In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).

No abstract

ObjectiveSubcutaneous (SC) and intravenous formulations of tocilizumab (TCZ) are available for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. Anti-TCZ antibody development and its impact on safety and efficacy were evaluated in adult patients with RA treated with intravenous TCZ (TCZ-IV) or TCZ-SC as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).MethodsData from 5 TCZ-SC and 8 TCZ-IV phase III clinical trials and 1 TCZ-IV clinical pharmacology safety study (>50 000 samples) were pooled to assess the immunogenicity profile of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (8974 total patients). The analysis included antidrug antibody (ADA) measurement following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, after dosing interruptions or in TCZ-washout samples, and the correlation of ADAs with clinical response, adverse events or pharmacokinetics (PK).ResultsThe proportion of patients who developed ADAs following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment was 1.5% and 1.2%, respectively. ADA development was also comparable between patients who received TCZ monotherapy and those who received concomitant csDMARDs (0.7–2.0%). ADA development did not correlate with PK or safety events, including anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity or injection-site reactions, and no patients who developed ADAs had loss of efficacy.ConclusionsThe immunogenicity risk of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treatment was low, either as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs. Anti-TCZ antibodies developed among the small proportion of patients had no evident impact on PK, efficacy or safety.

Background Placebo-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ) for remission maintenance and glucocorticoid sparing in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA). However, limited data exist on the effectiveness and safety of TCZ for GCA in real-world clinical practice. Methods This was a retrospective, single-center analysis of patients with GCA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous TCZ (2010–2018). Outcomes evaluated before and after TCZ initiation included occurrence of flare, time to flare, annualized flare rate, flare characteristics (i.e., polymyalgia rheumatica [PMR] symptoms, cranial manifestations), prednisone use, and safety. Flare was defined as the recurrence of unequivocal GCA manifestations requiring treatment intensification. Subgroup analyses of patients with PMR or visual manifestations at GCA diagnosis were performed. Results Sixty patients with GCA were included. The median (IQR) disease duration before and after the start of TCZ was 0.6 (0.2–1.6) and 0.5 (0.3–1.4) years, respectively. At least 1 flare was observed in 43 patients (71.7%) before and in 18 (30.0%) after TCZ initiation. Median (IQR) time to flare was 0.5 (0.3–0.7) years before TCZ treatment and 2.1 (0.6–2.6) years after TCZ initiation (HR 0.22; 95% CI 0.10–0.50; p = 0.0003). The annualized flare rate significantly decreased following TCZ use (before TCZ 1.4 [95% CI 1.0–2.1]; after TCZ 0.6 [95% CI 0.3–1.0] events/year; p < 0.001). Similar improvements were observed in patients with visual manifestations or PMR symptoms at GCA diagnosis. TCZ reduced the incidence of new visual manifestations, and no flares associated with permanent vision loss occurred while patients were receiving TCZ. Mean (SD) prednisone dose at TCZ onset and at the end of follow-up was 30 (18.3) and 5 (6.9) mg/day, respectively (p < 0.0001). After TCZ initiation, 46.6% of patients successfully discontinued prednisone. The incidence of adverse events, primarily attributed to glucocorticoids, was similar before and after TCZ initiation. Conclusions In this real-world setting, TCZ improved GCA clinical outcomes significantly and demonstrated effectiveness in the subgroups of patients with PMR symptoms and GCA-related visual manifestations at GCA diagnosis. No new cases of blindness occurred after TCZ initiation. Adverse events, many attributable to glucocorticoids, were comparable before and after TCZ treatment.

Background: Ocrelizumab is an approved MS treatment administered as two 300-mg intravenous infusions 2 weeks apart (Dose 1), each lasting approximately 2.5 hours, followed by single 600-mg infusions every 6 months lasting approximately 3.5 hours. Our objective was to evaluate shorter-duration ocrelizumab infusions in the Phase IIIb open-label SaROD study (NCT03606460). Methods: Eligible patients received ocrelizumab 600-mg Dose 2 or 3 infused over approximately 2 hours (Cohort 1) or ocrelizumab 300-mg Dose 1, Infusion 2 over approximately 1.5 hours (Cohort 2). The primary endpoint was the number and proportion of patients experiencing Grade 3-4 infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in Cohort 1. Secondary endpoints included Grade 1-4 IRRs in both cohorts and Grade 3-4 IRRs in Cohort 2. Results: Mean infusion times decreased by approximately 1.09 and 0.79 hours in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively, compared with US prescribing information. IRRs, reported by 36% of 141 patients, were mild-to-moderate, with no observed Grade 3-4 IRRs. No IRR-related discontinuations occurred. No serious AEs, deaths, or new safety signals were observed. Conclusion:The IRR rate with ocrelizumab shorter-duration infusions was similar to that observed in the pivotal Phase III trials. Ocrelizumab can be infused over a shorter time without sacrificing patient safety.

There were no substantial differences in the safety, pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of vorapaxar between Japanese and Caucasian subjects.

Patients with RA receiving TCZ plus MTX who achieve low disease activity can discontinue MTX without significant worsening of disease activity during the 16 weeks following MTX discontinuation.

Objective The objective of this study was to determine the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) disease‐modifying therapies (DMTs) on the development of cellular and humoral immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection. Methods Patients with MS aged 18 to 60 years were evaluated for anti‐nucleocapsid and anti‐Spike receptor‐binding domain (RBD) antibody with electro‐chemiluminescence immunoassay; antibody responses to Spike protein, RBD, N‐terminal domain with multiepitope bead‐based immunoassays (MBI); live virus immunofluorescence‐based microneutralization assay; T‐cell responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 Spike using TruCulture enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); and IL‐2 and IFNγ ELISpot assays. Assay results were compared by DMT class. Spearman correlation and multivariate analyses were performed to examine associations between immunologic responses and infection severity. Results Between January 6, 2021, and July 21, 2021, 389 patients with MS were recruited (mean age 40.3 years; 74% women; 62% non‐White). Most common DMTs were ocrelizumab (OCR)—40%; natalizumab —17%, Sphingosine 1‐phosphate receptor (S1P) modulators −12%; and 15% untreated. One hundred seventy‐seven patients (46%) had laboratory evidence of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection; 130 had symptomatic infection, and 47 were asymptomatic. Antibody responses were markedly attenuated in OCR compared with other groups (p ≤0.0001). T‐cell responses (IFNγ) were decreased in S1P (p = 0.03), increased in natalizumab (p <0.001), and similar in other DMTs, including OCR. Cellular and humoral responses were moderately correlated in both OCR (r = 0.45, p = 0.0002) and non‐OCR (r = 0.64, p <0.0001). Immune responses did not differ by race/ethnicity. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) clinical course was mostly non‐severe and similar across DMTs; 7% (9/130) were hospitalized. Interpretation DMTs had differential effects on humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Immune responses did not correlate with COVID‐19 clinical severity in this relatively young and nondisabled group of patients with MS. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:782–795