Long-term real-life experience with rituximab in adult Finnish patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory or with contraindication to anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs

Long-term drug effectiveness and survival for reference rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis patients in an ordinary outpatient clinic

To explore the long-term drug effectiveness and survival of reference rituximab (ref-RTX)-treated rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in an ordinary outpatient clinic. Second, we explored baseline predictors of drug effectiveness and survival, and third, we clarified reasons for stopping treatment. RA patients treated with ref-RTX between 2006 and 2020 in Norway were examined and monitored using recommended measures for disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Drug effectiveness was assessed with random intercept linear mixed models; drug survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Reasons for discontinuation were ascertained. Baseline predictors of drug effectiveness and survival were estimated. Among 246 RA patients, at baseline, 17.1% were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) naïve, and 51.6% were currently using conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). During the five-year follow-up, all disease activity and PRO measures improved significantly (p < 0.01), with more substantial changes noted in the second year. Drug survival was 83% after one year and declined to 34% after five years. The two most frequently reported reasons for discontinuation were the doctor's decision (36.2%) and lack or loss of effectiveness (19.2%). No significant difference was found between naïve and previous users of bDMARDs or between concomitant and nonconcomitant users of csDMARDs when analysing drug effectiveness and survival. Our real-life data show that ref-RTX-treated RA patients had satisfactory treatment responses; drug survival declined linearly over time. There was no significant difference between naïve and previous users of bDMARDs or between concomitant and nonconcomitant users of csDMARDs, both for drug effectiveness and survival.

Factors Determining Retreatment Time Interval of Rituximab in Korean Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Unlike other biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that are administered at regular intervals even without flare, rituximab can be administered according to the timing of retreatment determined by the physician. Recently, there has been a tendency to prefer on-demand administration for disease flares rather than regular retreatment. We aimed to investigate the retreatment patterns of rituximab in patients with RA and to identify factors associated with extension of the time interval between retreatment courses. This study included RA patients on rituximab treatment who were enrolled in the Korean Rheumatology Biologics registry (KOBIO) or treated at Ajou University Hospital. Previous or current concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), corticosteroids, number of previous biologic agents, withdrawal, and time intervals of rituximab retreatment were collected. In case of treatment failure, the reasons such as lack of efficacy, adverse events, and others, were also identified. A total of 82 patients were enrolled. The mean follow-up period from the first cycle of rituximab was 46.1 months, and the mean interval between the retreatment courses was 16.3 months. The persistent rates of rituximab after 5 years was 72.4%. Concomitant use of at least two csDMARDs (β = 4.672; 95% CI: 0.089-9.255, p = 0.046) and concomitant use of corticosteroids (β = 7.602; 95% CI: 0.924-14.28, p = 0.026) were independent factors for extending the time interval between the retreatment courses. In conclusion, RA patients treated with rituximab in Korea show high persistence rates. Concomitant use of two or more csDMARDs and concomitant use of corticosteroids with rituximab are associating factors of extending the retreatment time interval. These findings should be considered when selecting rituximab as a treatment for patients with RA.

Factors associated with long-term persistence of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis In clinical practice: RITAR Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab (RTX) requires repeated cycles, but there is no well-established retreatment regimen in dose and frequency. The objective was to analyse the persistence of RTX treatment and factors that influence in terms of routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RITAR Study) is an observational, retrospective study that analyses the persistence of RTX in a cohort from 2003 to 2015. Persistence was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis; curves were compared with the Log-Rank test. Cox regression was used to quantify the risk of discontinuation and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with the persistence of the treatment.

RESULTS

454 cycles of RTX in 114 patients were included. Median survival was 10.0 years and incidence rate of discontinuation was 7.7 per 100 patients/year. Factors associated with persistence were autoantibody positivity and use of RTX in combination with csDMARDs. Sex, age, number of comorbidities, rheumatoid arthritis evolution, number of complications, basal DAS28, basal HAQ, number of lines of treatment, fixed or on demand retreatment and year of RTX starting were not associated. Multivariable models confirmed the relationship between autoantibody positivity, monotherapy and persistence of RTX.

CONCLUSIONS

The persistence of RTX in clinical practice is higher in seropositive patients and in those who are treated with RTX associated with a csDMARD. Dose per cycle and retreatment frequency do not have a decisive role in rituximab persistence.

A comprehensive review of rituximab therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Rituximab (RTX) is an approved treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that do not respond adequately to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. However, different new concerns, such as efficacy, optimum dose, safety issues, prediction of response to RTX, and pregnancy outcomes have attracted a lot of attention. The PubMed database was systematically reviewed for the last published articles, new findings, and controversial issues regarding RTX therapy in RA using "Rheumatoid arthritis" AND "rituximab" keywords, last updated on June 18, 2019. From 1812 initial recorders, 162 studies met the criteria. Regarding the optimum dose, low-dose RTX therapy (2 × 500 mg) seems as effective as standard dose (2 × 1000 mg), safer, and more cost-effective. The most common reported safety challenges included de novo infections, false negative serologic tests of viral infections, reactivation of chronic infections, interfering with vaccination outcome, and development of de novo psoriasis. Other less reported side effects are infusion reactions, nervous system disorders, and gastrointestinal disorders. Lower exposure to other biologics, presence of some serological markers (e.g., anti-RF, anti-CCP, IL-33, ESR), specific variations in FCGR3A, FCGR2A, TGFβ1, IL6, IRF5, BAFF genes, and also EBV-positivity could be used to predict response to RTX. Although there is no evidence of the teratogenic effect of RTX, it is recommended that women do not expose themselves to RTX at least 6 months before the conception. Only a reversible reduction of B cell-count in the offspring may be the pregnancy-related outcome. Although RTX is an effective therapeutic option for RA, more studies on optimum doses, prevention of RTX-related side effects, prediction of RTX response, and safety during the pregnancy are required.

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.

Long-term persistence with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To investigate the long term persistence of rituximab (RTX) in a large observational RA cohort, investigate persistence of RTX when used as a first or second line biologic DMARD (bDMARD), to characterize subsequent bDMARD treatment following RTX.

Methods

Patients with RA starting treatment with RTX (MabThera) between 2008 and 2011 were recruited into the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA. Duration of RTX treatment over the first 4 years after initiation was estimated via Kaplan-Meier estimates and the reason for discontinuation was ascertained. Subsequent bDMARD use following RTX discontinuation was characterised. Treatment survival in bDMARD-naïve (first line RTX use) and experienced (second line RTX use) cohorts was described.

Results

One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine patients were recruited (1371 bDMARD-experienced and 258 bDMARD-naïve). Sixty percent of the whole cohort remained on RTX after 4 years. Ineffectiveness (46%) and death (24%) were the most common reason for RTX discontinuation. RTX discontinuation was associated with RF negativity for the bDMARD-experienced cohort. Of those that discontinued RTX, 46% initiated treatment with another bDMARD, with tocilizumab being the most common.

Conclusion

This large study of patients initiating RTX treatment for severe RA found that 60% persisted with treatment after 4 years. This study also identified that RTX is tolerated well when used as a first or second line bDMARD.

Experience With the Use of Rituximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Tertiary Hospital in Spain: RITAR Study

Supplemental digital content is available in the text.

There is evidence supporting that there are no relevant clinical differences between dosing rituximab 1000 mg or 2000 mg per cycle in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in clinical trials, and low-dose cycles seem to have a better safety profile. Our objective was to describe the pattern of use of rituximab in real-life practice conditions.

Rituximab Retreatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Real-life Cohort: Data from the CERERRA Collaboration

Objective.

Several aspects of rituximab (RTX) retreatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) need to be further elucidated. The aim of this study was to describe the effect of repeated courses of RTX on disease activity and to compare 2 retreatment strategies, fixed-interval versus on-flare retreatment, in a large international, observational, collaborative study.

Methods.

In the first analysis, patients with RA who received at least 4 cycles with RTX were included. In the second analysis, patients who received at least 1 RTX retreatment and for whom information about the strategy for retreatment was available were identified. Two retreatment strategies (fixed-interval vs on-flare) were compared by fitting-adjusted, mixed-effects models of 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) over time for first and second retreatment.

Results.

A total of 1530 patients met the eligibility criteria for the first analysis. Significant reductions of mean DAS28 between the starts of subsequent treatment cycles were observed (at start of first treatment cycle: 5.5; second: 4.3; third: 3.8; and fourth: 3.5), suggesting improved response after each additional cycle (p < 0.0001 for all pairwise comparisons). A total of 800 patients qualified for the second analysis: 616 were retreated on flare and 184 at fixed interval. For the first retreatment, the fixed-interval retreatment group yielded significantly better results than the on-flare group (estimated marginal mean DAS28 = 3.8, 95% CI 3.6–4.1 vs 4.6, 95% CI 4.5–4.7, p < 0.0001). Similar results were found for the second retreatment.

Conclusion.

Repeated treatment with RTX leads to further clinical improvement after the first course of RTX. A fixed-interval retreatment strategy seems to be more effective than on-flare retreatment.