Early rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab, methotrexate, or their combination (U-Act-Early): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy trial

BACKGROUND

For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, treatment aim is early, rapid, and sustained remission. We compared the efficacy and safety of strategies initiating the interleukin-6 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody tocilizumab with or without methotrexate (a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [DMARD]), versus initiation of methotrexate monotherapy in line with international guidelines.

METHODS

We did a 2-year, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, strategy study at 21 rheumatology outpatient departments in the Netherlands. We included patients who had been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year before inclusion, were DMARD-naive, aged 18 years or older, met current rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria, and had a disease activity score assessing 28 joints (DAS28) of at least 2·6. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to start tocilizumab plus methotrexate (the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm), or tocilizumab plus placebo-methotrexate (the tocilizumab arm), or methotrexate plus placebo-tocilizumab (the methotrexate arm). Tocilizumab was given at 8 mg/kg intravenously every 4 weeks with a maximum of 800 mg per dose. Methotrexate was started at 10 mg per week orally and increased stepwise every 4 weeks by 5 mg to a maximum of 30 mg per week, until remission or dose-limiting toxicity. We did the randomisation using an interactive web response system. Masking was achieved with placebos that were similar in appearance to the active drug; the study physicians, pharmacists, monitors, and patients remained masked during the study, and all assessments were done by masked assessors. Patients not achieving remission on their initial regimen switched from placebo to active treatments; patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm switched to standard of care therapy (typically methotrexate combined with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor). When sustained remission was achieved, methotrexate (and placebo-methotrexate) was tapered and stopped, then tocilizumab (and placebo-tocilizumab) was also tapered and stopped. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving sustained remission (defined as DAS28 <2·6 with a swollen joint count ≤four, persisting for at least 24 weeks) on the initial regimen and during the entire study duration, compared between groups with a two-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat method. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01034137.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2010, and July 30, 2012, we recruited and assigned 317 eligible patients to treatment (106 to the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 103 to the tocilizumab arm, and 108 to the methotrexate arm). The study was completed by a similar proportion of patients in the three groups (range 72-78%). The most frequent reasons for dropout were adverse events or intercurrent illness: 27 (34%) of dropouts, and insufficient response: 26 (33%) of dropouts. 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission on the initial regimen, compared with 86 (84%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 48 (44%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm (relative risk [RR] 2·00, 95% CI 1·59-2·51 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, and 1·86, 1·48-2·32 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, p<0·0001 for both comparisons). For the entire study, 91 (86%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 91 (88%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 83 (77%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm achieved sustained remission (RR 1·13, 95% CI 1·00-1·29, p=0·06 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs methotrexate, 1·14, 1·01-1·29, p=0·0356 for tocilizumab vs methotrexate, and p=0·59 for tocilizumab plus methotrexate vs tocilizumab). Nasopharyngitis was the most common adverse event in all three treatment groups, occurring in 38 (36%) of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm, 40 (39%) of 103 in the tocilizumab arm, and 37 (34%) of 108 in the methotrexate arm. The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups (17 [16%] of 106 patients in the tocilizumab plus methotrexate arm vs 19 [18%] of 103 in the tocilizumab arm and 13 [12%] of 108 in the methotrexate arm), and no deaths occurred during the study.

INTERPRETATION

For patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis, strategies aimed at sustained remission by immediate initiation of tocilizumab with or without methotrexate are more effective, and with a similar safety profile, compared with initiation of methotrexate in line with current standards.

FUNDING

Roche Nederland BV.

Harm, benefit and costs associated with low-dose glucocorticoids added to the treatment strategies for rheumatoid arthritis in elderly patients (GLORIA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the joints affecting 1% of the world population. It has major impact on patients through disability and associated comorbidities. Current treatment strategies have considerably improved the prognosis, but recent innovations (especially biologic drugs and the new class of so-called “JAK/STAT inhibitors”) have important safety issues and are very costly. Glucocorticoids (GCs) are highly effective in RA, and could reduce the need for expensive treatment with biologic agents. However, despite more than 65 years of clinical experience, there is a lack of studies large enough to adequately document the benefit/harm balance. The result is inappropriate treatment strategies, i.e. both under-use and over-use of GCs, and consequently suboptimal treatment of RA.

Methods

The GLORIA study is a pragmatic multicentre, 2-year, randomised, double-blind, clinical trial to assess the safety and effectiveness of a daily dose of 5 mg prednisolone or matching placebo added to standard of care in elderly patients with RA. Eligible participants are diagnosed with RA, have inadequate disease control (disease activity score, DAS28 ≥ 2.6), and are ≥ 65 years. The primary outcome measures are the time-averaged mean value of the DAS28 and the occurrence of serious adverse events or adverse events of special interest. During the trial, change in antirheumatic therapy is permitted as clinically indicated, except for GCs. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility are secondary outcomes. The main challenge is the interpretation of the trial result with two primary endpoints and the pragmatic trial design that allows co-interventions. Another challenge is the definition of safety and the relative lack of power to detect differences between treatment groups. We have chosen to define safety as the number of patients experiencing at least one serious adverse event. We also specify a decision tree to guide our conclusion on the balance of benefit and harm, and our methodology to combat potential confounding caused by co-interventions.

Discussion

Pragmatic trials minimise impact on daily practice and maximise clinical relevance of the results, but analysis and interpretation of the results is challenging. We expect that the results of this trial are of importance for all rheumatologists who treat elderly patients with RA.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02585258. Registered on 20 October 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2396-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intravenous pegylated liposomal prednisolone outperforms intramuscular methylprednisolone in treating rheumatoid arthritis flares: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are potent anti-inflammatory drugs but their use is limited by systemic exposure leading to toxicity. Targeted GC delivery to sites of inflammation via encapsulation in long-circulating liposomes may improve the therapeutic index. We performed a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multi-center study in which intravenously (i.v.) administered pegylated liposomal prednisolone sodium phosphate (Nanocort) was compared to equipotent intramuscular (i.m.) methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®; i.e. a current standards-of-care for treating flares in rheumatoid arthritis patients). We enrolled 172 patients with active arthritis who met all eligibility criteria, eventually resulting in 150 patients randomized in three groups: (1) Nanocort 75 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; (2) Nanocort 150 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; and (3) Depo-Medrol® 120 mg i.m. injection plus i.v. saline infusion. Dosing in each group occurred at baseline and on day 15 (week 2). Study visits occurred at week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12, to assess both efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was the "European League Against Rheumatism" (EULAR) responder rate at week 1. Safety was determined by the occurrence of adverse events during treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up. Treatment with Nanocort was found to be superior to Depo-Medrol® in terms of EULAR response at week 1, with p-values of 0.007 (good response) and 0.018 (moderate response). Treatments were well tolerated with a comparable pattern of adverse events in the three treatment groups. However, the Nanocort groups had a higher incidence of hypersensitivity reactions during liposome infusion. Our results show that liposomal Nanocort is more effective than Depo-Medrol® in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis flares and has similar safety. This is the first clinical study in a large patient population showing that i.v. administered targeted drug delivery with a nanomedicine formulation improves the therapeutic index of glucocorticoids.

A phase I/IIa safety and efficacy trial of intratympanic gamma-secretase inhibitor as a regenerative drug treatment for sensorineural hearing loss

Inhibition of Notch signalling with a gamma-secretase inhibitor (GSI) induces mammalian hair cell regeneration and partial hearing restoration. In this proof-of-concept Phase I/IIa multiple-ascending dose open-label trial (ISRCTN59733689), adults with mild-moderate sensorineural hearing loss received 3 intratympanic injections of GSI LY3056480, in 1 ear over 2 weeks. Phase I primary outcome was safety and tolerability. Phase lla primary outcome was change from baseline to 12 weeks in average pure-tone air conduction threshold across 2,4,8 kHz. Secondary outcomes included this outcome at 6 weeks and change from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks in pure-tone thresholds at individual frequencies, speech reception thresholds (SRTs), Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions (DPOAE) amplitudes, Signal to Noise Ratios (SNRs) and distribution of categories normal, present-abnormal, absent and Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults/Elderly (HHIA/E). In Phase I (N = 15, 1 site) there were no severe nor serious adverse events. In Phase IIa (N = 44, 3 sites) the average pure-tone threshold across 2,4,8 kHz did not change from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks (estimated change -0.87 dB; 95% CI -2.37 to 0.63; P = 0.252 and -0.46 dB; 95% CI -1.94 to 1.03; P = 0.545, respectively), nor did the means of secondary measures. DPOAE amplitudes, SNRs and distribution of categories did not change from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks, nor did SRTs and HHIA/E scores. Intratympanic delivery of LY3056480 is safe and well-tolerated; the trial's primary endpoint was not met.