Dataset Information

Rituximab plus leflunomide in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, investigator-initiated clinical trial (AMARA study).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the efficacy and safety of rituximab + LEF in patients with RA.

Methods

In this investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients with an inadequate response to LEF who had failed one or more DMARD were randomly assigned 2:1 to i.v. rituximab 1000 mg or placebo on day 1 and 15 plus ongoing oral LEF. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference between ≥50% improvement in ACR criteria (ACR50 response) rates at week 24 (P ≤ 0.025). Secondary endpoints included ACR20/70 responses, ACR50 responses at earlier timepoints and adverse event (AE) rates. The planned sample size was not achieved due to events beyond the investigators' control.

Results

Between 13 August 2010 and 28 January 2015, 140 patients received rituximab (n = 93) or placebo (n = 47) plus ongoing LEF. Rituximab + LEF resulted in an increase in the ACR50 response rate that was significant at week 16 (32 vs 15%; P = 0.020), but not week 24 (27 vs 15%; P = 0.081), the primary endpoint. Significant differences favouring the rituximab + LEF arm were observed in some secondary endpoints, including ACR20 rates from weeks 12 to 24. The rituximab and placebo arms had similar AE rates (71 vs 70%), but the rituximab arm had a higher rate of serious AEs (SAEs 20 vs 2%), primarily infections and musculoskeletal disorders.

Conclusion

The primary endpoint was not reached, but rituximab + LEF demonstrated clinical benefits vs LEF in secondary endpoints. Although generally well tolerated, the combination was associated with additional SAEs and requires monitoring.

Trial registration

EudraCT: 2009-015950-39; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01244958.

SUBMITTER: Behrens F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8566251 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBoth methotrexate (MTX) and leflunomide (LEF) are registered and regularly prescribed as first-line treatments for the use in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and they are occasionally used in combination. However, evidence about their individual, and especially combined efficacy, in PsA is lacking. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of MTX and LEF combination therapy to MTX monotherapy in patients with PsA.MethodsCOMPLETE-PsA is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-untreated patients (n?=?78) with clinical diagnosis of active (i.e. ?2 swollen joints) PsA will be randomized 1:1 (stratified for high disease activity, Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score [PASDAS] ? 5.4) to the combination or monotherapy. The intervention group receives MTX 25?mg (oral or subcutaneous) once weekly plus LEF 20?mg daily, and the control group receives the same but with placebo instead of LEF daily. Primary endpoint is between-group difference in PASDAS at 16?weeks, adjusted for baseline PASDAS. Key secondary parameters include between-group comparisons in change in Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score, skin score, enthesitis score, dactylitis score, and swollen/tender joint count, as well as the proportion of patients fulfilling minimal disease activity (MDA), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response criteria at week 16. Furthermore, safety, function and quality of life (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], Psoriatic Arthritic Impact of Disease [PSAID], Short Form 12 [SF-12]) will be assessed.DiscussionThis is, to our knowledge, the first randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial assessing the effectiveness of MTX and LEF combination therapy in patients with PsA. The study will provide important information for treatment strategies and treatment recommendations.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR7632 (3 December 2018). CMO NL66544.091.18 (19 November 2018).

Project description:PurposeTo compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate (MTX) plus hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) vs MTX plus leflunomide (LEF) in established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX monotherapy in a real-world Chinese cohort.Patients and methodsA prospective RA cohort (n=549) was screened with eligible patients who had inadequate response (disease activity score in 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate, DAS28-ESR>3.2) to initial MTX monotherapy and subsequently received either MTX+HCQ or MTX+LEF. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to adjust the possible baseline confounders between two groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving first remission (DAS28-ESR<2.6) during follow-up by log rank test. Secondary outcomes were changes of DAS28, glucocorticoids (GCs) exposure, safety, cost-effectiveness, sustained remission, and low disease activity (LDA) rate after 24-month follow-up.ResultsOverall, 222 eligible patients were subjected to the aforementioned two treatment protocols (MTX+HCQ, n=102; MTX+LEF, n=120). After PSM adjustment, 97 patients in each group were analyzed. A higher remission rate was observed in the MTX+HCQ group than in the MTX+LEF group (70.1% vs 56.7%, P=0.048). The median time to remission was 11 and 16 months in the two groups, respectively. At the endpoint, more patients achieved remission (46.8% vs 32.5%, P=0.063) and maintained sustained LDA in the HCQ group (53.2% vs 38.6%, P=0.062) and also more patients withdrew GCs in this group (32% vs 16.7%, P=0.053) than those in the LEF group. Safety profiles were non-alarming, with no significant difference between the two groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio yielded by MTX+HCQ over MTX+LEF was $1,111.8 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), within the cost-effective threshold set as the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of China.ConclusionThe MTX+HCQ combination was seemingly superior to MTX+LEF in a real-world cohort of Chinese RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate monotherapy in respect of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:The standard dose of rituximab used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is 1000 mg but recent studies have shown that low dose (500 mg) is also effective. Efficacy of low dose rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to first-line non-biologic Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), compared to leflunomide is unknown. In a tertiary care referral setting, we conducted a randomized, double blind controlled clinical trial comparing the efficacy and safety of low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination with leflunomide-methotrexate combination.Patients on methotrexate (10-20 mg/week) with a Disease Activity Score (DAS) > 3.2 were randomly assigned to rituximab (500 mg on days 1 and 15) or leflunomide (10-20 mg/day). The primary end-point was ACR20 at 24 weeks. Sample of 40 had 70% power to detect a 30% difference. ACR50, ACR70, DAS, EULAR good response, CD3 + (T cell), CD19 + (B cell) and CD19 + CD27+ (memory B cell) counts, tetanus and pneumococcal antibody levels were secondary end points.Baseline characteristics were comparable in the two groups. At week 24, ACR20 was 85% vs 84% (p = 0.93), ACR50 was 60% vs. 64% (p = 0.79) and ACR70 was 35% vs 32% (P = 0.84), in rituximab and in leflunomide groups respectively. Serious adverse events were similar. With rituximab there was significant reduction in B cells (p < 0.001), memory B cells (p < 0.001) and pneumococcal antibody levels (P < 0.05) without significant changes in T cells (p = 0.835) and tetanus antibody levels (p = 0.424) at 24 weeks. With leflunomide, significant reduction in memory B cells (p < 0.01) and pneumococcal antibody levels (p < 0.01) occurred without significant changes in B cells (P > 0.05), T cells (P > 0.05) or tetanus antibody levels (P > 0.05).Leflunomide-methotrexate combination is as efficacious as low-dose rituximab-methotrexate combination at 24 weeks, in RA patient's refractory to initial DMARDs. The high responses seen in both groups have favorable cost implications for patients in developing countries. Changes in immune parameters with leflunomide are novel and need further characterization.The trial was registered with the Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry (SLCTR), a publicly accessible primary registry linked to the registry network of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO (WHO-ICTRP) (registration number: SLCTR/2008/008 dated 16th May 2008).

Project description:Objective: To evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.Design: Investigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.Setting: Twenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.Participants: Patients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.Interventions: Randomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI?2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results: 812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval -5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and -0.6% (-10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.Conclusions: All four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registration: EudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether direct access to hospital review initiated by patients with rheumatoid arthritis would result in improved clinical and psychological outcome, reduced overall use of healthcare resources, and greater satisfaction with care than seen in patients receiving regular review initiated by a rheumatologist.DesignTwo year randomised controlled trial extended to six years.SettingRheumatology outpatient department in teaching hospital.Participants209 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis for over two years; 68 (65%) in the direct access group and 52 (50%) in the control group completed the study (P = 0.04).Main outcome measuresClinical outcomepain, disease activity, early morning stiffness, inflammatory indices, disability, grip strength, range of movement in joints, and bone erosion. Psychological status: anxiety, depression, helplessness, self efficacy, satisfaction, and confidence in the system. Number of visits to hospital physician and general practitioner for arthritis.ResultsParticipants were well matched at baseline. After six years there was only one significant difference between the two groups for the 14 clinical outcomes measured (deterioration in range of movement in elbow was less in direct access patients). There were no significant differences between groups for median change in psychological status. Satisfaction and confidence in the system were significantly higher in the direct access group at two, four, and six years: confidence 9.8 v 8.4, 9.4 v 8.0, 8.7 v 6.9; satisfaction 9.3 v 8.3, 9.3 v 7.7, 8.9 v 7.1 (all P < 0.02). Patients in the direct access group had 38% fewer hospital appointments (median 8 v 13, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsOver six years, patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated their reviews through direct access were clinically and psychologically at least as well as patients having traditional reviews initiated by a physician. They requested fewer appointments, found direct access more acceptable, and had more than a third fewer medical appointments. This radical responsive management could be tested in other chronic diseases.

Project description:BackgroundDespite improvements in prevention and treatment, severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high mortality. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways contribute to cytokine and cell-mediated lung inflammation. We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind pilot trial to determine the feasibility, safety, and preliminary activity of duvelisib, a PI3Kδγ inhibitor, for the treatment of COVID-19 critical illness.MethodsWe enrolled adults aged ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 with hypoxic respiratory failure, shock, and/or new cardiac disease, without improvement after at least 48 hours of corticosteroid. Participants received duvelisib (25 mg) or placebo for up to 10 days. Participants had daily semi-quantitative viral load measurements performed. Dose modifications were protocol driven due to adverse events (AEs) or logarithmic change in viral load. The primary endpoint was 28-day overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, 60-day OS, and duration of critical care interventions. Safety endpoints included viral kinetics and AEs. Exploratory endpoints included serial cytokine measurements and cytometric analysis.ResultsFifteen patients were treated in the duvelisib cohort, and 13 in the placebo cohort. OS at 28 days was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-88%) compared to 62% (95% CI, 32%-86%) for placebo (P = .544). Sixty-day OS was 60% versus 46%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, .22-1.96]; P = .454). Other secondary outcomes were comparable. Duvelisib was associated with lower inflammatory cytokines.ConclusionsIn this pilot study, duvelisib did not significantly improve 28-day OS compared to placebo for severe COVID-19. Duvelisib appeared safe in this critically ill population and was associated with reduction in cytokines implicated in COVID-19 and acute respiratory distress syndrome, supporting further investigation.Clinical trials registrationNCT04372602.