AB0520 Tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis – one year interim analysis of the non-interventional ichiban study:

Safety of subcutaneous versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Tocilizumab (TCZ), a humanized anti-IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) monoclonal antibody, has demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in several large randomized, controlled trials for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

AREAS COVERED

This article compares the safety profile of the newer, subcutaneous (SC) formulation of TCZ with the original intravenous (IV) formulation, in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with RA. Several pivotal clinical trials are included, highlighting data from: i) trials of TCZ-IV; ii) trials of TCZ-SC; and iii) trials comparing IV to SC TCZ. TCZ use in pediatric populations is beyond the scope of this review.

EXPERT OPINION

The efficacy and safety of TCZ-IV in the treatment of RA has been demonstrated in multiple clinical trials, both as monotherapy and in combination with traditional DMARDs. The data for TCZ-SC is similar, albeit with a higher frequency of injection site reactions (ISRs). With careful patient selection, the benefit: risk ratio is favorable, offering patients a rapid and sustained reduction in disease activity, improved function and reduced structural damage. Given that most patients prefer SC to IV medication, TCZ-SC will likely become a mainstay, along with other biologic agents, for the treatment of RA patients who have failed traditional non-biologic DMARDs.

[Phase IV non-interventional studies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologicals in Germany : real-life clinical practice data]

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the restrictive nature of randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-interventional studies (NIS) investigate the features of a therapy in daily clinical practice. The observational plan of NIS does not dictate a treatment strategy, but is based on the product label. Unlike RCT, NIS therefore have no actual inclusion and exclusion criteria, allowing the study of broad heterogeneous patient populations.

METHODS

NIS carried out in Germany with support from the pharmaceutical industry and investigating the use of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were identified and their findings were compared with those from the RCT of the respective biologic.

RESULTS

Analysis of the identified NIS revealed the following: (1) populations in NIS were on average more than twice as large as in RCT, (2) patient characteristics in NIS and RCT were different, (3) the effectiveness of biologics in NIS was comparable to the efficacy observed in RCT, and (4) NIS collected supplementary data, e.g. on usage and dosing in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

NIS represent an important tool for the assessment of daily clinical practice. Despite methodological drawbacks, NIS provide valuable data that contribute to a more complete picture of the value of treatment with biologics. The English version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").