways, immunological study has become all the more pertinent. Furthermore, advances in single-cell technology have enabled the characterization of many leucocyte subsets. Studying the blood immunophenotype may therefore, define biomarker profiles relevant to each individual patient's disease and treatment outcome. This review summarises our current understanding of how immune biomarkers might be able to predict treatment response to biologic drugs.