Lesturgie-Talarek Manon, Gonzalez Virginie, Combier Alice, Thomas Marion, Boisson Margaux, Poiroux Lucile, Wanono Sarah, Hecquet Sophie, Carves Sandrine, Cauvet Anne, Allanore Yannick, Avouac Jérôme
INSERM U1016, UMR 8104, Institut Cochin, Paris, France.
Rheumatology Department, Cochin Hospital, APHP, Service de Rhumatologie, Université Paris Cité, 27 Rue du Faubourg St Jacques, 75014, Paris, France.
Sci Rep. 2025 Feb 28;15(1):7159. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-87318-8.
The objective was to pinpoint specific circulating angiogenic and inflammatory markers of refractory and active RA. We used Luminex technology to measure the concentrations of 17 RA-representative serum angiogenic and inflammatory markers in 211 RA patients categorized into three groups: refractory (failure of 2 or more targeted therapies) active (persistence of objective signs of disease activity) RA, non-refractory (failure of ≥ 1 csDMARDs or a first line of targeted therapy) active RA and non-active RA (DAS28 ≤ 3.2). Refractory and non-refractory active RA patients differed in disease duration, structural damage and the utilization of biologic therapy. The concentrations of the 17 markers failed to distinguish refractory from non-refractory RA patients. The comparison of active and non-active RA only revealed a strong increase of IL-6 concentration in active RA. Refractory active RA exhibited a limited correlation profile showing only three correlations with markers of disease activity, not significantly different from whose of non-active RA. By contrast, in non-refractory active RA patients, correlograms revealed an extensive proinflammatory and proangiogenic correlation profile with 12 markers correlating with inflammation markers or disease activity. In conclusion, no classical marker of RA emerged as specific for refractory disease in this study. Moreover, refractory and active RA patients exhibited only few correlations with disease activity markers, despite the persistence of clinical and biological signs of disease activity. This may suggest that additional molecules may be implicated in refractory disease outside those herein selected. These findings also highlight the potential limitations of serum analysis in refractory active RA.
目的是确定难治性和活动性类风湿关节炎(RA)特定的循环血管生成和炎症标志物。我们使用Luminex技术测量了211例RA患者血清中17种具有RA代表性的血管生成和炎症标志物的浓度,这些患者被分为三组:难治性(两种或更多靶向治疗失败)活动性(存在疾病活动客观体征)RA、非难治性(≥1种传统合成改善病情抗风湿药或一线靶向治疗失败)活动性RA和非活动性RA(疾病活动度评分DAS28≤3.2)。难治性和非难治性活动性RA患者在病程、结构损伤和生物治疗的使用方面存在差异。这17种标志物的浓度未能区分难治性和非难治性RA患者。活动性和非活动性RA的比较仅显示活动性RA中白细胞介素-6(IL-6)浓度显著升高。难治性活动性RA表现出有限的相关性图谱,仅显示与疾病活动标志物有三种相关性,与非活动性RA的相关性无显著差异。相比之下,在非难治性活动性RA患者中,相关图显示出广泛的促炎和促血管生成相关性图谱,有12种标志物与炎症标志物或疾病活动相关。总之,在本研究中没有出现可作为难治性疾病特异性标志物的经典RA标志物。此外,尽管存在疾病活动的临床和生物学体征,但难治性和活动性RA患者与疾病活动标志物的相关性很少。这可能表明除了本文所选的分子外,可能还有其他分子与难治性疾病有关。这些发现也凸显了血清分析在难治性活动性RA中的潜在局限性。