Here, the efficacy of abatacept in patients with early diffuse systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) was analyzed to test the hypothesis that patients in the inflammatory intrinsic subset would show the most significant clinical improvement. Eighty-four participants with dcSSc were randomized to receive abatacept or placebo for 12 months. RNA-Seq was performed on 233 skin paired biopsies at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. Improvement was defined as a 5-point or more than 20% change in modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between baseline and 12 months. Samples were assigned to intrinsic gene expression subsets (inflammatory, fibroproliferative, or normal-like subsets). In the abatacept arm, change in mRSS was most pronounced for the inflammatory and normal-like subsets relative to the placebo subset. Gene expression for participants on placebo remained in the original molecular subset, whereas inflammatory participants treated with abatacept had gene expression that moved toward the normal-like subset. The Costimulation of the CD28 Family Reactome Pathway decreased in patients who improved on abatacept and was specific to the inflammatory subset. Patients in the inflammatory subset had elevation of the Costimulation of the CD28 Family pathway at baseline relative to that of participants in the fibroproliferative and normal-like subsets. There was a correlation between improved ΔmRSS and baseline expression of the Costimulation of the CD28 Family pathway. This study provides an example of precision medicine in systemic sclerosis clinical trials.
Bhaven K. Mehta, Monica E. Espinoza, Jennifer M. Franks, Yiwei Yuan, Yue Wang, Tammara Wood, Johann E. Gudjonsson, Cathie Spino, David A. Fox, Dinesh Khanna, Michael L. Whitfield
Usage data is cumulative from April 2023 through April 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 1,050 | 190 |
140 | 99 | |
Figure | 162 | 5 |
Table | 59 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 61 | 10 |
Citation downloads | 33 | 0 |
Totals | 1,505 | 304 |
Total Views | 1,809 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.