Tocilizumab, received weekly or every other week, combined with a 26-week prednisone taper was superior to either 26-week or 52-week prednisone tapering plus placebo with regard to sustained glucocorticoid-free remission in patients with giant-cell arteritis. Longer follow-up is necessary to determine the durability of remission and safety of tocilizumab. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01791153 .).
Objective
To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective noncovalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
Patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) (cohort 1; n = 480) were randomized to receive fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, or 200 mg twice daily), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo. Patients with RA and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2; n = 98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued MTX therapy.
Results
In cohort 1, the percentages of patients in whom American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (ACR50) was achieved at week 12 were similar in the fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo groups, and were higher in the fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily group (28%) and 200 mg twice daily group (35%) than in the placebo group (15%) (P = 0.016 and P = 0.0003, respectively). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (P = 0.81). In cohort 2, ACR50 was achieved in more patients receiving fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (P = 0.072). The most common adverse events in the fenebrutinib groups included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers.
Conclusion
Fenebrutinib demonstrates efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to MTX, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA.
ObjectiveCompare changes in lipids and lipid-associated cardiovascular (CV) risk markers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tocilizumab or adalimumab.MethodsPost-hoc analysis was performed in patients with RA who received tocilizumab intravenously every 4 weeks or adalimumab subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks in the ADACTA trial. Lipid and lipid-associated CV risk biomarkers, including high-density lipoprotein-associated serum amyloid-A (HDL-SAA), secretory phospholipase A2 IIA (sPLA2 IIA) and lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), were measured at baseline and at week 8.ResultsThe study included 162 patients treated with tocilizumab and 162 patients treated with adalimumab; HDL-SAA and sPLA2 IIA were measured in a subpopulation of 87 and 97 patients, respectively. Greater increases in mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (0.46 mmol/L (95% CI 0.30 to 0.62)), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (0.07 mmol/L (0.001 to 0.14)), total cholesterol (TC) (0.67 mmol/L (0.47 to 0.86)), triglycerides (0.24 mmol/L (0.10 to 0.38)) and TC:HDL ratio (0.27 (0.12 to 0.42)) occurred with tocilizumab from baseline to 8 weeks. HDL-SAA, sPLA2 IIA and Lp(a) decreased more with tocilizumab than adalimumab. Median changes from baseline to week 8 were –3.2 and –1.1 mg/L (p=0.0077) for HDL-SAA and –4.1 and –1.3 ng/mL (p<0.0001) for sPLA2 IIA; difference in adjusted means was –7.12 mg/dL (p<0.0001) for Lp(a). Similar results were observed in efficacy responders and non-responders per American College of Rheumatology and European League against Rheumatism criteria.ConclusionLDL-C and HDL-C increased more with tocilizumab than adalimumab. HDL-SAA, sPLA2 IIA and Lp(a) decreased more with tocilizumab. Lipid change effects of interleukin-6 and tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibition, manifest by their net impact on lipids and lipoproteins, are not synonymous; the clinical significance is unclear and requires further study.Trial registration numberNCT01119859.; post-results
Purpose
Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Methods
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days.
Results
Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” was 14 (95% CI 12–15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11–16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank
P
= 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78–1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28.
Conclusions
Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06507-x.
Objective
This study was undertaken to evaluate glucocorticoid dosages and serologic findings in patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) flares.
Methods
Patients with GCA were randomly assigned to receive double‐blind dosing with either subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ) 162 mg weekly plus 26‐week prednisone taper (TCZ‐QW + Pred‐26), every‐other‐week TCZ plus 26‐week prednisone taper (TCZ‐Q2W + Pred‐26), placebo plus 26‐week prednisone taper (PBO + Pred‐26), or placebo plus 52‐week prednisone taper (PBO + Pred‐52). Outcome measures were prednisone dosage, C‐reactive protein (CRP) level, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) at the time of flare.
Results
One hundred patients received TCZ‐QW + Pred‐26, 49 received TCZ‐Q2W + Pred‐26, 50 received PBO + Pred‐26, and 51 received PBO + Pred‐52. Of the 149 TCZ‐treated patients, 36 (24%) experienced flare, 23 (64%) of whom were still receiving prednisone (median dosage 2.0 mg/day). Among 101 PBO + Pred–treated patients, 59 (58%) experienced flare, 45 (76%) of whom were receiving prednisone (median dosage 5.0 mg/day). Many flares occurred while patients were taking >10 mg/day prednisone: 9 (25%) in the TCZ groups and 13 (22%) in the placebo groups. Thirty‐three flares (92%) in TCZ‐treated groups and 20 (34%) in PBO + Pred–treated groups occurred with normal CRP levels. More than half of the PBO + Pred–treated patients had elevated CRP levels without flares. Benefits of the TCZ and prednisone combination over prednisone alone for remission induction were apparent by 8 weeks.
Conclusion
Most GCA flares occurred while patients were still receiving prednisone. Acute‐phase reactant levels were not reliable indicators of flare in patients treated with TCZ plus prednisone or with prednisone alone. The addition of TCZ to prednisone facilitates earlier GCA control.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.