Rituximab done: what's next in rheumatoid arthritis? A European observational longitudinal study assessing the effectiveness of biologics after rituximab treatment in rheumatoid arthritis

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Toward Overcoming Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and bone erosion. The exact mechanism of RA is still unknown, but various immune cytokines, signaling pathways and effector cells are involved. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used in RA treatment and classified into different categories. Nevertheless, RA treatment is based on a "trial-and-error" approach, and a substantial proportion of patients show failed therapy for each DMARD. Over the past decades, great efforts have been made to overcome treatment failure, including identification of biomarkers, exploration of the reasons for loss of efficacy, development of sequential or combinational DMARDs strategies and approval of new DMARDs. Here, we summarize these efforts, which would provide valuable insights for accurate RA clinical medication. While gratifying, researchers realize that these efforts are still far from enough to recommend specific DMARDs for individual patients. Precision medicine is an emerging medical model that proposes a highly individualized and tailored approach for disease management. In this review, we also discuss the potential of precision medicine for overcoming RA treatment failure, with the introduction of various cutting-edge technologies and big data.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).

METHODS

An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.

RESULTS

Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Retention rate of a second line with a biologic DMARD after failure of a first-line therapy with abatacept, tocilizumab, or rituximab: results from the Italian GISEA registry

OBJECTIVES

EULAR recommendations do not suggest which biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be preferred after failure of a first bDMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, few data are available regarding the effectiveness of a second-line bDMARD after failure of abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab (RTX). The aim of this study was to analyze the retention rate of a second line with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other mechanisms of action (MoAs), after the failure of either RTX, TCZ, or ABA.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-eight RA patients from the Italian GISEA registry were included in the study. RTX was the first bDMARD in 18% of patients, ABA in 45.7%, and TCZ in 36.3%, while the second bDMARD was a TNFi (group 1) in 129 patients and an agent with a different MoA (group 2) in 149.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 68), 129 patients discontinued their treatment; patients of group 1 discontinued the treatment more frequently than patients of group 2 (p<0.001) with retention rates of 33.6±5.7% and 63.6±4.6% after 104 weeks for group 1 and group 2, respectively (p<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the mechanism of action was the only predictor for the maintenance in therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, ABA, RTX, and TCZ seem to maintain a good retention rate also when used as a second-line therapy, suggesting their use after the failure of a non-TNFi as first-line therapy. However, specifically designed studies are needed to evaluate the more appropriate therapeutic strategies in RA, according to the first-line drug, including new targeted synthetic DMARDs. Key Points • A large proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients fail the first biologic DMARD. • Few data are available about the efficacy of biologic DMARD after the failure of a non-TNF inhibitor. • Abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab seem to maintain a good retention rate after the failure of a first-course therapy with a non-TNF inhibitor.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

Response to interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in patients with rheumatoid arthritis is independent of the number of prior used TNF inhibitors: A systematic review and metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether early response to tocilizumab (TCZ) and sarilumab (SAR) therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is influenced by previous use of biologic agents.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis of original studies that analyzed the effectiveness of TCZ or SRL in subgroups of RA patients, including biologic-naïve patients versus those with inadequate response to at least one biologic DMARD (bDMARD), and patients with failure to 1 versus≥2 bDMARDs.

RESULTS

The study selection process finally included 17 articles corresponding to 14 studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although the existing literature that compared the response in biologic-naïve patients versus those with inadequate response to at least one bDMARD showed conflicting results, meta-analysis of 6 published studies revealed a significantly higher likelihood of remission (RR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.5) and low activity disease (RR=1.3; 95% CI: 1.2-1.4) in the biologic-naïve group at week 24. However, differences between groups were not clinically meaningful in all studies and not always maintained after 6 to 12months of treatment. In addition, data from RCT RADIATE and TARGET suggest that the response to IL-6 pathway inhibitors seems to be similar, regardless of the number of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) previously tested.

CONCLUSION

Disease activity was more rapidly reduced in the early stages of treatment in biologic-naïve patients. However, near similar efficacy can be expected in patients who experienced a failure of at least one bDMARD (mainly TNFis) beyond the first 6 to 12months of treatment, suggesting that the response occurs independently of the number of prior TNFis.

Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework

OBJECTIVES

Target trial emulation is an intuitive design framework that encourages investigators to formulate their comparative effectiveness research (CER) question as a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our aim was to systematically review CER studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide examples of design limitations that could be avoided using target trial emulation, and how these limitations might introduce bias.

METHODS

We searched for head-to-head CER studies of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Study designs were reviewed for seven components of the target trial emulation framework: eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrasts of interest (ie, intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol effect) and analysis plan. Hypothetical trials corresponding to the reported methods were assessed to identify design limitations that would have been avoided with an explicit target trial protocol. Analysis of the primary effectiveness outcome was chosen where multiple analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We found 31 CER studies, of which 29 (94%) had at least one design limitation belonging to seven components. The most common limitations related to: (1) eligibility criteria: 19/31 (61%) studies used post-baseline information to define baseline eligibility; (2) causal contrasts: 25 (81%) did not define whether ITT or per-protocol effects were estimated and (3) assignment procedures: 13 (42%) studies did not account for confounding by indication or relied solely on statistical confounder selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Design limitations were found in 94% of observational CER studies in RA. Target trial emulation is a structured approach for designing observational CER studies that helps to avoid potential sources of bias.

Abatacept Monotherapy Versus Abatacept Plus Methotrexate for Treatment-Refractory Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate combination therapy improves abatacept efficacy as a first-line biologic agent for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but it is unclear when abatacept is used later on, particularly after non-TNF inhibitor (TNFi) failure.

STUDY QUESTION

The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment response after non-TNFi inadequate response is different in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept in combination with or not with methotrexate.

METHODS

Patients treated with abatacept monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate after non-TNFi failure were included.

RESULTS

Data from 46 patients aged 56 years [49-61] with 12 years [8-16] of disease duration were examined. Rituximab was the treatment used in the previous line for 75.0% of the combination therapy group (15/20) and 34.6% (9/26) in the monotherapy group. At 12 months, 38.5% (10/26) of patients were in good-to-moderate EULAR response in the monotherapy group compared with 25.0% (5/20) in the combination therapy group (P = 0.33). Treatment persistence at 12 months was 61.5% (16/26) in the monotherapy group and 35.0% (7/20) in the combination therapy group (P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding methotrexate to abatacept did not improve treatment response in patients with RA after non-TNFi inadequate response.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Population based prospective study.

SETTING

53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France.

PARTICIPANTS

3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months.

INTERVENTION

Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LED_wf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure.

RESULTS

Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LED_wf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.

FCGR2A/FCGR3A Gene Polymorphisms and Clinical Variables as Predictors of Response to Tocilizumab and Rituximab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

We evaluated the influence of clinical, biochemical, and genetic factors on response in 142 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, of whom 87 patients were treated with tocilizumab (61.26%) and 55 patients were treated with rituximab (38.7%;) according to the variables European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, remission, low disease activity, and improvement in Disease Activity Score, 28 joints (DAS28) at 6, 12, and 18 months. A retrospective prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients carrying the FCGR3A rs396991-TT genotype treated with tocilizumab showed higher EULAR response (OR, 5.075; 95%CI, 1.20-21.33; P = .027) at 12 months, those who were naive for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) at the beginning of treatment showed satisfactory EULAR response, higher remission, and greater improvement in DAS28 at 6 months. Younger age at start of tocilizumab treatment was associated with satisfactory EULAR response at 18 months and greater remission at 6 and 18 months. Subcutaneous tocilizumab administration was associated with higher remission at 6 months and improved low disease activity rate at 12 months. In patients treated with rituximab, carriers of the FCGR2A rs1801274-TT genotype had higher EULAR response at 6 months (OR, 4.861; 95%CI, 1.11-21.12; P = .035), 12 months (OR, 4.667; p = 0.066, 95%CI, 0.90-24.12; P = .066), and 18 months (OR, 2.487; 95%CI, 0.35-17.31; P = .357), higher remission (OR: 10.625; p = 0.044, CI_95% : 1.07, 105.47) at 6 months, and greater improvement in DAS28 at 12 months (B = 0.782; 95%CI, -0.15 to 1.71; P = .098) and 18 months (B = 1.414; 95%CI, 0.19-2.63; P = .025). The FCGR3A rs396991-G allele was associated with improved low disease activity rate (OR, 4.904; 95%CI, 0.84-28.48; P = .077) and greater improvement in DAS28 (B = -1.083; 95%CI, -1.98 to -0.18; P = .021) at 18 months. Patients with a lower number of previous biological therapies had higher remission at 12 months. We suggest that the FCGR3A rs396991-TT genotype, higher baseline value of DAS28, subcutaneous tocilizumab administration, younger age at the beginning of treatment, and being bDMARD naive are associated with better response to tocilizumab. In patients treated with rituximab, we found better response in those patients with the FCGR2A rs1801274-TT genotype, the FCGR3A rs396991-G allele, and lower number of previous biological therapies.

Inflammatory eye disease: Pre-treatment assessment of patients prior to commencing immunosuppressive and biologic therapy: Recommendations from an expert committee

AIM

To outline recommendations from an expert committee on the assessment and investigation of patients with severe inflammatory eye disease commencing immunosuppressive and/or biologic therapy.

METHOD

The approach to assessment is based on the clinical experience of an expert committee and a review of the literature with regard to corticosteroids, immunosuppressive drug and biologic therapy and other adjunct therapy in the management of patients with severe sight-threatening inflammatory eye disease.

CONCLUSION

We recommend a careful assessment and consultative approach by ophthalmologists or physicians experienced in the use of immunosuppressive agents for all patients commencing immunosuppressive and/or biologic therapy for sight threatening inflammatory eye disease with the aim of preventing infection, cardiovascular, metabolic and bone disease and reducing iatrogenic side effects.

Influence of IL6R gene polymorphisms in the effectiveness to treatment with tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis

In the present study, we aimed to investigate the influence of clinical parameters and single-nucleotide polymorphisms of interleukin-6 receptor (rs12083537, rs2228145, rs4329505 and rs11265618) on response to tocilizumab, TCZ (European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, remission, low disease activity (LDA) and improvement of DAS28). We performed a retrospective cohort study in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) treated with TCZ for 12 months. Multivariable analysis showed that the only variable independently associated to satisfactory EULAR response (odds ratio (OR): 0.61; 95% of confidence interval (CI)_95%: 0.42, 0.88; P=0.008), remission (OR: 0.51; CI_95%: 0.35, 0.75; P=0.001), LDA (OR: 0.41; CI_95%: 0.24, 0.72; P=0.002) and improvement in DAS28 (B=-0.32; CI_95%): -0.47, -0.17; P=7.5 × 10^-5) at 12 months was lower number of previous biological therapy (BT). High baseline DAS28 was also associated with a greater decrease in DAS28 at 12 months of treatment (B=0.99; CI_95%: 0.79, 1.20; P=1.5 × 10^-14). Those patients who were carriers of AA genotypes for rs12083537 (OR: 13.0; CI_95%: 2.31, 72.91; P=0.004) and CC for rs11265618 (OR: 12.15; CI_95%: 2.18, 67.81; P=0.004) had better LDA response at 12 months of treatment with TCZ. In conclusion, RA patients treated with TCZ showed better EULAR response, remission, LDA and DAS28 improvement rates when a lower number of BT were previously administered. The AA genotype for rs12083537 and CC for rs11265618 polymorphisms for may act as predictors of good response LDA.

Genetic and clinical biomarkers of tocilizumab response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of clinical and genetic factors on response to tocilizumab (TCZ) response, remission, low disease activity (LDA) and DAS28 improvement. A retrospective cohort study in 79 RA patients treated with TCZ during 6/18 months of therapy was conducted. CD69(rs11052877), GALNT18(rs4910008), CLEC2D(rs1560011), KCNMB1(rs703505), ENOX1(rs9594987), rs10108210, and rs703297 gene polymorphisms, identified in a recent GWAS as putative predictors of TCZ response, were analysed. Variables independently associated to satisfactory EULAR response at 6 months were GALNT18-CC genotype (ORCC/T-:12.8; CI95%:1.5,108.7; p=0.02), CD69 gene polymorphism (ORAA/GG:17.2; CI95%:2.5,119.6; p=0.004) and lower number of previous biological therapy, BT (OR: 0.45; CI95%:0.3, 0.7; p=0.001). The factors independently associated to higher remission were lower number of previous BT (OR:0.56; CI95%:0.38, 0.82; p=0.003), and GALNT18 CC genotype (ORCT/CC:0.09; CI95%:0.02,0.45;p=0.004; ORTT/CC:0.14; CI95%:0.02,0.79; p=0.026). The A-allele of CD69 (ORA_/GG:6.68;CI95%:1.68,26.51;p=0.007) and lower number of previous BT (OR:0.50; CI95%:0.32,0.77; p=0.002) were independent factors capable to predict higher LDA rates at 6 months. Independent factors associated to higher improvement in DAS28 at 6 months were CD69-AA genotype (B=-0.56; CI95%:-1.09, -0.03; p=0.039), GALNT18-CC genotype (B=-0.88;CI95%:-1.49, -0.27; p=0.005), subcutaneous administration (B=1.03; CI95%:0.44,1.62; p=0.001) and higher baseline DAS28 (B=0.82; CI95%:0.59, 1.05; p=4.9×10(-10)). Lower number of previous BT was the only independent predictor of satisfactory EULAR response (OR:0.60; CI95%:0.34,0.88; p=0.010) and higher remission (OR:0.65; CI95%:0.46,0.93; p=0.018) at 18 months. The C-allele of GALNT18 (ORC-/TT:4.60; CI95%:1.16, 18.27; p=0.03) and lower number of previous BT (OR:0.47; CI95%:0.29,0.74; p=0.001) were independent factors capable to predict higher LDA rates at 18 months. In conclusion, RA patients treated with TCZ showed better EULAR response, remission, LDA and DAS28 improvement rates in patients carrying the GALNT18 C-allele or the CD69 A-allele, particularly when lower number of BT were previously administered.

Spotlight on tocilizumab and its potential in the treatment of systemic sclerosis

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a multisystem disease characterized by extensive collagen deposition in skin and internal organs, fibrointimal microvasculopathy, and activation of the immune system. T cells and B cells can promote fibrosis in SSc. Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in the pathogenesis of SSc. IL-6 is increased in the peripheral blood and lesional skin from patients with SSc, and induces fibroblast collagen production directly and indirectly by inducing profibrotic M2 macrophages. IL-6 also induces Th17 differentiation and promotes B cell differentiation toward Ig-producing plasma cells. IL-6 is also implicated in the pathogenesis of SSc in animal models as it is increased in mice with bleomycin-induced fibrosis, whereas neutralization of IL-6 in these mice prevents skin fibrosis. IL-6 acts on cells by binding to IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) which is transmembrane or soluble, and then recruits the signal-transducing glycoprotein 130 which is ubiquitously expressed. Tocilizumab is an anti-IL-6R humanized monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6-mediated signaling. Tocilizumab has been approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis, for polyarticular and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and for Castleman’s disease, and is well tolerated. Case reports and a Phase II, randomized trial in SSc have shown some improvement of skin tightness and delayed deterioration of lung function. A Phase III randomized trial in SSc is anticipated.

Unmet Needs and Future Directions in Inflammatory Eye Disease

PURPOSE

To explore the unmet needs in the management of patients with severe inflammatory eye disease (IED), future directions for research and therapy, and to develop and facilitate access and delivery of better medical care to patients with severe IED.

METHODS

The unmet needs and future directions in inflammatory eye disease were identified and discussed by experts in relevant disciplines at a recent international conference.

RESULTS

A total of 14 major unmet needs were identified and discussed by experts in the areas of ophthalmology, rheumatology, infectious disease, and internal medicine, at an international conference. The major areas discussed are summarized in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of unmet needs in IED is seen as a first step in implementing changes in the way we diagnose and treat patients with these sight-threatening IEDs.