Explore the vast range of titles available.

Key Points IL-6 can signal via the membrane-bound and the soluble IL-6 receptor (IL-6R); classic signalling via the membrane-bound receptor is regenerative and protects from bacterial infections, whereas trans-signalling via the soluble receptor is proinflammatory The soluble gp130Fc fusion protein specifically blocks IL-6 trans-signalling without affecting classic signalling Preclinical models strongly suggest the efficacy of IL-6-directed therapies for a variety of immunological conditions The approval and use of tocilizumab, a first-in-class human monoclonal antibody directed at IL-6R, has demonstrated that this strategy is both highly effective and safe New agents with unique bioengineering features targeting either IL-6 or the soluble IL-6R, with varying selectivity for classic signalling and trans-signalling pathways, are entering clinical trials and offer alternative strategies for IL-6-based therapies Selective IL-6-based therapeutic targeting has several unique toxicity signatures, including paradoxical effects on surrogate markers of cardiovascular risk, and awaits clinical studies to determine net effects on morbidity and mortality IL-6 has been linked to numerous inflammatory conditions (such as rheumatoid arthritis), and many IL-6-directed therapies are currently in development. The authors outline the basic biology of IL-6 and IL-6 signalling pathways before discussing the clinical implications of targeting IL-6 in the context of rheumatic diseases. Current and future indications for the use of IL-6-targeted therapies and safety of these agents are discussed. IL-6 has been linked to numerous diseases associated with inflammation, including rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, vasculitis and several types of cancer. Moreover, IL-6 is important in the induction of hepatic acute-phase proteins for the trafficking of acute and chronic inflammatory cells, the differentiation of adaptive T-cell responses, and tissue regeneration and homeostatic regulation. Studies have investigated IL-6 biology using cell-bound IL-6 receptors expressed predominantly on hepatocytes and certain haematopoietic cells versus activation mediated by IL-6 and soluble IL-6 receptors via a second protein, gp130, which is expressed throughout the body. Advances in this research elucidating the differential effects of IL-6 activation provide important insights into the role of IL-6 in health and disease, as well as its potential as a therapeutic target. Knowledge of the basic biology of IL-6 and its signalling pathways can better inform both the research agenda for IL-6-based targeted therapies as well as the clinical use of strategies affecting IL-6-mediated inflammation. This Review covers novel, emerging aspects of the biology of IL-6, which might lead to more specific blockade of IL-6 signalling without compromising the protective function of this cytokine in the body's defence against infections.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of cancer, but a rapid rise in the use of the family of therapeutic agents known as checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) is associated with a new group of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in almost any organ system. Among these irAEs, rheumatic complications are common and seem to have features that are distinct from irAEs in other organ systems, including a highly variable time of clinical onset and the capacity to persist, possibly indefinitely, even after cessation of CPI therapy. In this Review, mechanisms of action of CPIs and how they might cause rheumatic irAEs are described. Also covered are epidemiology and clinical descriptions of rheumatic irAEs, plus guiding principles for managing irAEs. Finally, we outline future directions that must be taken in response to a series of unanswered questions and unmet needs that now confront rheumatologists who are, or will be, engaged in this new area of rheumatology.

BackgroundRheumatic and musculoskeletal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are observed in about 10% of patients with cancer receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Given the recent emergence of these events and the lack of guidance for rheumatologists addressing them, a European League Against Rheumatism task force was convened to harmonise expert opinion regarding their identification and management.MethodsFirst, the group formulated research questions for a systematic literature review. Then, based on literature and using a consensus procedure, 4 overarching principles and 10 points to consider were developed.ResultsThe overarching principles defined the role of rheumatologists in the management of irAEs, highlighting the shared decision-making process between patients, oncologists and rheumatologists. The points to consider inform rheumatologists on the wide spectrum of musculoskeletal irAEs, not fulfilling usual classification criteria of rheumatic diseases, and their differential diagnoses. Early referral and facilitated access to rheumatologist are recommended, to document the target organ inflammation. Regarding therapeutic, three treatment escalations were defined: (1) local/systemic glucocorticoids if symptoms are not controlled by symptomatic treatment, then tapered to the lowest efficient dose, (2) conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in case of inadequate response to glucocorticoids or for steroid sparing and (3) biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, for severe or refractory irAEs. A warning has been made on severe myositis, a life-threatening situation, requiring high dose of glucocorticoids and close monitoring. For patients with pre-existing rheumatic disease, baseline immunosuppressive regimen should be kept at the lowest efficient dose before starting immunotherapies.ConclusionThese statements provide guidance on diagnosis and management of rheumatic irAEs and aim to support future international collaborations.

The enhancement of immune responses upon treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors can have the desired outcome of reinvigorating antitumour immune surveillance, but often at the expense of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This novel disease entity often prompts comparisons with, and extrapolation of treatment approaches from, primary autoimmune disorders. Accordingly, current treatment guidelines for irAEs make generic recommendations adapted from the literature describing primary autoimmune diseases, without taking into consideration the substantial disparity of the immunohistopathological findings within each organ affected by an irAE. The treatment modalities themselves are complex and have many potential drawbacks, such as serious and rarely fatal infections, drug toxicities overlapping with irAEs and the risk of compromising cancer immune surveillance. Herein, we provide an overview of key cellular and soluble immunological factors mediating irAEs and propose a model integrating this knowledge with the immunohistopathological findings of the affected organs for a personalized decision-making process for each patient.The treatment of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors has mostly been based on adapting therapeutic approaches used in the management of primary autoimmune diseases. The authors of this Review provide an overview of the different cellular and soluble immune factors involved in the pathogenesis of irAEs in order to help clinicians deliver personalized immunopathologically guided treatment to manage these adverse events.

The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) is a broadly used instrument developed to measure empathy in the context of health professions education and patient care. Evidence in support of psychometrics of the JSE has been reported in health professions students and practitioners with the exception of osteopathic medical students. This study was designed to examine measurement properties, underlying components, and latent variable structure of the JSE in a nationwide sample of first-year matriculants at U.S. colleges of osteopathic medicine, and to develop a national norm table for the assessment of JSE scores. A web-based survey was administered at the beginning of the 2017–2018 academic year which included the JSE, a scale to detect “good impression” responses, and demographic/background information. Usable surveys were received from 6009 students enrolled in 41 college campuses (median response rate = 92%). The JSE mean score and standard deviation for the sample were 116.54 and 10.85, respectively. Item-total score correlations were positive and statistically significant ( p  < 0.01), and Cronbach α = 0.82. Significant gender differences were observed on the JSE scores in favor of women. Also, significant differences were found on item scores between top and bottom third scorers on the JSE. Three factors of Perspective Taking, Compassionate Care, and Walking in Patient’s Shoes emerged in an exploratory factor analysis by using half of the sample. Results of confirmatory factor analysis with another half of the sample confirmed the 3-factor model. We also developed a national norm table which is the first to assess students’ JSE scores against national data.