Multiple courses of rituximab produce sustained clinical and radiographic efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: 5-year data from the REFLEX study

Research on Liver Damage Caused by the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis with Novel Biological Agents or Targeted Agents

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by polyarticular, symmetric, and aggressive inflammation of the small joints in the hands and feet, resulting in dysfunction. With progress and development in medicine, treatment of RA is constantly evolving, making several drugs available for the treatment of RA. From the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at the start of illness to glucocorticoids and then to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), therapeutic-use drugs for RA have been keeping pace with scientific research. However, various types of drugs have additional side effects when used over the long-term. New and emerging biological and targeted agents have been widely applied in recent years; however, the side effects have not been thoroughly investigated. In this paper, we review the research progress on liver damage caused by novel biological and targeted agents available for RA treatment. The aim is to provide a reference for rational clinical administration of such drugs.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with conventional, targeted and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in the setting of liver injury and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Increased incidence of liver diseases emphasizes greater caution in prescribing antirheumatic drugs due to their hepatotoxicity. A transient elevation of transaminases to autoimmune hepatitis and acute liver failure has been described. For every 10 cases of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation in a clinical trial, it is estimated that one case of more severe liver injury will develop once the investigated drug is widely available. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic (tsDMARDs) are less likely to cause liver damage. However, various manifestations, from a transient elevation of transaminases to autoimmune hepatitis and acute liver failure, have been described. Research on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) has provided insight into a pre-existing liver disease that may be worsen by medication. Diabetes and obesity could be an additional burden in drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In the intertwining of the inflammatory and metabolic pathways, the most important cytokines are IL-6 and TNF alpha, which are also the cornerstone of biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. This narrative review evaluates the complexity and prevention of DILI in RA and treatment options involving biological therapy and tsDMARDs.

Rheumatoid arthritis: current therapeutics compendium

Rheumatoid arthritis is a common chronic inflammatory disease with substantial economic, social, and personal costs. Its pathogenesis is multifactorial and complex. The ultimate goal of rheumatoid arthritis treatment is stopping or slowing down the disease progression. In the past two decades, invention of new medicines, especially biologic agents, revolutionized the management of this disease. These agents have been associated with an improved prognosis and clinical remission, especially in patients who did not respond to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Improvement in the understanding of the rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis leads to the development of novel biologic therapeutic approaches. In the present paper, we summarized the current therapeutics, especially biologic agents, available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

The Therapeutic Landscape of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Current State and Future Directions

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a debilitating autoimmune disease with grave physical, emotional and socioeconomic consequences. Despite advances in targeted biologic and pharmacologic interventions that have recently come to market, many patients with RA continue to have inadequate response to therapies, or intolerable side effects, with resultant progression of their disease. In this review, we detail multiple biomolecular pathways involved in RA disease pathogenesis to elucidate and highlight pathways that have been therapeutic targets in managing this systemic autoimmune disease. Here we present an up-to-date accounting of both emerging and approved pharmacological treatments for RA, detailing their discovery, mechanisms of action, efficacy, and limitations. Finally, we turn to the emerging fields of bioengineering and cell therapy to illuminate possible future targeted therapeutic options that combine material and biological sciences for localized therapeutic action with the potential to greatly reduce side effects seen in systemically applied treatment modalities.

Efficacy and safety of Sandoz biosimilar rituximab for active rheumatoid arthritis: 52-week results from the randomized controlled ASSIST-RA trial

OBJECTIVES

This report provides data for the extent of B cell depletion and recovery, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of Sandoz rituximab (SDZ-RTX; GP2013; Rixathon®) compared with reference rituximab (Ref-RTX) up to week 52 of the ASSIST-RA study.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to SDZ-RTX or Ref-RTX in combination with methotrexate according to the RTX label. The primary endpoint was analysed at week 24. Responders (28-joint DAS [DAS28] decrease from baseline >1.2) at week 24 with residual disease activity (DAS28 ≥2.6) were eligible for a second treatment course between week 24 and 52. Endpoints after week 24 included change from baseline in peripheral B cells, DAS28, ACR 20% response rate (ACR20), Clinical and Simplified Disease Activity Indexes (CDAI, SDAI) and HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI). Safety and immunogenicity were assessed by the incidence of adverse events and antidrug antibodies.

RESULTS

Primary and secondary endpoints up to week 24 were met. Overall, 260/312 randomized patients completed treatment up to week 52. SDZ-RTX resulted in B cell concentrations over time similar to Ref-RTX. The efficacy of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX up to week 52, as measured by DAS28, ACR20/50/70, CDAI, SDAI and HAQ-DI. Safety of SDZ-RTX was similar to Ref-RTX regarding frequency, type and severity of adverse events, which were consistent with the known Ref-RTX safety profile. The incidence of antidrug antibodies was low and transient similarly across treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

SDZ-RTX demonstrated similar B cell concentrations over time, efficacy, safety and immunogenicity to Ref-RTX over 52 weeks of the ASSIST-RA study.

Recent advances in the opioid mu receptor based pharmacotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Opioids are used for severe forms of acute and cancer pain. Over the last years, their potential use in patients with noncancer pain such as those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been postulated. A recent population-based comparative study showed that chronic opioid use was 12% vs. 4% among RA and non-RA patients, respectively. Another study showed an increase from 7.4% to 16.9% (2002 to 2015). In general, there has been an increasing tendency to use opioids in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

The authors have performed an extensive literature search using PubMed for articles including noncancer pain and the use of the mu opioid receptor (MOR) agonists in patients with RA.

EXPERT OPINION

Data is not sufficient to support opioid use for the treatment of chronic pain in patients with RA. Data is scarce and inconclusive. Rheumatologists should think and ponder the question: Why is this patient in pain? Differential diagnosis should include a disease flare, degenerative changes of the musculoskeletal system, and fibromyalgia. And while there are new strategies for opioid administration currently being researched, unfortunately, they are far from being applied to human subjects in the everyday clinical setting, and are still being evaluated at an experimental level. CNS: Central nervous system; DORs: delta opioid receptor agonists; GI: Gastrointestinal; GPCRs: G protein-coupled receptors; IL: Interleukin; JAK: Janus kinase; KORs: kappa opioid receptor agonists; MCPs: Metacarpophalangeal joints; MORs: Mu opioid receptor agonists; MTPs: Metatarsophalangeal joints; NSAIDs: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugsOA: Osteoarthritis; ORs: Opioid receptors; PD: Pharmacodynamic; PIPs: Proximal interphalangeal joints; PK: Pharmacokinetic; PNS: Peripheral nervous system; RA: Rheumatoid arthritis; RGS: Regulator of G protein signaling; SSRIs: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; TNF: Tumor necrosis factor.

Efficacy and safety of switching from rituximab to biosimilar CT-P10 in rheumatoid arthritis: 72-week data from a randomized Phase 3 trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar after a single switch, during a multinational, randomized, double-blind Phase 3 trial involving patients with RA.

Methods

Patients received 48 weeks’ treatment with CT-P10 or United States- or European Union-sourced reference rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX, respectively). Patients entering the extension period (weeks 48–72) remained on CT-P10 (CT-P10/CT-P10; n = 122) or US-RTX (US-RTX/US-RTX; n = 64), or switched to CT-P10 from US-RTX (US-RTX/CT-P10; n = 62) or EU-RTX (EU-RTX/CT-P10; n = 47) for an additional course. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, and quality of life-related parameters. Pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed.

Results

At week 72, similar improvements were observed by disease activity parameters including DAS28 and ACR response rate in the four extension period treatment groups. Quality of life improvements at week 72 vs baseline were similarly shown during the extension period in all groups. Newly developed anti-drug antibodies were detected in two patients following study drug infusion in the extension period. Similar pharmacodynamic and safety profiles were observed across groups.

Conclusion

Long-term use of CT-P10 up to 72 weeks was effective and well tolerated. Furthermore, switching from reference rituximab to CT-P10 in RA was well tolerated and did not result in any clinically meaningful differences in terms of efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.

Trail registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02149121.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Biosimilar CT-P10 Versus Innovator Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Results from a Randomized Phase III Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate long-term clinical outcomes of extended treatment with CT-P10, a rituximab biosimilar, compared with rituximab reference products sourced from the USA and the EU (US-RTX and EU-RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for up to 48 weeks.

METHODS

In this multinational, randomized, double-blind trial, adults with active RA received up to two courses of CT-P10, US-RTX, or EU-RTX alongside methotrexate. Efficacy endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 372 patients randomized to the study drug, 330 (88.7%) completed the second treatment course. Mean change from baseline to week 48 in DAS28-C-reactive protein was comparable in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab (US-RTX and EU-RTX) groups (- 2.7 and - 2.6, respectively). ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 response rates at week 48 indicated no differences between groups (80.6%, 55.4%, and 31.7% vs. 79.8%, 53.9%, and 33.7% in the CT-P10 and combined rituximab groups, respectively). Similar improvements in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and all medical outcomes in the Short Form 36-Item Health Survey, including physical and mental health, were seen in all groups. At week 48, antidrug antibodies were detected in 4.9%, 9.4%, and 8.6% of patients in the CT-P10, US-RTX, and EU-RTX groups, respectively. CT-P10 and rituximab displayed similar pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety profiles.

CONCLUSION

CT-P10 was similar to EU-RTX and US-RTX in terms of efficacy, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and safety up to week 48. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02149121.

Efficacy, Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Up to Two Courses of the Rituximab Biosimilar CT-P10 Versus Innovator Rituximab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results up to Week 72 of a Phase I Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

CT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents.

Objective

Our objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks.

Methods

In this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated.

Results

In total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was −2.47 and −2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was −2.32 and −2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar.

Conclusions

In patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks.

(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0232-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Innovator Rituximab to Biosimilar CT-P10 Compared with Continued Treatment with CT-P10: Results of a 56-Week Open-Label Study in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background

CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884).

Objective

This open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; ‘maintenance group’) with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE (‘switch group’).

Methods

Patients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed.

Results

Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was −2.7 and −2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX.

Conclusion

In this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, tocilizumab and abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis not previously treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and after the failure of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs only: systematic review and economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with increasing disability, reduced quality of life and substantial costs (as a result of both intervention acquisition and hospitalisation). The objective was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of seven biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) compared with each other and conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs). The decision problem was divided into those patients who were cDMARD naive and those who were cDMARD experienced; whether a patient had severe or moderate to severe disease; and whether or not an individual could tolerate methotrexate (MTX).

DATA SOURCES

The following databases were searched: MEDLINE from 1948 to July 2013; EMBASE from 1980 to July 2013; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1996 to May 2013; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1898 to May 2013; Health Technology Assessment Database from 1995 to May 2013; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from 1995 to May 2013; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1982 to April 2013; and TOXLINE from 1840 to July 2013. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the impact of a bDMARD used within licensed indications on an outcome of interest compared against an appropriate comparator in one of the stated population subgroups within a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Outcomes of interest included American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. Interrogation of Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Study (ERAS) data was undertaken to assess the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) progression while on cDMARDs.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) were undertaken for patients who were cDMARD naive and for those who were cDMARD experienced. These were undertaken separately for EULAR and ACR data. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of including RCTs with a small proportion of bDMARD experienced patients and where MTX exposure was deemed insufficient. A mathematical model was constructed to simulate the experiences of hypothetical patients. The model was based on EULAR response as this is commonly used in clinical practice in England. Observational databases, published literature and NMA results were used to populate the model. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Sixty RCTs met the review inclusion criteria for clinical effectiveness, 38 of these trials provided ACR and/or EULAR response data for the NMA. Fourteen additional trials contributed data to sensitivity analyses. There was uncertainty in the relative effectiveness of the interventions. It was not clear whether or not formal ranking of interventions would result in clinically meaningful differences. Results from the analysis of ERAS data indicated that historical assumptions regarding HAQ progression had been pessimistic. The typical incremental cost per QALY of bDMARDs compared with cDMARDs alone for those with severe RA is > £40,000. This increases for those who cannot tolerate MTX (£50,000) and is > £60,000 per QALY when bDMARDs were used prior to cDMARDs. Values for individuals with moderate to severe RA were higher than those with severe RA. Results produced using EULAR and ACR data were similar. The key parameter that affected the results is the assumed HAQ progression while on cDMARDs. When historic assumptions were used typical incremental cost per QALY values fell to £38,000 for those with severe disease who could tolerate MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARDs appear to have cost per QALY values greater than the thresholds stated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for interventions to be cost-effective. Future research priorities include: the evaluation of the long-term HAQ trajectory while on cDMARDs; the relationship between HAQ direct medical costs; and whether or not bDMARDs could be stopped once a patient has achieved a stated target (e.g. remission).

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003386.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Ultra-low dose of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

A standard low-dosing schedule of rituximab (RTX; 2 × 500 mg or 1 × 1000 mg) is as effective for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as the registered dose (2 × 1000 mg). Moreover, several small uncontrolled studies suggest that even lower-dosed treatment with RTX also leads to good treatment response in patients with RA. Retreatment with such an ‘ultra-low’ dose RTX in patients who responded well to RTX induction treatment is of special interest, as long-term use of lower RTX doses may lead to shorter infusion duration, lower risk of adverse events and lower costs. However, the effect of ultra-low dose of RTX has not been investigated using a controlled trial of proper design and dimensions.

Methods/Design

REDO is an investigator driven six-month pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial on the effects of ultra-low-dose RTX (1 × 500 or 1 × 200 mg) compared to standard low dose (1 × 1000 mg) in RA patients who are being retreated with RTX. A total of 140 RA patients, having reached low disease activity (DAS28CRP < 2.9) after the previous RTX infusion and DAS28CRP < 3.5 at moment of retreatment, are randomised in a ratio of 1:2:2 to 1 × 1000 mg, 1 × 500 mg or 1 × 200 mg. The primary objective is testing non-inferiority of the ultra-low-dose vs. standard low-dose RTX, by comparing mean change in DAS28CRP from baseline to six months to the non-inferiority margin of 0.6. Secondary outcomes over the same period are: function; quality of life; safety; costs; and pharmacokinetics and dynamics as process measures.

Discussion

This study protocol shares characteristics of both early dose finding trials as well as late pragmatic clinical studies. Several choices in the design of this trial are described and possible consequences for RA treatment and expected biosimilar introduction are discussed.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register, NTR6117. Registered on 15 November 2016 (CMO NL57520.091.16, 8 November 2016)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2134-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Leflunomide is equally efficacious and safe compared to low dose rituximab in refractory rheumatoid arthritis given in combination with methotrexate: results from a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

Trial registration

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).

Sarilumab and Nonbiologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of sarilumab plus conventional synthetic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active moderate‐to‐severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response or intolerance to anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti‐TNF) therapy.

Methods

Patients were randomly allocated to receive sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks for 24 weeks with background conventional synthetic DMARDs. The co‐primary end points were the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20) at week 24, and change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI) at week 12. Each sarilumab dose was evaluated against placebo; differences between the 2 sarilumab doses were not assessed.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the treatment groups were similar. The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was significantly higher with sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks compared with placebo (55.8%, 60.9%, and 33.7%, respectively; P < 0.0001). The mean change from baseline in the HAQ DI score at week 12 was significantly greater for sarilumab (least squares mean change: for 150 mg, −0.46 [P = 0.0007]; for 200 mg, −0.47 [P = 0.0004]) versus placebo (−0.26). Infections were the most frequently reported treatment‐emergent adverse events. Serious infections occurred in 1.1%, 0.6%, and 1.1% of patients receiving placebo, sarilumab 150 mg, and sarilumab 200 mg, respectively. Laboratory abnormalities included decreased absolute neutrophil count and increased transaminase levels in both sarilumab groups compared with placebo. In this study, reductions in the absolute neutrophil count were not associated with an increased incidence of infections or serious infections.

Conclusion

Sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic DMARDs improved the signs and symptoms of RA and physical function in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to anti‐TNF agents. Safety data were consistent with interleukin‐6 receptor blockade and the known safety profile of sarilumab.

A randomised, double-blind trial to demonstrate bioequivalence of GP2013 and reference rituximab combined with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

The aim of this report is to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence as well as similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between GP2013, a biosimilar rituximab, and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment.

Methods

In this multinational, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 312 patients with active disease despite prior TNFi therapy were randomised to receive GP2013 or either the EU (RTX-EU) or the US (RTX-US) reference product, along with methotrexate (MTX) and folic acid. The primary endpoint was the area under the serum concentration–time curve from study drug infusion to infinity (AUC_0-inf). Additional PK and PD parameters, along with efficacy, immunogenicity and safety outcomes were also assessed up to week 24.

Results

The 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of the AUCs were within the bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125% for all three comparisons; GP2013 versus RTX-EU: 1.106 (90% CI 1.010 to 1.210); GP2013 versus RTX-US: 1.012 (90% CI 0.925 to 1.108); and RTX-EU versus RTX-US: 1.093 (90% CI 0.989 to 1.208). Three-way PD equivalence of B cell depletion was also demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX.

Conclusions

Three-way PK/PD equivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU and RTX-US was demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX.

Trial registration number

NCT01274182; Results.

Biologic Therapies for Autoimmune and Connective Tissue Diseases

Biologic therapy continues to revolutionize the treatment of autoimmune disease, especially in rheumatology as the pathophysiology of both inflammation and autoimmune disease becomes better understood. These therapies are designed to dampen the response of the inflammatory cascades. Although the first biologic therapies were approved many years ago, expanding indications and new agents continue to challenge the traditional treatment strategies for rheumatic diseases. This article reviews the data supporting the current use of biologic therapies, including off-label indications, in a subset of rheumatic diseases including rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, inflammatory myositis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, vasculitis, and gout.

Review on the Influence of Protocol Design on Clinical Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Rituximab

OBJECTIVE

To critically analyze the influence of protocol design on clinical outcome in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with rituximab.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed and EMBASE search (January 2000-January 2012) using the key words rheumatoid arthritis and rituximab was performed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

A search of English-language studies from the data sources was conducted for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies with 100 patients or more assessing the efficacy and safety of rituximab in the treatment of RA. From these studies, 2 authors independently extracted, compiled, and aggregated the data.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, some patients had not been treated with tumor necrosis factor-alfa (TNF-α) inhibitors, while most did not respond to it. The variables compared included dose (500 vs 1000 mg), duration of study (24 vs 48 weeks), and number of cycles (1 vs 2). They were statistically analyzed using the χ2 test. There was a statistically significant difference in the response to rituximab compared to the control (methotrexate) (p < 0.001). In patients who were studied for only 24 weeks, given 500 or 1000 mg for 1 or 2 cycles, a 90% or greater response rate was reported in those who achieved an ACR 20, but no statistically significant differences were observed (p = 0.75). In patients studied for 48 weeks who received 2 cycles of either 500 mg or 1000 mg of rituximab and achieved an ACR 20, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed in those who received a dose of 1000 mg for 2 cycles (42.77% vs 67.49%).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who are nonresponsive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and TNF-α inhibitors, rituximab may be a promising and well-tolerated biologic agent. The capacity of rituximab to produce long-term, sustained remissions could not be evaluated because the duration of the studies was limited to 24 weeks or 48 weeks. Studies with longer periods of observation are warranted.

Repeated decrease of CD4+ T-cell counts in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over multiple cycles of rituximab treatment

Background

Significant peripheral blood CD4+ T-cell depletion has been observed after a first cycle of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the CD20 antigen, which is currently used in rheumatoid arthritis. Of note, an absence of CD4+ T-cell decrease has been observed in non-responders. Herein, we describe CD4+ T-cell changes over repeated cycles of rituximab and their relationship with clinical outcomes.

Methods

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who started rituximab between July 2007 and July 2013 were analyzed up to November 2014. Lymphocyte phenotyping and clinical assessments were performed before, and 3 and 6 months after each cycle. Lymphocytes counts and disease activity were compared at each time point, using nonparametric tests.

Results

Patients received up to seven cycles of treatment during the study period. Mean CD4+ T-cell counts were above the upper limit of the reference range before each rituximab infusion and repeatedly reached the reference range at 6 months (and/or 3 months) post infusion. CD4+ T cells decreased concurrently with disease activity score.

Conclusions

CD4+ T-cell counts could be a relevant biomarker of response to rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis and could be considered in making decisions about the timing of retreatment.

Optimizing biological treatments for rheumatoid arthritis

The area of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment has been revolutionized during the last decades with the development of biological therapies and their introduction into daily clinical practice contributing greatly to this dramatic change. However, several aspects of the use of these highly effective but expensive therapies remain far from optimal. To date, there is no clear evidence for the optimal sequence of biological agents, and the choice of a second- or third-line biologic is random. The effect of drug levels and the presence of neutralizing anti-drug antibodies remain unclear. In addition, the identification of prognostic factors of response, both clinical and histopathological, is crucial for a more individualized treatment approach.

Cytokine-producing B cells: a translational view on their roles in human and mouse autoimmune diseases

B-cell depletion therapy has beneficial effects in autoimmune diseases. This is only partly explained by an elimination of autoantibodies. How does B-cell depletion improve disease? Here, we review preclinical studies showing that B cells can propagate autoimmune disorders through cytokine production. We also highlight clinical observations indicating the relevance of these B-cell functions in human autoimmunity. Abnormalities in B-cell cytokine production have been observed in rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel disease, and systemic lupus erythematosus. In the first two diseases, B-cell depletion erases these abnormalities, and improves disease progression, suggesting a causative role for defective B-cell cytokine expression in disease pathogenesis. However, in the last two disorders, the pathogenic role of B cells and the effect of B-cell depletion on cytokine-producing B cells remain to be clarified. A better characterization of cytokine-expressing human B-cell subsets, and their modulation by B cell-targeted therapies might help understanding both the successes and failures of current B cell-targeted approaches. This may even lead to the development of novel strategies to deplete or amplify selectively pathogenic or protective subsets, respectively, which might be more effective than global depletion of the B-cell compartment.

Tumour necrosis factor inhibition versus rituximab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who require biological treatment (ORBIT): an open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority, trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition and B-cell depletion are highly effective treatments for active rheumatoid arthritis, but so far no randomised controlled trials have directly compared their safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness. This study was done to test the hypothesis that using rituximab would be clinically non-inferior and cheaper compared with TNF inhibitor treatment in biological-treatment naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

This open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial enrolled patients with active, seropositive rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from 35 rheumatology departments in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the rituximab or TNF inhibitor groups with minimisation to account for methotrexate intolerance using a web-based randomisation system. Patients were given intravenous rituximab 1 g on days 1 and 15, and after 26 weeks if they responded to treatment but had persistent disease activity (28 joint count disease activity score [DAS28-ESR] >3.2; rituximab group) or a TNF inhibitor-adalimumab (40 mg subcutaneously every other week) or etanercept (50 mg per week subcutaneously) according to the patient's and rheumatologist's choice (TNF inhibitor group). Patients could switch treatment in the case of drug-related toxic effects or absence or loss of response. The primary outcome measure was the change in DAS28-ESR between 0 and 12 months in the per-protocol population of patients who were assigned to treatment and remained in follow-up to 1 year. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. We also assessed the cost-effectiveness of each strategy. The non-inferiority margin was specified as 0.6 DAS28-ESR units. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01021735.

FINDINGS

Between April 6, 2009, and Nov 11, 2013, 295 patients were randomly assigned and given either rituximab (n=144) or TNF inhibitor (n=151) treatment. After 12 months, the change in DAS28-ESR for patients assigned to rituximab was -2.6 (SD 1.4) and TNF inhibitor was -2.4 (SD 1.5), with a difference within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of -0.19 (95% CI -0.51 to 0.13; p=0.24). The health-related costs associated with the rituximab strategy were lower than the TNF inhibitor strategy (£9,405 vs £11,523 per patient, p<0.0001). 137 (95%) of 144 patients in the rituximab group and 143 (95%) of 151 patients in the TNF inhibitor group had adverse events. 37 serious adverse events occurred in patients receiving rituximab compared with 26 in patients receiving TNF inhibitors, of which 27 were deemed to be possibly, probably, or definitely related to the treatment (15 vs 12, p=0.5462). One patient in each group died during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Initial treatment with rituximab is non-inferior to initial TNF inhibitor treatment in patients seropositive for rheumatoid arthritis and naive to treatment with biologicals, and is cost saving over 12 months.

FUNDING

Arthritis Research UK, Roche.

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: Unraveling the conundrum

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a heterogeneous disease with a complex and yet not fully understood pathophysiology, where numerous different cell-types contribute to a destructive process of the joints. This complexity results into a considerable interpatient variability in clinical course and severity, which may additionally involve genetics and/or environmental factors. After three decades of focused efforts scientists have now achieved to apply in clinical practice, for patients with RA, the "treat to target" approach with initiation of aggressive therapy soon after diagnosis and escalation of the therapy in pursuit of clinical remission. In addition to the conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, biologics have greatly improved the management of RA, demonstrating efficacy and safety in alleviating symptoms, inhibiting bone erosion, and preventing loss of function. Nonetheless, despite the plethora of therapeutic options and their combinations, unmet therapeutic needs in RA remain, as current therapies sometimes fail or produce only partial responses and/or develop unwanted side-effects. Unfortunately the mechanisms of 'nonresponse' remain unknown and most probable lie in the unrevealed heterogeneity of the RA pathophysiology. In this review, through the effort of unraveling the complex pathophysiological pathways, we will depict drugs used throughout the years for the treatment of RA, the current and future biological therapies and their molecular or cellular targets and finally will suggest therapeutic algorithms for RA management. With multiple biologic options, there is still a need for strong predictive biomarkers to determine which drug is most likely to be effective, safe, and durable in a given individual. The fact that available biologics are not effective in all patients attests to the heterogeneity of RA, yet over the long term, as research and treatment become more aggressive, efficacy, toxicity, and costs must be balanced within the therapeutic equation to enhance the quality of life in patients with RA.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus subsequent anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States Corrona registry

Introduction

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti–tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry.

Methods

Rituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ≥1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs ≥2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (≥0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported.

Results

Estimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95 % CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95 % CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups.

Conclusions

In anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661. Registered 25 July 2011.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0776-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Novel mechanisms of action of the biologicals in rheumatic diseases

Biological drugs targeting pro-inflammatory or co-stimulatory molecules or depleting lymphocyte subsets made a revolution in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Their comparable efficacy in clinical trials raised the point of the heterogeneity of RA pathogenesis, suggesting that we are dealing with a syndrome rather than with a single disease. Several tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) blockers are available, and a burning question is whether they are biosimilar or not. The evidence of diverse biological effects in vitro is in line with the fact that a lack of efficacy to one TNF-α agent does not imply a non-response to another one. As proteins, biologicals are potentially immunogenic. It has been recently raised that anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may affect their bioavailability and eventually the clinical efficacy through local formation of immune complexes and directly by preventing the interaction between the drug and TNF-α. Regular monitoring of drug and ADA levels appears the best way to tailor anti-TNF-α therapies. Owing to the pleiotropic characteristics of the target, anti-TNF-α blockers may affect several mechanisms beyond rheumatoid synovitis. As TNF-α plays a pivotal role in the induction of early atherosclerosis, treatment with TNF-inhibitors may modulate cholesterol handling, in particular, cholesterol efflux from macrophages. Side effects are a major issue because of the systemic TNF-α blocking action. The efficacy of an anti-C5 monoclonal antibody fused to a peptide targeting inflamed synovia in experimental arthritis opened the way for new strategies: Homing to the synovium of molecules neutralizing TNF would allow to maximize the therapeutic action avoiding the side effects.

Risk of infection with biologic antirheumatic therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

There are currently 10 licensed biologic therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in 2014. In this article, we review the risk of serious infection (SI) for biologic therapies. This risk has been closely studied over the last 15 years within randomised controlled trials, long-term extension studies and observational drug registers, especially for the first three antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs, namely infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The risk of SI with the newer biologics rituximab, tocilizumab, abatacept and tofacitinib is also reviewed, although further data from long-term observational studies are awaited. Beyond all-site SI, we review the risk of tuberculosis, other opportunistic infections and herpes zoster, and the effect of screening on TB rates. Lastly, we review emerging opportunities for stratifying the risk. Patients can be risk-stratified based on both modifiable and non-modifiable patient characteristics such as age, co-morbidity, glucocorticoid use, functional status and recent previous SI.

Efficacy and safety of a biosimilar rituximab in biologic naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

Biosimilar usage in rheumatology is set to increase over the next few years. This study reports the efficacy and toxicity of a rituximab biosimilar in biologic naïve patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who had inadequately responded to methotrexate. In 21 patients, over a follow-up period of 36 months, it demonstrated prolonged benefit in a majority (10 in remission with disease activity score 28 (DAS28) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) <2.6 and 9 in low disease activity state with DAS28 ESR between 3.2 and 2.6) and was well tolerated.

Effectiveness of Rituximab for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with Prior Exposure to Anti-TNF: Results from the CORRONA Registry

Objective.

To characterize the real-world effectiveness of rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods.

Clinical effectiveness at 12 months was assessed in patients who were prescribed RTX based on the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). Change in CDAI was calculated (CDAI at 12 mos minus at initiation). Achievement of remission or low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) among those with moderate/high disease activity at the time of RTX initiation was compared based on prior anti-tumor necrosis factor agent (anti-TNF) use (1 vs ≥ 2) using logistic regression models.

Results.

Patients (n = 265) were followed for 12 months with a mean change in CDAI of −8.1 (95% CI −9.8 – −6.4). Of the 218 patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline, patients with 1 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 25.0) demonstrated a mean change in CDAI of −10.1 (95% CI −13.2 – −7.0); patients with ≥ 2 prior anti-TNF (baseline CDAI 30.0) demonstrated a mean change of −10.5 (95% CI −12.9 – −8.0). The unadjusted OR for achieving LDA/remission in patients with moderate/high disease activity at baseline exposed to ≥ 2 versus 1 prior anti-TNF was 0.40 (95% CI 0.22–0.73), which was robust to 4 different adjusted models (OR range 0.38–0.44).

Conclusion.

A good clinical response was observed in all patients; however, patients previously treated with 1 anti-TNF, who had lower baseline CDAI and a greater opportunity for clinical improvement compared with patients previously treated with ≥ 2 anti-TNF, were more likely to achieve LDA/remission.

MRI assessment of suppression of structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving rituximab: results from the randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind RA-SCORE study

Objective

To evaluate changes in structural damage and joint inflammation assessed by MRI following rituximab treatment in a Phase 3 study of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) who were naive to biological therapy.

Methods

Patients were randomised to receive two infusions of placebo (n=63), rituximab 500 mg (n=62), or rituximab 1000 mg (n=60) intravenously on days 1 and 15. MRI scans and radiographs of the most inflamed hand and wrist were acquired at baseline, weeks 12 (MRI only), 24 and 52. The primary end point was the change in MRI erosion score from baseline at week 24.

Results

Patients treated with rituximab demonstrated significantly less progression in the mean MRI erosion score compared with those treated with placebo at weeks 24 (0.47, 0.18 and 1.60, respectively, p=0.003 and p=0.001 for the two rituximab doses vs placebo) and 52 (−0.30, 0.11 and 3.02, respectively; p<0.001 and p<0.001). Cartilage loss at 52 weeks was significantly reduced in the rituximab group compared with the placebo group. Other secondary end points of synovitis and osteitis improved significantly with rituximab compared with placebo as early as 12 weeks and improved further at weeks 24 and 52.

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that rituximab significantly reduced erosion and cartilage loss at week 24 and week 52 in MTX-inadequate responder patients with active RA, suggesting that MRI is a valuable tool for assessing inflammatory and structural damage in patients with established RA receiving rituximab.

Trial registration number

NCT00578305

Rituximab-induced interleukin-15 reduction associated with clinical improvement in rheumatoid arthritis

Rituximab therapy alters all aspects of B-cell participation in the disturbed immune response of rheumatoid arthritis patients. To determine the impact of B-cell depletion on other immune compartments, we analysed levels of soluble and surface interleukin-15 (IL-15) along with the frequency of IL-15-related subsets after rituximab treatment. We then studied the correlation of observed changes with clinical activity. Heparinized blood samples from 33 rheumatoid arthritis patients were collected on days 0, 30, 90 and 180 after each of three rituximab cycles. Serum cytokine levels were determined by ELISA. Interleukin-15 trans-presentation was analysed by cytometry. Flow cytometry with monoclonal antibodies was performed to analyse circulating cell subsets. Interleukin-15 was detected in the serum of 25 patients before initiating the treatment. Rituximab then progressively reduced serum IL-15 (138 ± 21 pg/ml at baseline, 48 ± 18 pg/ml after third cycle, P = 0·03) along with IL-17 (1197 ± 203 pg/ml at baseline, 623 ± 213 pg/ml after third cycle, P = 0·03) and tended to increase the frequency of circulating regulatory T cells (3·1 ± 1 cells/μl at baseline, 7·7 ± 2 cells/μl after third cycle). Rituximab also significantly decreased IL-15 trans-presentation on surface monocytes of patients negative for IL-15 serum (mean fluorescence intensity: 4·82 ± 1·30 at baseline, 1·42 ± 0·69 after third cycle P = 0·05). Reduction of serum IL-15 was associated with decrease in CD8(+)  CD45RO(+) /RA(+) ratio (1·17 ± 0·21 at baseline, 0·36 ± 0·06 at third cycle, P = 0·02). DAS28, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein correlated significantly with CD8(+)  CD45RO(+) /RA(+) ratio (R = 0·323, R = 0·357, R = 0·369 respectively, P < 0·001). Our results suggest that sustained clinical improvement after rituximab treatment is associated with IL-15/memory T-cell-related mechanisms beyond circulating B cells.

Long-term efficacy of B cell depletion therapy on lung and skin involvement in diffuse systemic sclerosis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of single and multiple courses of rituximab therapy in systemic sclerosis (SSc) patients with and without lung disease.

METHODS

A total of 20 SSc patients with a diffuse disease were treated with rituximab. At baseline and during follow-up the lung involvement was evaluated with pulmonary function tests (FVC and DLCO) and with lung high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

RESULTS

The skin score, activity, and severity indices improved significantly after 12 months and at final follow-up compared to baseline. After 12 months, there was a significant increase of FVC and TLC compared to baseline (p = 0.024 and p = 0.005, respectively), while the mean DLCO value remained stable. Considering the last available follow-up in six patients with restrictive lung disease at baseline, two patients (33.3%) experienced an increase of more than 10% of FVC, one patient had a decrease of FVC >10%, while in three patients FVC remained stable (50%). After the mean follow-up of 48.5 ± 20.4 months, among the patients with normal lung parameters at baseline, FVC remained stable in 12 (85.7%) and in one patient (14.3%) it increased by more than 10%. At the final follow-up, the alveolar and interstitial HRCT scores remained stable in more than 80% of patients, both in patients with and without restrictive lung disease at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CD20 B cell depletion therapy is effective on skin involvement but seems also to preserve the pulmonary function, as supported by a stable or improved FVC and stable interstitial score, suggesting a possible role of rituximab as a modifying therapy overall in early diffuse SSc.

Regulation of serum matrix metalloproteinases and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 following rituximab therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumor necrosis factor blockers

In our article, we evaluated the regulatory effects of the infusions of rituximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against CD20⁺ B cells, on the serum matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1 (TIMP-1) levels in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not responding to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy. Twelve RA patients were planned to receive four infusions of 1,000 mg of rituximab at weeks 0, 2, 24 and 26. The therapy was combined with methotrexate (MTX) (20–30 mg/week). Seven patients were refractory to previously received infliximab, and five to etanercept. Serum concentrations of interstitial collagenase (MMP-1), stromelysin-1 (MMP-3), gelatinase B (MMP-9) and TIMP-1 were measured by ELISA on weeks 0, 2, 12, 24, 36 and 52. Initial infusion of rituximab downregulated serum MMP-1 (p < 0.01), MMP-3 (p < 0.001), MMP-9 (p < 0.001) and TIMP-1 (p < 0.05) levels. Second drug administration caused even more remarkable reduction of measured MMPs (p < 0.001 in all cases) and TIMP-1 level (p < 0.01). These findings were accompanied by significantly decreased ratios of measured MMPs to TIMP-1. Next rituximab infusions on weeks 24 and 26 sustained the suppression of serum MMPs levels. Prior to the initial rituximab infusion, serum concentrations of studied MMPs and TIMP-1 significantly correlated with markers of RA activity such as disease activity score (DAS28) and CRP levels. Rituximab therapy, beside a rapid clinical improvement, reduced serum MMPs concentrations in RA patients refractory to anti-TNF treatment. Repeated infusions of rituximab maintained initial serum MMPs suppression.

Longterm Followup of Rituximab Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the Belgian MabThera in Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

Objective.

Our study reports the results of the MIRA (MabThera In Rheumatoid Arthritis) registry, set up to collect data about clinical usage, patient profile, and retention of rituximab (RTX) treatment in daily clinical practice in Belgium.

Methods.

Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who failed at least 1 anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) treatment were included in our study between November 2006 and October 2011. At baseline, demographics, medication, disease history, disease activity, rheumatoid factor (RF), and anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP) status were recorded. Evolution of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate, retreatments, and reasons for therapy stop were followed prospectively.

Results.

The MIRA registry included 649 patients, with mean disease duration of 12.8 ± 0.4 years and DAS28 values at inclusion of 5.85 ± 0.48. Patients received on average 2.82 ± 0.07 (range 1–9) RTX treatments, over a mean followup period of 93.1 ± 2.6 weeks. At database lock, 433 patients (66.7%) were still under RTX treatment, 182 (28.0%) had stopped treatment, and 34 (5.2%) were lost to followup. Ineffectiveness (n = 108, 59%) and safety concerns (n = 39, 22%) were the most frequent reasons for discontinuing RTX therapy. From 2006 to 2011, RTX practice patterns clearly evolved toward RTX being started in patients with a lower number of previously failed anti-TNF drugs and lower baseline DAS28 values. A lower number of previous anti-TNF drugs, and positivity for RF and anti-CCP, predicted more successful longterm treatment. RTX treatment provided adequate longterm disease control.

Conclusion.

In our daily practice study, RTX provided good longterm disease control and treatment retention in refractory patients with RA. Over the years, rheumatologists tended to start this treatment in patients with fewer previous anti-TNF treatments and lower disease activity.

Therapeutic options after treatment failure in rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritides

The prognosis for patients with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritides has improved dramatically due to earlier diagnosis, recognition of the need to treat early with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), alone or in combinations, the establishment of treatment targets, and the development of biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Many patients are now able to achieve clinical remission or low disease activity with therapy, and reduce or eliminate systemic corticosteroid use. Guidelines recommend methotrexate as a first-line agent for the initial treatment of rheumatoid arthritis; however, a majority of patients will require a change of csDMARD or step up to combination therapy with the addition of another csDMARD or a bDMARD. However, treatment failure is common and switching to a different therapy may be required. The large number of available treatment options, combined with a lack of comparative data, makes the choice of a new therapy complex and often not evidence based. We summarize and discuss evidence to inform treatment decisions in patients who require a change in therapy, including baseline factors that may predict response to therapy.

Rituximab therapy for refractory orbital inflammation: results of a phase 1/2, dose-ranging, randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

Orbital inflammation is a potentially blinding and disfiguring disease process that is often treated with systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppression; better treatments are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether rituximab, a monoclonal antibody against the B-lymphocyte antigen CD20, is effective in the treatment of refractory orbital inflammation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A dose-ranging, randomized, double-masked phase 1/2 clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary referral ophthalmology clinic. Ten individuals with orbital inflammation refractory to systemic corticosteroids and at least 1 other immunosuppressive agent were enrolled from January 2007 to March 2010.

INTERVENTIONS

Rituximab infusions were administered on study days 1 and 15 at doses of either 500 mg or 1000 mg. Initial responders with recurrent inflammation after week 24 were permitted reinfusion with an additional cycle of 2 open-label 1000-mg rituximab infusions.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were reduction of inflammation measured with a validated orbital disease grading scale and corticosteroid dose reduction by at least 50%. The secondary outcomes were visual acuity, reduction in pain, and participant- and physician-reported global health assessment.

RESULTS

Of 10 enrolled patients, 7 demonstrated improvement on the orbital disease grading scale at the 24-week end point with rituximab therapy. Of these 7 individuals, 4 were receiving corticosteroids at study inception and all achieved successful dose reduction. For the secondary outcome measures in the 10 participants, 7 patients and 8 patients improved in self-rated and physician global health scores, respectively, and 7 patients had reduction in pain by 25% or more at 24 weeks. Four patients who were positive responders at the week 24 end point experienced breakthrough inflammation after week 24 and received reinfusions between 24 and 48 weeks. Vision remained stable in all participants. Three of 10 patients had short-term objective or subjective worsening 2 to 8 weeks after receiving rituximab infusions, which was averted in subsequent patients with oral corticosteroids administered during the infusion and did not affect the eventual positive treatment outcome. No significant differences with regard to efficacy, toxicity, or likelihood of retreatment were noted between the dosing arms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Rituximab was safe and effective in 7 of 10 patients with noninfectious orbital disease, although 4 required reinfusion with rituximab to maintain control of orbital inflammation. Substantial toxicity was not noted. Rituximab should be considered in the treatment of refractory orbital inflammation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00415506.

Epstein-Barr virus infection transforms CD25+ B cells into antibody-secreting cells in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection may initiate production of autoantibodies and development of cancer and autoimmune diseases. Here we outline phenotypic and functional changes in B cells of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) related to EBV infection. The B-cell phenotype was analysed in blood and bone marrow (BM) of RA patients who had EBV transcripts in BM (EBV(+) , n = 13) and in EBV(-) (n = 22) patients with RA. The functional effect of EBV was studied in the sorted CD25(+) and CD25(-) peripheral B cells of RA patients (n = 18) and healthy controls (n = 9). Rituximab treatment results in enrichment of CD25(+) B cells in peripheral blood (PB) of EBV(+) RA patients. The CD25(+) B-cell subset displayed a more mature phenotype accumulating IgG-expressing cells. It was also enriched with CD27(+) and CD95(+) cells in PB and BM. EBV stimulation of the sorted CD25(+) B cells in vitro induced a polyclonal IgG and IgM secretion in RA patients, while CD25(+) B cells of healthy subjects did not respond to EBV stimulation. CD25(+) B cells were enriched in PB and synovial fluid of RA patients. EBV infection affects the B-cell phenotype in RA patients by increasing the CD25(+) subset and by inducing their immunoglobulin production. These findings clearly link CD25(+) B cells to the EBV-dependent sequence of reactions in the pathogenesis of RA.

Rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice (GERINIS): six-year results from a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional study in 2,484 patients

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in a large cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine care, and to monitor changes in daily practice since the introduction of RTX therapy.

Methods

This was a multicentre, prospective, non-interventional study conducted under routine practice conditions in Germany. Efficacy was evaluated using Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Safety was assessed by recording adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Physician and patient global efficacy and tolerability assessments were also evaluated.

Results

Overall, 2,484 patients (76.7% female, mean age 56.4 years, mean disease duration 11.7 years) received RTX treatment (22.7% monotherapy). The total observation period was approximately six-years (median follow-up 14.7 months). RTX treatment led to improvements in DAS28 and HAQ-DI that were sustained over multiple courses. DAS28 improvements positively correlated with higher rheumatoid factor levels up to 50 IU/ml. Response and tolerability were rated good/very good by the majority of physicians and patients. Mean treatment intervals were 10.5 and 6.8 months for the first and last 400 enrolled patients, respectively. Infections were the most frequently reported ADRs (9.1%; 11.39/100 patient-years); approximately 1% of patients per course discontinued therapy due to ADRs.

Conclusions

Prolonged RTX treatment in routine care is associated with good efficacy and tolerability, as measured by conventional parameters and by physicians’ and patients’ global assessments. Rheumatoid factor status served as a distinct and quantitative biomarker of RTX responsiveness. With growing experience, physicians repeated treatments earlier in patients with less severe disease activity.

[New therapies for rheumatoid arthritis]

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease characterized by inflammation of the synovial membrane and progressive destruction of the articular cartilage and bone. Advances in the knowledge of disease pathogenesis allowed the identification of novel therapeutic targets such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6 or the system JAK/STAT phosphorylation. At present there are 5 TNF antagonists approved for RA. Tocilizumab blocks the pathway of IL-6 and is the only biological with proven efficacy in monotherapy. Rituximab modulates B cell response in RA. Abatacept provided new data on T cell involvement in the pathogenesis of RA. Tofacitinib is the first kinase inhibitor approved for this disease. Biologic drugs have proven efficacy, almost always in combination with methotrexate, and even halt radiographic progression. Monitoring infection is the main precaution in handling these patients.

Non-tumor necrosis factor-based biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: present, future, and insights into pathogenesis

The way rheumatoid arthritis is treated has changed dramatically with the introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologics. Nevertheless, many patients still have less than adequate control of their disease activity even with these therapeutic regimens, and current knowledge fails to explain all the data already gathered. There is now a wide range of drugs from different classes of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs available (and soon this number will increase significantly), that provides the opportunity to address each patient as a particular case and thereby optimize medical intervention. Currently available biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis apart from anti-TNF-based therapies are reviewed, along with an analysis of the new insights they provide into the pathogenesis of the disease and a discussion of future prospects in the area.

Common variable immunodeficiency unmasked by treatment of immune thrombocytopenic purpura with Rituximab

Background

Hypogammaglobulinemia may be part of several different immunological or malignant conditions, and its origin is not always obvious. Furthermore, although autoimmune cytopenias are known to be associated with common variable immunodeficiency (CVID) and even may precede signs of immunodeficiency, this is not always recognized. Despite novel insight into the molecular immunology of common variable immunodeficiency, several areas of uncertainty remain. In addition, the full spectrum of immunological effects of the B cell depleting anti-CD20 antibody Rituximab has not been fully explored. To our knowledge this is the first report of development of CVID in a patient with normal immunoglobulin prior to Rituximab treatment.

Case presentation

Here we describe the highly unusual clinical presentation of a 34-year old Caucasian male with treatment refractory immune thrombocytopenic purpura and persistent lymphadenopathy, who was splenectomized and received multiple courses of high-dose corticosteroid before treatment with Rituximab resulted in a sustained response. However, in the setting of severe pneumococcal meningitis, hypogammaglobulinemia was diagnosed. An extensive immunological investigation was performed in order to characterize his immune status, and to distinguish between a primary immunodeficiency and a side effect of Rituximab treatment. We provide an extensive presentation and discussion of the literature on the basic immunology of CVID, the mechanism of action of Rituximab, and the immunopathogenesis of hypogammaglobulinemia observed in this patient.

Conclusions

We suggest that CVID should be ruled out in any patient with immune cytopenias in order to avoid diagnostic delay. Likewise, we stress the importance of monitoring immunoglobulin levels before, during, and after Rituximab therapy to identify patients with hypogammaglobulinemia to ensure initiation of immunoglobulin replacement therapy in order to avoid life-threatening invasive bacterial infections. Recent reports indicate that Rituximab is not contra-indicated for the treatment of CVID-associated thrombocytopenia, however concomitant immunoglobulin substitution therapy is of fundamental importance to minimize the risk of infections. Therefore, lessons can be learned from this case report by clinicians caring for patients with immunodeficiencies, haematological diseases or other autoimmune disorders, particularly, when Rituximab treatment may be considered.