Rituximab versus tocilizumab in anti-TNF inadequate responder patients with rheumatoid arthritis (R4RA): 16-week outcomes of a stratified, biopsy-driven, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 randomised controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Humby F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7829614 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) ? 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 (LEDwf), 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 (LEDwf 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.
| S-EPMC6344892 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundObservational studies have suggested that patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who experience inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents respond more favourably to rituximab (RTX) than to an alternative anti-TNF agent. However, the relative effectiveness of these agents on long-term outcomes, particularly in radiographic damage, remains unclear.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of RTX against anti-TNF agents in preventing joint damage in patients with RA who have experienced inadequate response to at least one prior anti-TNF agent.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study within the Swiss registry of patients with RA who discontinued at least one anti-TNF agent and subsequently received either RTX or an alternative anti-TNF agent. The primary outcome, progression of radiographic joint erosions (Ratingen erosion score)over time, and the secondary outcome, functional disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index), were analysed using regression models for longitudinal data and adjusted for potential confounders.ResultsOf the 371 patients included, 104 received RTX and 267 received an alternative anti-TNF agent. During the 2.6-year median follow-up period, the rates of Ratingen erosion score progression were similar between patients taking RTX and patients taking an alternative anti-TNF agent (p=0.67). The evolution of the Health Assessment Questionnaire score was statistically significantly better in the RTX group (p=0.016), but the magnitude of the effect was probably not clinically relevant.ConclusionThis observational study suggests that RTX is as effective as an alternative anti-TNF agent in preventing erosions in patients with RA who have previously experienced inadequate response to anti-TNF agents.
| S-EPMC3500530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receive highly targeted biologic therapies without previous knowledge of target expression levels in the diseased tissue. Approximately 40% of patients do not respond to individual biologic therapies and 5-20% are refractory to all. In a biopsy-based, precision-medicine, randomized clinical trial in RA (R4RA; n = 164), patients with low/absent synovial B cell molecular signature had a lower response to rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) compared with that to tocilizumab (anti-IL6R monoclonal antibody) although the exact mechanisms of response/nonresponse remain to be established. Here, in-depth histological/molecular analyses of R4RA synovial biopsies identify humoral immune response gene signatures associated with response to rituximab and tocilizumab, and a stromal/fibroblast signature in patients refractory to all medications. Post-treatment changes in synovial gene expression and cell infiltration highlighted divergent effects of rituximab and tocilizumab relating to differing response/nonresponse mechanisms. Using ten-by-tenfold nested cross-validation, we developed machine learning algorithms predictive of response to rituximab (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.74), tocilizumab (AUC = 0.68) and, notably, multidrug resistance (AUC = 0.69). This study supports the notion that disease endotypes, driven by diverse molecular pathology pathways in the diseased tissue, determine diverse clinical and treatment-response phenotypes. It also highlights the importance of integration of molecular pathology signatures into clinical algorithms to optimize the future use of existing medications and inform the development of new drugs for refractory patients.
| S-EPMC9205785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsDrug 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.ConclusionsTNF 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.
| S-EPMC6656352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate, to compare the efficacy of adding tocilizumab to that of switching to tocilizumab monotherapy.MethodsDouble-blind, 2-year study in which adults with active RA (DAS28 >4.4) despite methotrexate were randomly assigned either to continue methotrexate with the addition of tocilizumab (MTX+TCZ) 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks or switch to tocilizumab and placebo (TCZ+PBO). The primary endpoint was the DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) remission rate at week 24. Secondary objectives included other symptomatic outcomes, quality of life and progression of structural damage.ResultsOf 556 randomly assigned patients, 512 (92%) completed 24 weeks. DAS28-ESR remission rates were 40.4% for TCZ+MTX and 34.8% for TCZ+PBO (p=0.19); American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70/90 rates were 71.5%/45.5%/24.5%/5.8% (TCZ+MTX) and 70.3%/40.2%/25.4%/5.1% (TCZ+PBO; differences not significant). A significant difference between groups was seen for low DAS28 (61.7% vs 51.4%). Radiographic progression was small and not different between groups (Genant-Sharp score progression ≤ smallest detectable change in 91% (TCZ+MTX) and 87% (TCZ+PBO)). Rates per 100 patient-years of serious adverse events and serious infections were 21 and six, respectively, for TCZ+MTX and 18 and six, respectively, for TCZ+PBO. Alanine aminotransferase elevations greater than threefold the upper limit of normal occurred in 7.8% and 1.2% of TCZ+MTX and TCZ+PBO patients, respectively.ConclusionNo clinically relevant superiority of the TCZ+MTX add-on strategy over the switch to tocilizumab monotherapy strategy was observed. The combination was more commonly associated with transaminase increases. Meaningful clinical and radiographic responses were achieved with both strategies, suggesting that tocilizumab monotherapy might be a valuable treatment strategy in suitable RA patients.
| S-EPMC3551223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety between tocilizumab added to methotrexate and tocilizumab switched from methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsThis is a 2-year randomised, controlled study. RA patients with moderate or high disease activity despite methotrexate were randomly assigned either to tocilizumab added to methotrexate (add-on) or tocilizumab switched from methotrexate (switch). The primary endpoint was the DAS28 remission rate at week 24. Secondary objectives included other clinical efficacy indices, radiological outcomes assessed with the van der Heijde-modified total Sharp scoring system (mTSS), and safety.ResultsOf 223 randomised patients, 83% completed 52?weeks. DAS28 remission rates at week 24 were 70% for add-on and 55% for switch (p=0.02), but they became comparable at week 52 (72% vs 70%, p=0.86). Structural remission rates (mTSS?0.5) at week 52 were not different (66% vs 64%, p=0.92). However, clinically relevant radiographic progression rates (CRRP; mTSS?3) tended to be higher with the switch than with the add-on (15% vs 7%, p=0.07). Radiographic progression in the CRRP patients was larger with the switch than with the add-on (9.0/year vs 5.0/year, p=0.04). The difference in the mean C-reactive protein of the CRRP patients was significant for the first 24?weeks (1.56 vs 0.49, p=0.001) but not for the following 28?weeks (0.10 vs 0.04, p=0.1). Overall safety was preferable in the switch group.ConclusionsIn RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate, tocilizumab added to methotrexate more rapidly suppressed inflammation than tocilizumab switched from methotrexate, leading to superior clinical efficacy and prevention of joint destruction.Trial registration numberNCT01120366.
| S-EPMC5099201 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAround 30% of patients with RA have an inadequate response to MTX. We aimed to use routine clinical and biological data to build machine learning models predicting EULAR inadequate response to MTX and to identify simple predictive biomarkers.MethodsModels were trained on RA patients fulfilling the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria from the ESPOIR and Leiden EAC cohorts to predict the EULAR response at 9 months (± 6 months). Several models were compared on the training set using the AUROC. The best model was evaluated on an external validation cohort (tREACH). The model's predictions were explained using Shapley values to extract a biomarker of inadequate response.ResultsWe included 493 therapeutic sequences from ESPOIR, 239 from EAC and 138 from tREACH. The model selected DAS28, Lymphocytes, Creatininemia, Leucocytes, AST, ALT, swollen joint count and corticosteroid co-treatment as predictors. The model reached an AUROC of 0.72 [95% CI (0.63, 0.80)] on the external validation set, where 70% of patients were responders to MTX. Patients predicted as inadequate responders had only 38% [95% CI (20%, 58%)] chance to respond and using the algorithm to decide to initiate MTX would decrease inadequate-response rate from 30% to 23% [95% CI: (17%, 29%)]. A biomarker was identified in patients with moderate or high activity (DAS28 > 3.2): patients with a lymphocyte count superior to 2000 cells/mm3 are significantly less likely to respond.ConclusionOur study highlights the usefulness of machine learning in unveiling subgroups of inadequate responders to MTX to guide new therapeutic strategies. Further work is needed to validate this approach.
| S-EPMC10321123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUveitis associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is a cause of major ocular morbidity. A substantial proportion of children are refractory to systemic methotrexate and TNF inhibitors. Our aim was to study the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis refractory to both methotrexate and TNF inhibitors.MethodsThis multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial was done following a Simon's two-stage design at seven tertiary hospital sites in the UK. Patients aged 2-18 years with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis were eligible. All patients had been on a stable dose of methotrexate for at least 12 weeks and had not responded to treatment with a TNF inhibitor. Patients weighing 30 kg or more were treated with 162 mg subcutaneous tocilizumab every 2 weeks for 24 weeks, and participants weighing less than 30 kg were treated with 162 mg every 3 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was treatment response defined as a two-step decrease, or decrease to zero, from baseline in the level of inflammation (anterior chamber cells) at week 12, per the standardisation of uveitis nomenclature criteria. A phase 3 trial would be justified if more than seven patients responded to treatment. An interim analysis was planned to assess whether the trial would be stopped for futility, with futility defined as two or fewer treatment responses among ten participants. Adverse events were collected up to 30 calendar days after treatment cessation. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and the safety analysis was done in all patients who started the treatment. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN95363507) and EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2015-001323-23).Findings22 participants were enrolled to the trial between Dec 3, 2015, and March 9, 2018, and 21 participants received treatment. One participant was found to be ineligible immediately after enrolment and was therefore withdrawn. Seven of 21 (median unbiased estimate of proportion 34% [95% CI 25-57]) responded to treatment (p=0·11). Safety results were consistent with the known safety profile of tocilizumab.InterpretationThe primary endpoint was not met, and thus the results do not support a phase 3 trial of tocilizumab in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis. Importantly, data on the use of tocilizumab in clinical practice is now captured in national registries. Despite this trial not meeting the threshold required to justify a larger phase 3 trial, several patients responded to treatment; as such, tocilzumab might still be a therapeutic option in some children with uveitis refractory to anti-TNF drugs, given the absence of other treatment options.FundingVersus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network: Children.
| S-EPMC7134526 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To assess the effects of 16?weeks of tofogliflozin (sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 [SGLT2] inhibitor) treatment vs placebo on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with insulin monotherapy or insulin plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor. METHODS:The study comprised a 16-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled period and a 36-week extension (NCT02201004). Men and women (aged ?20 and ?75?years) with T2DM (HbA1c ?7.5% and ?10.5%) were randomized 2:1 to tofogliflozin 20?mg once/day or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline. Insulin reduction was not permitted during this study. RESULTS:A total of 211 patients were randomized (141 tofogliflozin, 70 placebo). Addition of tofogliflozin to insulin therapy was significantly superior to placebo for lowering HbA1c (-0.59 vs +0.48%; P?<?.0001), fasting plasma glucose (-27.2 vs +5.3?mg/dL; P?<?.0001), postprandial plasma glucose (-65.0 vs +3.2?mg/dL; P < 0.0001), serum uric acid (-0.18 vs +0.07 mg/dL; P?=?.0062), body weight (-1.34 vs +0.03?kg; P?<?.0001) and daily insulin dose (-1.3 vs -0.2?U, P?=?.0152). Hypoglycaemia occurred in 30.7% of patients receiving tofogliflozin vs 21.4% for placebo. Two patients treated with tofogliflozin each had a genital or urinary tract infection. CONCLUSIONS:This 16-week double-blind study indicated that, in patients with T2DM whose HbA1c levels were poorly controlled with insulin monotherapy or insulin plus a DPP-4 inhibitor, addition of tofogliflozin was an effective treatment option with an acceptable safety profile.
| S-EPMC5637911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives:To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of ixekizumab, an IL-17A antagonist, in patients with active PsA. Methods:In SPIRIT-P2 (NCT02349295), patients (n = 363) with previous inadequate response to TNF inhibitors entered the double-blind period (weeks 0-24) and received placebo or ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) or every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) following a 160-mg starting dose at week 0. During the extension period (weeks 24-156), patients maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo patients received IXEQ4W or IXEQ2W (1:1). We present the accumulated safety findings (week 24 up to 156) at the time of this analysis for patients who entered the extension period (n = 310). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient years are presented. ACR responses are presented on an intent-to-treat basis using non-responder imputation up to week 52. Results:From week 24 up to 156 (with 228 patient years of ixekizumab exposure), 140 [61.3 IR] and 15 (6.6 IR) patients reported infections and serious adverse events, respectively. Serious adverse events included one death and four serious infections. In all patients initially treated with IXEQ4W and IXEQ2W at week 0 (non-responder imputation), ACR20 (61 and 51%), ACR50 (42 and 33%) and ACR70 (26 and 18%) responses persisted out to week 52. Placebo patients re-randomized to ixekizumab demonstrated efficacy as measured by ACR responses at week 52. Conclusion:During the extension period, the overall safety profile of ixekizumab remained consistent with that observed with the double-blind period, and clinical improvements persisted up to 1 year.
| S-EPMC6199530 | biostudies-literature