Tocilizumab in refractory giant cell arteritis. Monotherapy versus combined therapy with conventional immunosuppressive drugs. Observational multicenter study of 134 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of TCZ in monotherapy (TCZMONO) vs. combined with conventional immunosuppressive drugs (TCZCOMBO) in Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) in a clinical practice scenario. METHODS: Multicenter study of 134 patients with refractory GCA. Patients on TCZMONO (n = 82) were compared with those on TCZCOMBO (n = 52). Drugs were methotrexate (MTX) (n = 48), azathioprine (n = 3), and leflunomide (n = 1). The main outcomes were: prolonged remission (normalization of clinical and laboratory parameters for at least 6 months) and the number of relapses. RESULTS: Patients on TCZCOMBO were younger (68.8 ± 8.0 vs 71.2 ± 9.0 years; p = 0.04), with a trend to a longer GCA duration (median [IQR],18.5 [6.25-34.0] vs. 13.0 [7.75-33.5] months; p = 0.333), higher C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (2.1[1-4.7] vs 1.2 [0.2-2.4] mg/dL; p = 0.003), and more prevalence of extra-cranial large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) (57% vs. 34.1%; p = 0.007). In both groups, rapid and sustained improvement was observed. Despite the longer GCA duration, and the higher CRP levels and prevalence of LVV in the TCZCOMBO, the improvement was similar in both groups at 12 months. Moreover, in the TCZCOMBO group, prolonged remission was significantly higher at 12-month. Relapses and serious adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, TCZ in monotherapy or combined with conventional immunosuppressive agents is effective and safe in patients with GCA. Nevertheless, the addition of immunosuppressive drugs, usually MTX, seems to allow a higher rate of prolonged remission, even in patients with a longer GCA duration, more extra-cranial LVV involvement, and higher acute-phase reactants.

Tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis: differences between the GiACTA trial and a multicentre series of patients from the clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: A potential point of concern among clinicians is whether results derived from the clinical trials can be reasonably applied or generalised to a definable group of patients seen in real world. It can be the case of the GiACTA study that is a phase III randomised controlled trial of tocilizumab (TCZ) in giant cell arteritis (GCA). To address this question, we compared the clinical features and the responses to TCZ from the GiACTA trial patients with those from a series of GCA seen in the daily clinical practice. METHODS: Comparative study of clinical features between patients from the GiACTA trial (overall n=251) and those from a multicentre series of real-world GCA patients undergoing TCZ therapy (n=134). The diagnosis of GCA in the GiACTA trial was established by the ACR modified criteria whereas in the series of real-world patients it was made by using the ACR criteria, a positive biopsy of temporal artery or the presence of imaging techniques consistent with large-vessel vasculitis in individuals who presented cranial symptoms of GCA. GiACTA trial patients received subcutaneous TCZ (162 mg every 1 or 2 weeks) whereas those from the clinical practice series were treated using standard IV dose (8 mg/kg/month) or subcutaneous (162 mg/week). RESULTS: Real-life patients undergoing TCZ were older with longer disease duration and higher values of ESR and had received conventional immunosuppressive therapy (mainly methotrexate) more commonly than those included in the GiACTA trial. Despite clinical differences, TCZ was equally effective in both GiACTA trial and clinical practice patients. However, serious infections were more commonly observed in GCA patients recruited from the clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinical differences with patients recruited in clinical trials, data from real-life patients confirm the efficacy of TCZ in GCA.

Tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis. Observational, open-label multicenter study of 134 patients in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Tocilizumab (TCZ) has shown efficacy in clinical trials on giant cell arteritis (GCA). Real-world data are scarce. Our objective was to assess efficacy and safety of TCZ in unselected patients with GCA in clinical practice Methods: Observational, open-label multicenter study from 40 national referral centers of GCA patients treated with TCZ due to inefficacy or adverse events of previous therapy. Outcomes variables were improvement of clinical features, acute phase reactants, glucocorticoid-sparing effect, prolonged remission and relapses. A comparative study was performed: (a) TCZ route (SC vs. IV); (b) GCA duration (≤6 vs. >6 months); (c) serious infections (with or without); (d) ≤15 vs. >15 mg/day at TCZ onset. RESULTS: 134 patients; mean age, 73.0 ± 8.8 years. TCZ was started after a median [IQR] time from GCA diagnosis of 13.5 [5.0-33.5] months. Ninety-eight (73.1%) patients had received immunosuppressive agents. After 1 month of TCZ 93.9% experienced clinical improvement. Reduction of CRP from 1.7 [0.4-3.2] to 0.11 [0.05-0.5] mg/dL (p < 0.0001), ESR from 33 [14.5-61] to 6 [2-12] mm/1st hour (p < 0.0001) and decrease in patients with anemia from 16.4% to 3.8% (p < 0.0001) were observed. Regardless of administration route or disease duration, clinical improvement leading to remission at 6, 12, 18, 24 months was observed in 55.5%, 70.4%, 69.2% and 90% of patients. Most relevant adverse side-effect was serious infections (10.6/100 patients-year), associated with higher doses of prednisone during the first three months of therapy. CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, TCZ yields a rapid and maintained improvement of refractory GCA. Serious infections appear to be higher than in clinical trials.

B-cell therapies in established rheumatoid arthritis.

B-cell depletion therapy based on rituximab is effective and relatively safe in established rheumatoid arthritis. Rituximab is licensed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with methotrexate and in patients who did not respond or cannot tolerate tumour necrosis factor antagonists. Sustained control of disease activity can be achieved by repeated courses of treatment. The optimal dose and schedule of retreatment are still not established. Nevertheless, data are now available that provide a good base for current clinical practice and a good starting point for further research. In general, rituximab has a good safety profile with most studies showing similar incidences of serious adverse events and infections to placebo. However, reasonable and well-funded doubts remain over the safety of long-term strategies of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab, in particular, in relation to the risk of secondary hypogammaglobulinaemia and potential increased risk of infections.