The efficacy and safety of rituximab for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of olokizumab at different dosages in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the relative efficacy and safety of olokizumab at different dosages in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab administered intravenously to RA patients at 64 mg/kg every 2 or 4 weeks (Q2 or Q4W).

RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising 2609 patients met the inclusion criteria. Both olokizumab Q2 and Q4W treatments achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) compared with the placebo (odds ratio [OR] 3.21, 95% credible interval [CrI] 2.53-4.09; OR 3.05, 95% CrI 2.43-3.86). However, olokizumab Q2W was associated with the most favorable surface using the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the SUCRA indicated that olokizumab Q2W had the highest probability of being considered the best treatment option for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by olokizumab Q4W, adalimumab, and placebo. The ACR50 and 70 response rates showed a similar distribution pattern to the ACR20 response rate, except that olokizumab Q4W had a higher-ranking probability than olokizumab Q2W for ACR50. The SUCRA rating likelihood of adverse events (AEs) and withdrawal due to AEs showed that a placebo was likely to be the best intervention.

CONCLUSION

Both olokizumab Q2 and Q4W were efficacious and well-tolerated treatments for active RA.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab, sarilumab, and olokizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the relative efficacy and safety of olokizumab, tocilizumab, and sarilumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who were intolerant or responding inadequately to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab, tocilizumab, and sarilumab in RA patients who were intolerant or responding inadequately to MTX.

RESULTS

Six RCTs comprising 4439 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tocilizumab, sarilumab, olokizumab, and adalimumab treatments achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate compared with placebo. However, tocilizumab was associated with the most favorable surface area using the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for the ACR20 response rate. The ranking probability based on the SUCRA indicated that tocilizumab treatment had the highest probability of providing the best ACR20 response rate, followed by sarilumab, olokizumab every 2 weeks (Q2W), olokizumab Q4W, adalimumab 40 mg, and placebo. The ACR50 and 70 response rates showed a distribution pattern similar to that of the ACR20 response rate. However, olokizumab Q4W had a higher ranking probability than olokizumab Q2W. The SUCRA rating showed that the placebo was the best intervention with the least adverse events (AEs) and withdrawal due to AEs, followed by interleukin‑6 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Tocilizumab, sarilumab, and olokizumab are more effective than adalimumab and have similar efficacy and safety in RA patients with inadequate responses to MTX.

Relative remission rates of Janus kinase inhibitors in comparison with adalimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The relative remission rates of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib compared with those of adalimumab were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who responded poorly to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C‑reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and the Boolean remission of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and adalimumab in RA patients with inadequate responses to MTX.

RESULTS

Four RCTs, comprising 3507 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The filgotinib 200 mg + MTX and upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX groups showed a significantly higher DAS28-CRP < 2.6 than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX. Upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX showed a significantly higher CDAI (≤ 2.8) than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (odds ratio [OR]: 1.62; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-2.29). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment as it achieved a CDAI ≤ 2.8, followed by filgotinib 200 mg + MTX, baricitinib 4 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab 40 mg + MTX. The Boolean remission showed the same distribution pattern as that of the CDAI ≤ 2.8. Upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX showed a significantly higher SDAI ≤ 3.3 than adalimumab 40 mg + MTX (OR: 1.62; 95% CrI: 1.16-2.28). SUCRA ranking based on SDAI ≤ 3.3 indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg + MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving an SDAI ≤ 3.3, followed by baricitinib 4 mg + MTX, filgotinib 200 mg + MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg + MTX, and adalimumab 40 mg + MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, remission rates with JAK inhibitors were significantly higher; there is evidence for differences in efficacy regarding remission among the different JAK inhibitors.

Association between functional FCGR3A F158V and FCGR2A R131H polymorphisms and responsiveness to rituximab in patients with autoimmune diseases: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between the functional Fc gamma receptor 3 A (FCGR3A) V158F and FCGR2A R131H polymorphisms and rituximab therapy in patients with autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant articles. We conducted a meta-analysis of the association between FCGR3A V158F and FCGR2A R131H polymorphisms and responsiveness to rituximab in patients with autoimmune diseases.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, consisting of 661 responders and 267 non-responders for FCGR3A V158F polymorphism and 156 responders and 89 non-responders for FCGR2A R131H polymorphism, were included. The meta-analysis revealed a significant association between the FCGR3A V allele and responsiveness to rituximab (odds ratio [OR] = 1.600, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.268-2.018, P < 0.001). Furthermore, associations were found using the dominant and homozygous contrast models. Subgroup analysis showed an association between the FCGR3A V allele and responsiveness to rituximab in European, RA, ITP, small (<50) and large (≥50) groups, and short- (≤6 months) and long-term follow-up periods (≥6 months). These associations were also found in recessive, dominant or homozygous contrast models. Meta-analysis revealed no association between the FCGR2A R allele and responsiveness to rituximab (OR = 1.243, 95% CI = 0.825-1.873, P = 0.229).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the FCGR3A F158V polymorphism is associated with better responsiveness to rituximab therapy in patients with autoimmune diseases, indicating that individuals carrying the FCGR3A V allele will likely respond better to rituximab. However, FCGR2A R131H polymorphism was not associated with better response to rituximab.

A subset of type-II collagen-binding antibodies prevents experimental arthritis by inhibiting FCGR3 signaling in neutrophils

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) involves several classes of pathogenic autoantibodies, some of which react with type-II collagen (COL2) in articular cartilage. We previously described a subset of COL2 antibodies targeting the F4 epitope (ERGLKGHRGFT) that could be regulatory. Here, using phage display, we developed recombinant antibodies against this epitope and examined the underlying mechanism of action. One of these antibodies, R69-4, protected against cartilage antibody- and collagen-induced arthritis in mice, but not autoimmune disease models independent of arthritogenic autoantibodies. R69-4 was further shown to cross-react with a large range of proteins within the inflamed synovial fluid, such as the complement protein C1q. Complexed R69-4 inhibited neutrophil FCGR3 signaling, thereby impairing downstream IL-1β secretion and neutrophil self-orchestrated recruitment. Likewise, human isotypes of R69-4 protected against arthritis with comparable efficiency. We conclude that R69-4 abrogates autoantibody-mediated arthritis mainly by hindering FCGR3 signaling, highlighting its potential clinical utility in acute RA.

Associations between interleukin 17A and 17F polymorphisms and asthma susceptibility: A meta-analysis

Owing to their role in inflammatory reactions and immunological responses as well as their chromosomal location, interleukin (IL) 17A and 17F are regarded as candidate causal genes associated with asthma. The aim of this study was to determine whether IL17 polymorphisms are associated with susceptibility to asthma. We used the PubMed/Medline and Embase databases to search for studies reporting IL17 polymorphisms in patients with asthma and healthy controls. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the associations between IL17A rs8193036 (-737C/T), rs2275913 (-197G/A), rs3819024 (A/G), rs3748067 (C/T), and rs4711998 (A/G) and IL17F rs763780 (7488A/G), rs2397084 (T/C), rs1889570 (C/T), rs11465553 (G/A), and rs1266828 (T/C) polymorphisms and asthma susceptibility. A total of 20 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Our results revealed the IL17A rs8193036 CC genotype was associated with asthma susceptibility (odds ratio [OR] = 1.490, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.027-2.161, p = .036). However, stratification by ethnicity indicated no association between this polymorphism and asthma in European and Asian subjects. Furthermore, no association was found between this polymorphism and asthma using the allele contrast, dominant or homozygous contrast models. No evidence of an association was found between any of the other IL17A and IL17F polymorphisms and asthma susceptibility in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis showed that, among the studied polymorphisms, only the CC genotype of IL17A rs8193036 is associated with asthma susceptibility.

Real world safety of CT-P10 (anti-CD 20 monoclonal antibodies biosimilar) in rheumatic and autoimmune diseases

BACKGROUND

Rituximab (RTX), anti-CD 20 monoclonal antibodies, has been approved for many rheumatic and autoimmune diseases, the use of RTX is still limited due to financial constrain. Biosimilar RTX may increase access by offering patients a more affordable option, lead to improved patient outcomes. However, real-world data related to its immediate and short-term safety is scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the real-world immediate and short-term safety profiles of CT-P10, a biosimilar of Rituximab, in patients with rheumatic and autoimmune diseases.

METHODS

This prospective study included patients diagnosed with rheumatic or autoimmune diseases, aged ≥ 18 years, who were treated with biosimilar RTX at Siriraj or Ramathibodi Hospital during February 2019 to May 2019. Patients were followed up through 6 months after the infusions.

RESULTS

Of the 74 patients, with 124 infusions, 84% were females with mean age (SD) of 49.4 (15.7) years. The most common rheumatic and autoimmune disease included in this study was systemic lupus erythematosus (26%). All immediate adverse events (AEs) (15 out of 124 infusions) were mild requiring only symptomatic and supportive treatment. Short-term AEs included infection (N = 35), hematologic abnormalities (N = 33), chylous ascites (N = 1), and others (N = 10). Two deaths were related to serious bacterial and viral infection. Hematologic AEs comprised anemia (N = 5), neutropenia (N = 10), lymphopenia (N = 15), and thrombocytopenia (N = 3).

CONCLUSION

In this real-world study, biosimilar RTX (CT-P10) has favorable immediate and short-term safety profiles. However, further studies with large sample size and long-term follow-up in real-world practice are still required to confirm the result.

Therapeutic Utility and Adverse Effects of Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Inflammatory Arthritis

Targeting specific pathologic pro-inflammatory cytokines or related molecules leads to excellent therapeutic effects in inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Most of these agents, known as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), are produced in live cell lines and are usually monoclonal antibodies. Several types of monoclonal antibodies target different pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-6, and IL-23/12. Some bDMARDs, such as rituximab and abatacept, target specific cell-surface molecules to control the inflammatory response. The therapeutic effects of these bDMARDs differ in different forms of inflammatory arthritis and are associated with different adverse events. In this article, we summarize the therapeutic utility and adverse effects of bDMARDs and suggest future research directions for developing bDMARDs.

Methotrexate induced neurotoxicity in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis on rituximab therapy: a case-based review

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic inflammatory disease treated with conventional and biologic disease-modifying drugs. Methotrexate is the anchor drug for the treatment of RA and is also frequently used for various autoimmune diseases. Adverse events are common and generally easy to manage, involving mainly the gastrointestinal tract and the liver function. However, neurotoxicity is very uncommon in adults with rheumatic diseases. B cell depletion with rituximab is another therapy approach particularly in patients with refractory RA. Whistle leukoencephalopathy - namely progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy-is an infrequent but well-described side effect of rituximab. In contrast, central nervous system toxicity due to methotrexate is extremely rare especially in RA individuals under oral or subcutaneous low dose on weekly basis. We present a challenging case of a RA patient on treatment with methotrexate and rituximab presenting with leukoencephalopathy. The patient was diagnosed with methotrexate-induced leukoencephalopathy which reversed after treatment discontinuation. We comment on the symptoms and diagnostic workout and we review the available literature on this issue based on recommendations for narrative reviews.

Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) Inhibitors and Autoimmune Diseases: Making Sense of BTK Inhibitor Specificity Profiles and Recent Clinical Trial Successes and Failures

Clinical development of BTK kinase inhibitors for treating autoimmune diseases has lagged behind development of these drugs for treating cancers, due in part from concerns over the lack of selectivity and associated toxicity profiles of first generation drug candidates when used in the long term treatment of immune mediated diseases. Second generation BTK inhibitors have made great strides in limiting off-target activities for distantly related kinases, though they have had variable success at limiting cross-reactivity within the more closely related TEC family of kinases. We investigated the BTK specificity and toxicity profiles, drug properties, disease associated signaling pathways, clinical indications, and trial successes and failures for the 13 BTK inhibitor drug candidates tested in phase 2 or higher clinical trials representing 7 autoimmune and 2 inflammatory immune-mediated diseases. We focused on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS), and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) where the majority of BTK nonclinical and clinical studies have been reported, with additional information for pemphigus vulgaris (PV), Sjogren’s disease (SJ), chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), graft versus host disease (GVHD), and asthma included where available. While improved BTK selectivity versus kinases outside the TEC family improved clinical toxicity profiles, less profile distinction was evident within the TEC family. Analysis of genetic associations of RA, MS, and SLE biomarkers with TEC family members revealed that BTK and TEC family members may not be drivers of disease. They are, however, mediators of signaling pathways associated with the pathophysiology of autoimmune diseases. BTK in particular may be associated with B cell and myeloid differentiation as well as autoantibody development implicated in immune mediated diseases. Successes in the clinic for treating RA, MS, PV, ITP, and GVHD, but not for SLE and SJ support the concept that BTK plays an important role in mediating pathogenic processes amenable to therapeutic intervention, depending on the disease. Based on the data collected in this study, we propose that current compound characteristics of BTK inhibitor drug candidates for the treatment of autoimmune diseases have achieved the selectivity, safety, and coverage requirements necessary to deliver therapeutic benefit.

Use of rituximab in paediatric nephrology

Rituximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody capable of depleting B cell populations by targeting the CD20 antigen expressed on the cell surface. Its use in oncology, initially in B cell lymphoma and post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders, predates its current utility in various fields of medicine wherein it has become one of the safest and most effective antibody-based therapies. It was subsequently found to be effective for rheumatological conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis. Over the past decade, rituximab has generated a lot of interest in nephrology and has become an emerging or accepted therapy for multiple renal conditions, including systemic lupus erythematosus, lupus nephritis, vasculitis, nephrotic syndrome and in different scenarios before and after kidney transplantation. This review outlines its current use in paediatric nephrology practice, focusing on the knowledge required for general paediatricians who may be caring for children prescribed this medication and reviewing them on a shared care basis.

Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medications in Patients with RA and SLE Undergoing Elective Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Critical Analysis Review

»

Recent literature has shown that continued use rather than discontinuation of various antirheumatic agents throughout the perioperative period may present an opportunity to mitigate the risks of elective surgery.

»

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, perioperative management of medication weighs the risk of infection against the risk of disease flare when immunosuppressive medications are withheld.

»

Broadly speaking, current evidence, although limited in quality, supports perioperative continuation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, whereas biologic drugs should be withheld perioperatively, based on the dosing interval of the specific drug.

»

For any withheld biologic drug, it is generally safe to restart these medications approximately 2 weeks after surgery, once the wound shows evidence of healing, all sutures and staples have been removed, and there is no clinical evidence of infection. The focus of this recommendation applies to the optimization of wound-healing, not bone-healing.

»

In most cases, the usual daily dose of glucocorticoids is administered in the perioperative period rather than administering "stress-dose steroids" on the day of surgery.

Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The relative efficacy and tolerability of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in RA patients with inadequate responses to bDMARDs.

RESULTS

Four RCTs comprising 1399 patients met the inclusion criteria. Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib achieved significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) responses versus placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. The ranking in SUCRA based on the ACR50 response rate indicated that baricitinib 4 mg had the highest probability of achieving the ACR50 response rate, followed by filgotinib 200 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, and placebo. Tofacitinib 5 mg showed a significantly higher ACR70 response rate than filgotinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg. Tofacitinib 5 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, and placebo showed a significantly lower serious adverse event rate than upadacitinib 15 mg.

CONCLUSION

Tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib were effective treatment options for RA patients with an inadequate response to bDMARDs but with different efficacy and safety profiles.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-tumour necrosis factor biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis showing insufficient response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Both biologic and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor therapies have demonstrated substantial effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showing inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis incorporating direct and indirect data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was used to investigate the effectiveness and safety of non-TNF biologics (abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, salirumab and sirukumab) and JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib and filgotinib) in patients with RA showing insufficient response to TNF inhibitors.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, evaluating 3577 patients for 12 weeks fulfilled the inclusion requirements. JAK inhibitors and non-TNF biologics achieved a significant American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response relative to the placebo. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) showed that JAK inhibitor treatment was most likely to achieve the highest ACR20 response rate, followed by non-TNF biologics and placebo. The ACR50 rate displayed similar patterns as the ACR20 response rate, but non-TNF biologics have a higher value than JAK inhibitors based on the ACR70 response rate. Adverse events did not reach statistical significance nor did serious adverse events when looking at safety over 12 weeks. The confidence intervals overlap, and there is no clinical significance to these safety data, even compared with placebo.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Both non-TNF biologics and JAK inhibitors have similar effects in patients with active RA that are refractory to anti-TNF treatment, and there were no differences with regard to safety among the treatments.

Recommendations on the management of adult patients with rheumatic diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection. Colombian Association of Rheumatology

Objective

To produce recommendations for patients with rheumatological diseases receiving immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies (conventional drugs, biologicals, and small molecules) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

The recommendations were determined using the Delphi method as an agreement tool. A panel of experts was formed, with academic backgrounds and research experience in rheumatology. A literature search was conducted and 42 questions were generated. The level of agreement was made with 80% of approval by the participants.

Results

A group of eleven rheumatologists from 7 cities in the country participated. The response rate was 100% for the three consultation rounds. In the first round, agreement was reached on 35 questions, on 37 in the second round, and on 42 questions in the third round.

Conclusion

The recommendation for the majority of the pharmacological treatments used in rheumatology is to continue with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapies in patients who do not have the infection, and to suspend it in patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Recommendations on the management of adult patients with rheumatic diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection. Colombian Association of Rheumatology

Objetivo

Generar las recomendaciones para la atención de pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas que reciben terapias inmunomoduladoras e inmunosupresoras (fármacos convencionales, biológicos y moléculas pequeñas) durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

Materiales y métodos

Las recomendaciones se realizaron utilizando el método Delphi como herramienta de acuerdo. Se conformó un panel de expertos con trayectoria académica y experiencia en investigación en reumatología. Se realizó la búsqueda de la literatura y se generó el cuestionario del ejercicio Delphi conformado por 42 preguntas. El grado de acuerdo se logró con el 80% de aprobación de los participantes.

Resultados

Se conformó un grupo de 11 reumatólogos de 7 ciudades del país. La tasa de respuesta fue del 100% para las 3 rondas de consulta. En la primera ronda se logró acuerdo en 35 preguntas, en la segunda ronda 37 y en la tercera ronda se logró el acuerdo de las 42 preguntas.

Conclusión

La recomendación para la mayoría de los tratamientos inmunomoduladores utilizados en reumatología es continuar con las terapias en pacientes que no tengan la infección y suspenderlas en aquellos con diagnóstico de SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Recomendaciones sobre el manejo de pacientes adultos con enfermedades reumáticas en el contexto de la infección por SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Asociación Colombiana de Reumatología

Objetivo

Generar las recomendaciones para la atención de pacientes con enfermedades reumáticas que reciben terapias inmunomoduladoras e inmunosupresoras (fármacos convencionales, biológicos y moléculas pequeñas) durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

Materiales y métodos

Las recomendaciones se realizaron utilizando el método Delphi como herramienta de acuerdo. Se conformó un panel de expertos con trayectoria académica y experiencia en investigación en reumatología. Se realizó la búsqueda de la literatura y se generó el cuestionario del ejercicio Delphi conformado por 42 preguntas. El grado de acuerdo se logró con el 80% de aprobación de los participantes.

Resultados

Se conformó un grupo de 11 reumatólogos de 7 ciudades del país. La tasa de respuesta fue del 100% para las 3 rondas de consulta. En la primera ronda se logró acuerdo en 35 preguntas, en la segunda ronda 37 y en la tercera ronda se logró el acuerdo de las 42 preguntas.

Conclusión

La recomendación para la mayoría de los tratamientos inmunomoduladores utilizados en reumatología es continuar con las terapias en pacientes que no tengan la infección y suspenderlas en aquellos con diagnóstico de SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Recommendations on the management of adult patients with rheumatic diseases in the context of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 infection. Colombian Association of Rheumatology

Objective

To produce recommendations for patients with rheumatological diseases receiving immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies (conventional drugs, biologicals, and small molecules) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

The recommendations were determined using the Delphi method as an agreement tool. A panel of experts was formed, with academic backgrounds and research experience in rheumatology. A literature search was conducted and 42 questions were generated. The level of agreement was made with 80% of approval by the participants.

Results

A group of eleven rheumatologists from 7 cities in the country participated. The response rate was 100% for the three consultation rounds. In the first round, agreement was reached on 35 questions, on 37 in the second round, and on 42 questions in the third round.

Conclusion

The recommendation for the majority of the pharmacological treatments used in rheumatology is to continue with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapies in patients who do not have the infection, and to suspend it in patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib were assessed in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHOD

We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and peficitinib in combination with DMARDs in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs, including 3836 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Fifteen pairwise comparisons were performed, including six direct comparisons of seven interventions. Tofacitinib 10 mg+methotrexate (MTX) and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were among the most effective treatments for patients with active RA with an inadequate DMARD response. The efficacy of tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX, peficitinib 150 mg+MTX or tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX tended to be higher than that of adalimumab+MTX. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX had the greatest probability of being the best treatment to achieve the American College of Rheumatology 20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 150 mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5 mg+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, peficitinib 100 mg+MTX, and placebo+MTX. No significant differences were observed in the incidence of serious adverse events after treatment with tofacitinib+MTX, peficitinib+MTX, adalimumab+MTX, or placebo+MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs, tofacitinib 10 mg+MTX and peficitinib 150 mg+MTX were the most efficacious interventions and were not associated with a significant risk of serious adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors compared with rituximab as second-line biologic drug in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors as compared with rituximab in Finnish rheumatoid arthritis patients, who have previously been treated with TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation model was developed to predict costs and outcomes associated with four biological drugs (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab and TNF inhibitors) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Following lack of efficacy or adverse events, the patients were switched to another biological drug until all four options were exhausted. After that, the patients were assumed to receive a 6th line treatment until death. The patients' baseline characteristics and regression models used in the simulation were based on observational data from the National Register for Biological Treatments in Finland. Direct costs comprised drug costs, administration costs, costs of switching, and outpatient and inpatient care, while indirect costs included disability pension and sick leaves due to rheumatoid arthritis. Several subgroup and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Drug costs were the lowest for rituximab, but when administration costs and costs of switching were included, drug costs were the lowest for TNF inhibitors. Abatacept was associated with the highest drug costs, whereas rituximab was associated with the highest healthcare costs. In total, TNF inhibitors had the lowest direct costs, while rituximab had the highest direct costs. The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained ranged from 9.405 for rituximab to 9.661 for TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab were dominant in comparison to RTX.

CONCLUSIONS

TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab had lower costs and higher QALYs than rituximab, and therefore, they were dominant in comparison to rituximab. As TNF inhibitors had the lowest costs and highest QALYs, they were the most cost-effective treatment option.

Current Therapeutic Options in the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by chronic inflammation of the joints. Untreated RA leads to a destruction of joints through the erosion of cartilage and bone. The loss of physical function is the consequence. Early treatment is important to control disease activity and to prevent joint destruction. Nowadays, different classes of drugs with different modes of action are available to control the inflammation and to achieve remission. In this review, we want to discuss differences and similarities of these different drugs.

Efficacy and Pharmacodynamic Modeling of the BTK Inhibitor Evobrutinib in Autoimmune Disease Models

Because of its role in mediating both B cell and Fc receptor signaling, Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) is a promising target for the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Evobrutinib is a novel, highly selective, irreversible BTK inhibitor that potently inhibits BCR- and Fc receptor-mediated signaling and, thus, subsequent activation and function of human B cells and innate immune cells such as monocytes and basophils. We evaluated evobrutinib in preclinical models of RA and SLE and characterized the relationship between BTK occupancy and inhibition of disease activity. In mouse models of RA and SLE, orally administered evobrutinib displayed robust efficacy, as demonstrated by reduction of disease severity and histological damage. In the SLE model, evobrutinib inhibited B cell activation, reduced autoantibody production and plasma cell numbers, and normalized B and T cell subsets. In the RA model, efficacy was achieved despite failure to reduce autoantibodies. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling showed that mean BTK occupancy in blood cells of 80% was linked to near-complete disease inhibition in both RA and SLE mouse models. In addition, evobrutinib inhibited mast cell activation in a passive cutaneous anaphylaxis model. Thus, evobrutinib achieves efficacy by acting both on B cells and innate immune cells. Taken together, our data show that evobrutinib is a promising molecule for the chronic treatment of B cell-driven autoimmune disorders.

Malignant Neoplasms in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated With Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors, Tocilizumab, Abatacept, or Rituximab in Clinical Practice: A Nationwide Cohort Study From Sweden

IMPORTANCE

Considering the widespread and increasing use of biological immunomodulators (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs]) to treat chronic inflammatory conditions, and the concern that immunomodulation may alter cancer risk and progression, the limited available data on use of these therapies as used in clinical practice and cancer risks are a concern.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of incident malignant neoplasms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with bDMARDs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This was a national register-based prospective cohort study of the public health care system in Sweden from 2006 to 2015. Cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with tocilizumab (n = 1798), abatacept (n = 2021), and rituximab (n = 3586), a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as first-ever (n = 10 782) or second-ever (n = 4347) bDMARD, a biologics-naive cohort treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (n = 46 610), and a general population comparator cohort (n = 107 491).

EXPOSURES

Treatment with tocilizumab, abatacept, rituximab, or TNFi.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcomes included a first invasive solid or hematologic malignant neoplasm, or skin cancer. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox-regression, adjusted for age, sex, disease and treatment characteristics, and educational level.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 15 129 initiations of TNFi as the first or second bDMARD, 7405 initiations of other bDMARDs, and 46 610 csDMARD users. The mean age varied from 58 to 64 years, and the proportion of female patients varied from 71% to 80%, across the 7 cohorts under study. The observed numbers of events (crude incidence per 100 000 person-years) for a first invasive solid or hematologic malignant neoplasm were 50 (959) for tocilizumab, 61 (1026) for abatacept, 141 (1074) for rituximab, 478 (978) for initiators of TNFi as first bDMARD, and 169 (917) for TNFi as second bDMARD. There were no statistically significant differences between initiators of a first or second TNFi, or other bDMARDs, and bDMARD-naive RA for any of a total of 25 drug- and outcome-specific comparisons, with 1 exception (abatacept and increased risk of squamous cell skin cancer).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The overall risk of cancer among patients with RA initiating TNFi as first or second bDMARD, tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab does not differ substantially from that of biologic drug-naive, csDMARD-treated patients with RA, although altered risks for specific cancer types, or those with longer latency, cannot be excluded.

B cell phenotypes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis relapsing after rituximab: expression of B cell-activating factor-binding receptors on B cell subsets

Serum levels of B cell-activating factor (BAFF) rise following rituximab (RTX) therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Initiation of naive B cell return to the periphery and autoreactive B cell expansion leading to relapse after RTX may therefore be linked to interactions between BAFF and BAFF-binding receptors (BBR). Relationships between serum BAFF and BBR expression [(BAFFR, calcium signal modulating cyclophilic ligand interactor (TACI) and B cell maturation antigen (BCMA)] were determined on B cell subsets, defined using immunoglobulin (Ig)D/CD38. Twenty pre-RTX and 18 RA patients relapsing after B cell depletion were included. Results were analysed with respect to timing of relapse up to 7 months after peripheral B cell return (≥ 5 B cells/μl) and to serum BAFF levels. After B cell return, B cell populations from relapsing patients had significantly lower BAFFR⁺ expression compared to HC and pre-RTX patients. The percentage of BAFFR⁺ B cells increased with time after B cell return and was correlated inversely with serum BAFF levels. BAFFR expression remained reduced. The percentage of TACI⁺ memory B cells were lower in RA patients after RTX compared with healthy controls (HC). BCMA expression (% and expression) did not differ between patients and HC. Relapse following B cell return appeared largely independent of the percentage of BAFFR⁺ or percentage of BCMA⁺ B cells or serum BAFF levels. The lower percentage of TACI⁺ memory B cells may reduce inhibitory signalling for B cell differentiation. In patients relapsing at longer periods after B cell return, recovery of the B cell pool was more complete, suggesting that selection or expansion of autoreactive B cells may be needed to precipitate relapse.

2017 American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

This collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons developed an evidence-based guideline for the perioperative management of antirheumatic drug therapy for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing elective total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee arthroplasty, and methodologists was convened to construct the key clinical questions to be answered in the guideline. A multi-step systematic literature review was then conducted, from which evidence was synthesized for continuing versus withholding antirheumatic drug therapy and for optimal glucocorticoid management in the perioperative period. A Patient Panel was convened to determine patient values and preferences, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using a group consensus process through a convened Voting Panel of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. The strength of the recommendation reflects the degree of certainty that benefits outweigh harms of the intervention, or vice versa, considering the quality of available evidence and the variability in patient values and preferences.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses the perioperative use of antirheumatic drug therapy including traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in adults with RA, SpA, JIA, or SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It provides recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications, and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. The guideline includes 7 recommendations, all of which are conditional and based on low- or moderate-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

This guideline should help decision-making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative antirheumatic medication management at the time of elective THA or TKA. These conditional recommendations reflect the paucity of high-quality direct randomized controlled trial data.

Safety and Efficacy of Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Older Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Staying the Distance

The population of older individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is rapidly expanding, mainly due to increased life expectancy. While targeted biological therapies are well established for the treatment of this disease, their use may be lower in older patients (age > 65 years) and very old patients (age > 75 years) as a result of perceived higher risks for adverse events in this population, taking into account comorbidity, polypharmacy, and frailty. In this review, we discuss the available evidence for the use of biological therapies in this growing patient group with specific attention towards the eventual reasons for biological treatment failure or withdrawal. The majority of data is found in secondary analyses of clinical trials and in retrospective cohorts. The most information available is on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers. Older patients seem to have a less robust response to anti-TNF agents than a younger population, but drug survival as a proxy for efficacy does not seem to be influenced by age. Despite an overall rate of adverse effects comparable to that in younger patients, older RA patients are at higher risk of serious infections. Other biologics appear to have an efficacy similar to anti-TNF agents, also in older RA patients. Again, the drug survival rates for tocilizumab, rituximab, and abatacept resemble those in young RA patients with good general tolerability and safety profiles. The cardiovascular risk and the risk of cancer, increased in RA patients and in the older RA patients, do not appear to be strongly influenced by biologicals.

A systemic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of total glucosides of peony combined with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis

To assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of total glucoside of peony (TGP) and methotrexate (MTX) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on the traditional Chinese active component TGP combined with MTX vs. MTX alone for the treatment of RA was collected by searching the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP Journals database, and Wanfang database up to February 2017. Study selection, data extraction, data synthesis, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards. A total of eight RCTs involving 522 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with MTX alone, the use of TGP combined with MTX exhibited better therapeutic effects for the treatment of RA (P = 0.004). In addition, TGP combined with MTX caused a more significant decrease in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (P < 0.0001) and swollen joint count (SJC) (P < 0.00001). However, no significant differences were found in C-reactive protein (CRP) (P = 0.19), duration of morning stiffness (DMS) (P = 0.32), or tender joint count (TJC) (P = 0.23) between the two groups. In addition, adverse events were more frequently reported in the MTX monotherapy group than in the TGP and MTX combination group (P = 0.0007). Our study demonstrates that TGP combined with MTX is more effective than MTX alone for the treatment of RA. Nevertheless, the adverse effects of the combination of TGP and MTX need to be further assessed. Due to the poor methodological quality of included trials, well-designed, multi-center, and large-scale RCTs are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion.

2017 American College of Rheumatology/American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty

OBJECTIVE

This collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons developed an evidence-based guideline for the perioperative management of antirheumatic drug therapy for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing elective total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee arthroplasty, and methodologists was convened to construct the key clinical questions to be answered in the guideline. A multi-step systematic literature review was then conducted, from which evidence was synthesized for continuing versus withholding antirheumatic drug therapy and for optimal glucocorticoid management in the perioperative period. A Patient Panel was convened to determine patient values and preferences, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using a group consensus process through a convened Voting Panel of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. The strength of the recommendation reflects the degree of certainty that benefits outweigh harms of the intervention, or vice versa, considering the quality of available evidence and the variability in patient values and preferences.

RESULTS

The guideline addresses the perioperative use of antirheumatic drug therapy including traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in adults with RA, SpA, JIA, or SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It provides recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications, and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. The guideline includes 7 recommendations, all of which are conditional and based on low- or moderate-quality evidence.

CONCLUSION

This guideline should help decision-making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative antirheumatic medication management at the time of elective THA or TKA. These conditional recommendations reflect the paucity of high-quality direct randomized controlled trial data.

Safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We conducted this systematic reviews and meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who exhibited resistance or intolerance to methotrexate or biological therapy. We performed a web-based literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Scopus, Embase, and Web of science for studies that compared ocrelizumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate plus placebo in RA patients. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as risk ratios (RR), using RevMan software. Pooling data from four RCTs (2230 patients) showed that ocrelizumab plus methotrexate were superior to methotrexate plus placebo at 24 weeks in terms of improvement on the American college of rheumatology (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70) criteria (p < 0.00001), disease activity score 28-ESR (RR = 3.77, 95% CI [2.47, 5.74], p < 0.00001), and Sharp/van der Heijde radiological score (RR = 1.63, 95% CI [1.43, 1.85], p < 0.00001). These effects were consistent among all ocrelizumab doses. The rates of serious adverse events were comparable between the ocrelizumab and placebo containing groups (RR = 1, 95% CI [0.78, 1.28], p = 0.98). However, infusion related reactions were significantly higher in ocrelizumab group (RR = 2.13, 95% CI [1.69, 2.68], p < 0.00001), compared to placebo group. The combination of ocrelizumab plus methotrexate was superior to methotrexate plus placebo on all clinical and radiographic improvement scales. The incidence of adverse events, including serious adverse events, was comparable between both groups. Future trials should investigate the efficacy of ocrelizumab alone and develop strategies to alleviate its related infusion reactions.

Old and new therapeutics for Rheumatoid Arthritis: in vivo models and drug development

Development of novel drugs for treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases is to a large extent dependent on the availability of good experimental in vivo models in order to perform preclinical tests of new drugs and for the identification of novel drug targets. Here, we review a number of existing rodent models for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the context of how these models have been utilized for developing established therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis and, furthermore, the present use of animal models for studies of novel drug candidates. We have studied the literature in the field for the use of in vivo models during development of anti-rheumatic drugs; from Methotrexate to various antibody treatments, to novel drugs that are, or have recently been, in clinical trials. For novel drugs, we have explored websites for clinical trials. Although a single Rheumatoid Arthritis in vivo model cannot mirror the complexity of disease development, there exist a number of good animal models for Rheumatoid Arthritis, each defining some parts in disease development, which are useful for studies of drug response. We find that many of the established drugs were not tested in in vivo models before being used in the clinic, but rather animal models have been subsequently used to find mechanisms for efficacy. Finally, we report a number of novel drugs, tested in preclinical in vivo models, presently in clinical trials.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Rituximab is a selective, B-cell depleting, biologic agent for treating refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It is a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeted against CD 20 that is promoted as therapy for patients who fail to respond to other biologics. There is evidence to suggest that rituximab is effective and well tolerated when used in combination with methotrexate for RA.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of rituximab for the treatment of RA.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search (until January 2014) in electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science), clinical trials registries, and websites of regulatory agencies. Reference lists from comprehensive reviews were also screened.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All controlled trials comparing treatment with rituximab as monotherapy or in combination with any disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) (traditional or biologic) versus placebo or other DMARD (traditional or biologic) in adult patients with active RA.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and abstracted data from each study.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies with 2720 patients. For six studies selection bias could not be evaluated and two studies were considered to have low risk of bias. The level of evidence ranged from low to high, but was rated as moderate for most outcomes. We have prioritised reporting of rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate since this is the approved dose and most commonly used combination. We also reported data on other combinations and doses as supplementary information in the results section of the review.American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response rates were statistically significantly improved with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 104 weeks. The RR for achieving an ACR 50 at 24 weeks was 3.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.6); 29% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved the ACR 50 compared to 9% of controls. The absolute treatment benefit (ATB) was 21% (95% CI 16% to 25%) with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 9).At 52 weeks, the RR for achieving clinical remission (Disease Activity Score (DAS) 28 joints < 2.6) with rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate monotherapy was 2.4 (95% CI 1.7 to 3.5); 22% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate achieved clinical remission compared to 11% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 20%) with a NNT of 7 (95% CI 4 to 13).At 24 weeks, the RR for achieving a clinically meaningful improvement (CMI) in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) (> 0.22) for patients receiving rituximab combined with methotrexate compared to patients on methotrexate alone was 1.6 (95% CI 1.2 to 2.1). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 12% to 36%) with an NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 13). At 104 weeks, the RR for achieving a CMI in HAQ (> 0.22) was 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6). The ATB was 24% (95% CI 16% to 31%) with a NNT of 5 (95% CI 3 to 7).At 24 weeks, the RR for preventing radiographic progression in patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate was 1.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.4) compared to methotrexate alone; 70% of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate had no radiographic progression compared to 59% of controls. The ATB was 11% (95% CI 2% to 19%) and the NNT was 10 (95% CI 5 to 57). Similar benefits were observed at 52 to 56 weeks and 104 weeks.Statistically significantly more patients achieved a CMI on the physical and mental components of the quality of life, measured by the Short Form (SF)-36, in the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate-treated group compared with methotrexate alone at 24 to 52 weeks (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.4; NNT 4, 95% CI 3 to 8 and RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.9; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 19, respectively); 34 and 13 more patients out of 100 showed an improvement in the physical component of the quality of life measure compared to methotrexate alone (95% CI 5% to 84%; 95% CI 7% to 8%, respectively).There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the rates of withdrawals because of adverse events or for other reasons (that is, withdrawal of consent, violation, administrative, failure to return) in either group. However, statistically significantly more people receiving the control drug withdrew from the study compared to those receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate at all times (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.91; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.82; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75, respectively). At 104 weeks, 37% withdrew from the control group and 20% withdrew from the rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate group. The absolute risk difference (ARD) was -20% (95% CI -34% to -5%) with a number needed to harm (NNH) of 7 (95% CI 5 to 11).A greater proportion of patients receiving rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate developed adverse events after their first infusion compared to those receiving methotrexate monotherapy and placebo infusions (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 1.9); 26% of those taking rituximab plus methotrexate reported more events associated with their first infusion compared to 16% of those on the control regimen with an ARD of 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%) and a NNH of 11 (95% CI 21 to 8). However, no statistically significant differences were noted in the rates of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from eight studies suggests that rituximab (two 1000 mg doses) in combination with methotrexate is significantly more efficacious than methotrexate alone for improving the symptoms of RA and preventing disease progression.

Rates of serious infections and malignancies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving either tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or rituximab therapy

OBJECTIVE

Because of the role of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) in host defense, it was hypothesized that its inhibition might lead to an increased risk of malignancies and infections. The objective of our study was to assess the incidence of serious infections leading to hospitalization and malignancies among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving either TNF inhibitor or rituximab (RTX) therapy.

METHODS

The study population was identified from the National Register for Biologic Treatment in Finland and the hospital records of Central Finland Central Hospital for conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (cDMARD) users. Data on infections and malignancies were acquired from national healthcare registers. A Poisson model was used to calculate the adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and was composed of age, sex, time from diagnosis, year of the beginning of the followup, rheumatoid factor status, Disease Activity Score at 28 joints, Health Assessment Questionnaire, prior malignancy, prior serious infection, prior biologic use, and time-updated use of methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and oral corticosteroids as confounders.

RESULTS

In total, during the followup of 10,994 patient-years, 92 malignancies and 341 serious infections were included in the analyses. The aIRR of infections compared to cDMARD users were 1.2 (95% CI 0.63-2.3), 0.84 (95% CI 0.53-1.3), 0.98 (95% CI 0.60-1.6), and 1.1 (95% CI 0.59-1.9) for the patients treated with infliximab (IFX), etanercept, adalimumab, and RTX, respectively. The crude rates of malignancies were highest among the users of cDMARD and RTX, and lowest among patients treated with IFX with no differences in aIRR.

CONCLUSION

Our results provide some reassurance of the safety of biologic treatments in the treatment of RA.

Longterm Followup of Rituximab Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the Belgian MabThera in Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

Objective.

Our study reports the results of the MIRA (MabThera In Rheumatoid Arthritis) registry, set up to collect data about clinical usage, patient profile, and retention of rituximab (RTX) treatment in daily clinical practice in Belgium.

Methods.

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed at least 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment were included in our study between November 2006 and October 2011. At baseline, demographics, medication, disease history, disease activity, rheumatoid factor (RF), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) status were recorded. Evolution of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, retreatments, and reasons for therapy stop were followed prospectively.

Results.

The MIRA registry included 649 patients, with mean disease duration of 12.8 ± 0.4 years and DAS28 values at inclusion of 5.85 ± 0.48. Patients received on average 2.82 ± 0.07 (range 1–9) RTX treatments, over a mean followup period of 93.1 ± 2.6 weeks. At database lock, 433 patients (66.7%) were still under RTX treatment, 182 (28.0%) had stopped treatment, and 34 (5.2%) were lost to followup. Ineffectiveness (n = 108, 59%) and safety concerns (n = 39, 22%) were the most frequent reasons for discontinuing RTX therapy. From 2006 to 2011, RTX practice patterns clearly evolved toward RTX being started in patients with a lower number of previously failed anti-TNF drugs and lower baseline DAS28 values. A lower number of previous anti-TNF drugs, and positivity for RF and anti-CCP, predicted more successful longterm treatment. RTX treatment provided adequate longterm disease control.

Conclusion.

In our daily practice study, RTX provided good longterm disease control and treatment retention in refractory patients with RA. Over the years, rheumatologists tended to start this treatment in patients with fewer previous anti-TNF treatments and lower disease activity.

Low- versus high-dose rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The approved dose of rituximab (RTX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 2 × 1,000 mg infusions given 2 weeks apart. There is contradictory evidence regarding the effectiveness of a lower-dose regimen (2 × 500 mg) of RTX. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of low- and high-dose RTX and to test the noninferiority of the low-dose regimen.

METHODS

A systematic literature review searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing low- and high-dose RTX for RA was conducted using the Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The primary end points were the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) at 24 and 48 weeks. The secondary end points were patient-reported outcomes (PROs; Health Assessment Questionnaire, Short Form 36, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores) and adverse events. Noninferiority of low-dose RTX was tested using different approaches, one of which was based on the fixed margin method.

RESULTS

In total, 6 RCTs and 2 cohort studies were identified. Four RCTs were included in the meta-analysis of efficacy outcomes, which showed no significant differences in the primary outcomes between low- and high-dose RTX. Noninferiority criteria of low-dose RTX were met for the ACR20, ACR50, DAS28, and PROs (at 24 and 48 weeks). Serious adverse events did not differ significantly. The results of 2 additional RCTs and a meta-analysis of 2 cohort studies corroborated the results of the meta-analysis of RCTs.

CONCLUSION

Low-dose RTX has similar effectiveness and met noninferiority criteria for most primary outcomes. Considering the lower cost, it should be the standard RTX regimen for RA.

Rituximab therapy in nephrotic syndrome: implications for patients' management

Rituximab offers an alternative to current immunosuppressive therapies for difficult-to-treat nephrotic syndrome. The best outcomes are seen in patients with steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome who have failed to respond to multiple therapies. By contrast, the benefits of rituximab therapy are limited in patients with steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome, particularly those with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). Therapy with plasma exchange and one or two doses of rituximab has shown success in patients with recurrent FSGS. Young patients and those with normal serum albumin at recurrence of nephrotic syndrome are most likely to respond to rituximab therapy. A substantial proportion of rituximab-treated patients with idiopathic membranous nephropathy show complete or partial remission of proteinuria, and reduced levels of phospholipase A(2) receptor autoantibodies, which are implicated in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Successful rituximab therapy induces prolonged remission and enables discontinuation of other medications without substantially increasing the risk of infections and other serious adverse events. However, the available evidence of efficacy of rituximab therapy is derived chiefly from small case series and requires confirmation in prospective, randomized, controlled studies that define the indications for use and predictors of response to this therapy.

Rheumatoid factor as predictor of response to abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify if rheumatoid factor (RF) is predictor of response to rituximab (RTX), abatacept (ABT), and tocilizumab (TCZ) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials and observational studies based on a sensitive search. Meta-regression was used to explore causes of heterogeneity. Unpublished data of clinical trials provided by the authors were also included.

RESULTS

The electronic search captured 3221 references and 422 meeting abstracts. By hand search, four additional articles were also identified. A total of 23 studies meet the purpose of the study and were included in the review. RF positivity at starting predicts better ACR20 [OR, 1.95 (1.24, 3.08)], ACR50 [OR, 5.38 (2.50, 11.60)] and EULAR response [OR, 3.52 (1.66, 7.45)] in 14 studies with RTX, and better ACR20 [OR, 1.51 (1.21, 1.90)] in 6 studies with TCZ. In 3 studies with ABT, no association was found between response and RF [OR 1.36 (0.97, 1.90)]. No asymmetries in the funnel plots or significant variables were found in the meta-regression.

CONCLUSION

In RA, RF positivity predicts better response to RTX and TCZ but not to ABT.

Multicenter retrospective analysis of the effectiveness and safety of rituximab in korean patients with refractory systemic lupus erythematosus

Objective. Although two recent randomized placebo-controlled trials of rituximab (RTX) failed to demonstrate efficacy in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), clinicians continue to use off-label RTX for cases refractory to current treatments. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of rituximab for patients with refractory SLE in Korea. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed multicenter patients treated with RTX in Korea. Results. 39 SLE patients treated with RTX were included in the following manner: lupus nephritis 43.6%, hematologic 33.3%, arthritis 7.8%, myositis 7.8%, and others 7.7%. All patients had responded poorly to at least one conventional immunosuppressive agent (mean 2.5 ± 1.1, cyclophosphamide 43.6%, mycophenolate mofetil 48.7%, and other drugs) before RTX. Clinical improvements (complete or partial remission) occurred in patients with renal disease, hematologic disease, arthritis, myositis, and other manifestations at 6 months after RTX. The SLEDAI score was significantly decreased from 10.8 ± 7.1 at baseline to 6.7 ± 4.0 at 6 months, 6.2 ± 4.1 at 12 months, and 5.5 ± 3.6 at 24 months after RTX (P < 0.05). Among 28 clinical responders, 4 patients experienced a relapse of disease at 25 ± 4 months. Infections were noted in 3 patients (7.7%). Conclusion. RTX could be an effective and relatively safe therapeutic option in patients with severe refractory SLE until novel B-cell depletion therapy is available.

Rheumatic autoimmune diseases: proposed elimination of autoreactive B-cells with magnetic nanoparticle-linked antigens

Although the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis and other rheumatic diseases is still not fully understood, it has become clear that in many cases autoimmune responses with production of autoantibodies against physiological targets play a significant and causal role. Current immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory approaches such as bone marrow transplantation or the therapeutic antibody rituximab are effective, but unspecific and have serious side effects. Here, a method for targeted elimination of specific autoreactive B-cells which are essential for autoantibody production and maintenance of the autoimmune response is proposed. By binding to their receptive antigens linked to magnetic nanoparticles, the autoreactive B-cells can be separated from the rest of the blood in an extracorporeal filtration process, reducing the number of autoimmune cells and autoantibodies in the blood. The method can be adapted for use in different autoimmune diseases provided some key aspects of pathogenesis are known, and can be repeated if necessary. Evidence for feasibility and safety of this method is briefly reviewed, and potential limitations and hurdles to overcome are discussed.