Circulating interleukin‐6 as a biomarker in a randomized controlled trial of modified‐release prednisone vs immediate‐release prednisolone, in newly diagnosed patients with giant cell arteritis

Oral Drug Delivery Systems Applied to Launched Products: Value for the Patients and Industrial Considerations

Drug delivery systems (DDS) control the amount, rate, and site of administration of drug substances in the body as well as their release and ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion). Among the various types of DDS, amount-controlled DDS for solubilization and absorption increase the bioavailability. Time- and amount-controlled DDS are controlled release formulations classified as (1) membrane-type, (2) matrix-type, (3) osmotic-type, and (4) ion-exchange type. Timed-release formulations also control the time and amount of release and the absorption of drugs. Site- and amount-controlled DDS are characterized by colonic delivery and intestinal lymph-targeting to improve release and ADME of drug substances. Finally, site-, time-, and amount-controlled DDS are gastroretentive formulations and local delivery in the oral cavity to improve site retention, release, and ADME of drugs. DDS can enhance efficacy, reduce adverse effects, and optimize the dosing frequency of various drug products to increase patient value. This review focuses on patient value and industrial considerations of launched oral DDS. We provide a technological overview of candidate and marketed DDS, as well as the pros/cons of the technologies for industrialization with consideration to excipients, manufacturing, and storage stability. Moreover, to demonstrate the usefulness of the technology and support the selection and development of the best technologies for patients, we also describe patient value from clinical studies and analyses, particularly with regard to increased new medical options, higher efficacy, reduced adverse effects, reduced number of doses and clinic visits, easier administration, higher quality of life, greater adherence, and satisfaction.

The dichotomy of glucocorticosteroid treatment in immune-inflammatory rheumatic diseases: an evidence-based perspective and insights from clinical practice

Objectives

Glucocorticosteroids (GCs) are the most used anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs due to their effectiveness in managing pain and disease modification in many immune-inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). However, their use is limited because of adverse effects (AEs).

Material and methods

The authors analyzed recent studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational, translational studies and systematic reviews, providing an in-depth viewpoint on the benefits and drawbacks of GC use in rheumatology.

Results

Glucocorticosteroids are essential in managing life-threatening autoimmune diseases and a cornerstone in many IRDs given their swift onset of action, necessary in flares. Several RCTs and meta-analyses have demonstrated that when administered over a long time and on a low-dose basis, GC can slow the radiographic progression in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients by at least 50%, satisfying the conventional definition of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). In the context of RA treatment, the use of modified-release prednisone formulations at night may offer the option of respecting circadian rhythms of both inflammatory response and HPA activation, thereby enabling low-dose GC administration to mitigate nocturnal inflammation and prolonged morning fatigue and joint stiffness. Long-term GC use should be individualized based on patient characteristics and minimized due to their potential AEs. Their chronic use, especially at medium/high dosages, might cause irreversible organ damage due to the burden of metabolic systemic effects and increased risk of infections. Many international guidelines recommend tapering/withdrawal of GCs in sustained remission. Treat-to-target (T2T) strategies are critical in setting targets for disease activity and reducing/discontinuing GCs once control is achieved.

Conclusions

Glucocorticosteroids' use in treating IRDs should be judicious, focused on minimizing use, tapering and discontinuing treatment, when possible, to improve long-term safety. Glucocorticosteroids remain part of many therapeutic regimens, particularly at low doses, and elderly RA patients, especially with associated chronic comorbidities, may benefit from long-term low-dose GC treatment. A personalized GC therapy is essential for optimal long-term outcomes.

Biomarkers in the era of targeted therapy in giant cell arteritis and polymyalgia rheumatica: is it possible to replace acute-phase reactants?

Research into giant cell arteritis (GCA) and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) has become more important in the last few decades. Physicians are facing several challenges in managing the diagnosis, treatment, and relapses of GCA and PMR patients. The search for biomarkers could provide elements to guide a physician's decision. In this review, we aim to summarize the scientific publications about biomarkers in GCA and PMR in the past decade. The first point raised by this review is the number of clinical situations in which biomarkers could be useful: differential diagnosis of either GCA or PMR, diagnosis of underlying vasculitis in PMR, prediction of relapse or complications, disease activity monitoring, choice, and modification of treatments. The second point raised by this review is the large number of biomarkers studied, from common markers like C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, or elements of blood count to inflammatory cytokines, growth factors, or immune cell subpopulations. Finally, this review underlines the heterogeneity between the studies and proposes points to consider in studies evaluating biomarkers in general and particularly in the case of GCA and PMR.

Limited utility of novel serological biomarkers in patients newly suspected of having giant cell arteritis

AIM

Diagnosing and monitoring vascular activity in giant cell arteritis (GCA) is difficult due to the paucity of specific serological biomarkers. We assessed the utility of 8 novel biomarkers in an inception cohort of newly suspected GCA patients.

METHOD

Consecutive patients were enrolled between May 2016 and December 2017. Serum was collected within 72 hours of commencing corticosteroids and at 6 months. It was analyzed for levels of intra-cellular adhesion molecule 1, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), pentraxin 3, von Willebrand factor and procalcitonin (5-plex R&D Systems multiplex assay) and interleukin (IL)6, IL12 and interferon-γ (high-sensitivity 3-plex ProcartaPlex multiplex assay). A GCA specific positron emission tomography / computed tomography (PET/CT) scan was performed at enrolment with uptake in each vascular territory graded and summed to derive a total vascular score (TVS).

RESULTS

For the 63 patients enrolled, 12 (19%) had a final diagnosis of biopsy-positive GCA and a further 9 had a clinical diagnosis of biopsy-negative GCA. None of the 8 biomarkers was significantly higher in GCA patients compared with those with alternative diagnoses, or demonstrated a positive correlation with the PET/CT TVS. This was in contrast to the C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) which were higher in the biopsy-positive GCA cohort (P < .04) and showed weak positive correlations with the TVS (correlation coefficient 0.34, P < .01). Procalcitonin did not distinguish between GCA and infection. Concentrations of CRP, ESR, VEGF and pentraxin 3 decreased between diagnosis and 6 months in GCA patients.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify new serological biomarkers to assist in diagnosing or assessing the vasculitis burden in GCA.

[Long-term complications, monitoring and interventional treatment of large vessel vasculitis]

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu's arteritis (TAK) both belong to the group of large vessel vasculitides and require long-term drug treatment. Glucocorticoids (GC) are the first choice for the treatment of both diseases. For GCA immunosuppressants, such as tocilizumab or methotrexate should be considered in cases of treatment refractory and relapses or if there is a high risk for GC-related adverse events. In TAK patients the use of immunosuppressive agents should be considered for all patients. In the course of the disease, severe disease-associated and treatment-associated complications can occur. The most frequent disease-associated complications include visual impairment up to blindness in GCA, as well as vascular stenoses with ischemia and aortic aneurysms with possible dissection in GCA and TAK. Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) and stenting are minimally invasive, low-risk interventional procedures for GCA and TAK patients with clinically significant vascular stenoses, despite a tendency to restenosis. Interventional procedures should be weighed up against vascular surgical approaches depending on the localization and the total clinical situation. All interventions should be conducted in a phase of stable remission when possible. For monitoring of disease activity in patients with GCA and TAK, assessment of clinical manifestations as well as C‑reactive protein (CRP) and the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) are useful; however, both are unreliable under interleukin‑6 block with tocilizumab. The value of new biomarkers independent from interleukin‑6 and the importance of imaging (sonography, magnetic resonance angiography, computed tomography and positron emission tomography-CT) for monitoring GCA and TAK still have to be investigated in future studies.