Early and late responses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug inadequate responders and were treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab: an open-label phase 3 trial (MIRAI).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate early and late responses in biological-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating tocilizumab and early tocilizumab non-responders who switched to rituximab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-randomised phase 3 study, RA patients with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg intravenously at study begin and weeks 4, 8 and 12. After evaluation at week 16, early responders (Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints-erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] <2.6) completed the study; partial responders (DAS28-ESR decrease >1.2 or DAS28-ESR ≥2.6-≤3.2) were to continue tocilizumab through week 28; non-responders (DAS28-ESR decrease ≤1.2) switched to rituximab (1000 mg, weeks 16 and 18) with safety follow-up through week 66. RESULTS: Of 519 patients, 222 (42.8%) achieved early DAS28-ESR remission at week 16; 240 patients continued treatment, 213 (41.0%) received tocilizumab, and 27 (5.2%) switched to rituximab. At week 32 DAS28-ESR remission was achieved by 117/213 patients (54.9%) who continued tocilizumab and 4/27 patients (14.8%) who switched to rituximab; good EULAR response was achieved by 66.7% and 25.9% and CDAI remission by 19.2% and 14.8% of patients, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred through week 32 in 45/490 patients (9.2%) who received tocilizumab (serious infections, 2.7%) and through week 66 in 8/27 patients (29.6%) who switched to rituximab. CONCLUSIONS: Early response to tocilizumab was observed in 42.8% of patients. Half of early partial responders benefitted from continuing tocilizumab. Switching non-responders to rituximab seems feasible. No new safety signals were observed in patients treated with tocilizumab or switched to rituximab.

ROUTINE-a prospective, multicentre, non-interventional, observational study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of intravenous tocilizumab for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice in Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the tolerability, effectiveness and utilization of tocilizumab for the treatment of RA in a usual care setting. METHODS: ROUTINE was a prospective, non-interventional, observational 52-week study performed at 174 sites throughout Germany. RA patients were selected and treated according to label. Study objectives included the targeted documentation of infections, other adverse events, and various effectiveness outcomes (e.g. DAS28, clinical disease activity). Statistical analyses were performed primarily based on the data as observed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients (75% women, mean age: 56 ± 13 years, mean RA duration: 10.3 ± 8.6 years) were enrolled. Most patients (79%) were pretreated with TNF-inhibitors, whereas 21% were pretreated with conventional DMARDs only. Most common DMARD pretreatments were MTX (79%), LEF (68%), adalimumab (53%) and etanercept (50%). At baseline, 60.5% of patients received tocilizumab in combination with any other RA drugs, while 39.5% were treated in monotherapy. Mean baseline DAS28 was 5.5 ± 1.3, and this decreased to 2.6 ± 1.6 at week 52. At week 52, good EULAR response was achieved in 62.3%, low disease activity state in 66.4%, and DAS28 remission in 55.1% of patients (adjusted relative frequencies). 35.3% of patients discontinued the study prematurely; common reasons were lack of effectiveness (10.5%) and intolerability (7.3%). Any infections and severe infections occurred in 37.6% and 7.2% of patients, respectively (N = 836); serious infections were seen in 5.3% (N = 850). Event rates of any, severe and serious infections were 70.3, 9.8 and 4.4 events/100 patient-years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tocilizumab administered in a real-life setting showed clinically meaningful improvements and a safety profile that was consistent with data reported from pre-approval Phase III studies.

Impact of modified-release prednisone on functional ability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

This observational study assessed functional ability in patients treated with modified-release prednisone under conditions of normal clinical practice. Patients treated with modified-release prednisone were observed over 9 months. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline total score using the Questionnaire on Activity Status (QAS); total QAS score ranges from 0 (severely impaired) to 100 (completely unimpaired). Other measures included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (where 10 = full daily performance) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). There were no restrictions on dose of modified-release prednisone or use of concomitant therapy. A total of 1,733 patients were included in the study, with valid observations at baseline and study end for 1,185 patients (thereof 74 % female, median age 59 years, median disease duration 5 years). Mean total QAS score improved significantly after 9 months of treatment with modified-release prednisone from 54.3 to 70.2 (p < 0.001). There were also significant (p < 0.001) improvements in all three QAS dimensions (occupational performance: 66.6-78.9; household duties: 55.6-70.9; leisure activities: 51.6-69.4), daily performance (mean VAS 5.1-7.0; p < 0.001) and mean HAQ-DI score (1.35-1.00; p < 0.001). Dose of modified-release prednisone was significantly reduced (from 5.0 to 4.4 mg/day, p < 0.001) and fewer patients required biological rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments, analgesia and gastroprotectants. Functional ability in patients with RA improved significantly from baseline after 9 months of treatment with modified-release prednisone. This observational study, conducted under daily-practice conditions, confirms the beneficial effects of modified-release prednisone shown previously in randomised controlled trials.

Ustekinumab Is Rapid-Acting and Is an Effective Long-Term Treatment for Patients with Active Psoriatic Arthritis: Real-World Evidence from the Non-interventional SUSTAIN Study.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, progressive disease that places a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems. The SUSTAIN study collected real-world evidence on long-term effectiveness, impact on quality of life, and safety of ustekinumab treatment for PsA. METHODS: SUSTAIN was a prospective, non-interventional study conducted in Germany. Patients with active PsA received ustekinumab for 160 weeks in routine clinical care, with assessments at baseline, week 4, and every 12 weeks thereafter. This analysis focuses on patients who remained in SUSTAIN until week 160. RESULTS: Of 337 patients enrolled, 129 were documented at week 160, of which 123 (95.3%) had received previous PsA medication, including biologics. Decreases from baseline to week 4 were observed for tender joint count (TJC, 8.0 to 5.8) and swollen joint count (SJC, 4.5 to 3.1); these decreases continued to week 28 and were maintained to week 160 (1.0 and 0.4, respectively). Similarly, skin assessments in patients with PsA and psoriasis revealed improvement at week 4, which continued to week 28, with a sustained effect until week 160. Similar patterns of response were observed for patient-assessed pain, sleep quality, and health scores. Improvements in TJC, SJC, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and affected body surface area were observed irrespective of the number of prior biologic therapies used. Minimal disease activity was achieved by 36 (31.9%) patients at week 28, and by 38 (33.6%) at week 52. Ustekinumab-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in 61 (47.3%) and 4 (3.1%) patients, respectively. At week 160, 100% of patients assessed ustekinumab tolerability as good or very good. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, patients with active PsA who received ustekinumab until 160 weeks (3 years), including those who received prior biologic therapies, had a rapid onset of effect and sustained response to treatment, with high tolerability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PEI NIS No. 290.

Subcutaneously administered methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, by prefilled syringes versus prefilled pens: patient preference and comparison of the self-injection experience.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized, crossover study compared preference, ease of use, acceptability, satisfaction, and safety of repeated subcutaneous (SC) self-administrations with prefilled pens and prefilled syringes delivering methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01793259) enrolled 120 patients requiring initiation or intensification of MTX therapy for RA. Patients were randomized to receive the test drug, a prefilled pen (Metex(®) PEN/Metoject(®) PEN), or the reference drug, a prefilled syringe (Metex(®)/Metoject(®)), at doses of 15, 17.5, or 20 mg MTX SC once a week for 3 weeks. This was followed by receipt of the reference drug (prefilled syringe) or the test drug (prefilled pen) in a crossover design, with each patient serving as his/her own control. Questionnaires regarding patient preference, the Self-Injection Assessment Questionnaire (SIAQ), and diaries regarding local tolerability were used to document outcomes. RESULTS: Overall patient preference for the MTX prefilled pen was 75% (P<0.0001). In a six-item questionnaire, 73% to 76% of the patients preferred the prefilled pen in relation to use, acceptability, and satisfaction, and 67% of the patients confirmed that it did not take much effort to overcome SC self-injection with the pen. The SIAQ showed no clinical differences, in any domain scores, between both devices. Overall patient attitude towards self-injection at baseline was positive, as was patient experience with both devices during the study. As well, 92% of physicians and study nurses indicated that they would recommend the MTX prefilled pen to patients for future MTX treatment. The formulations were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: SC self-injection of MTX with a prefilled pen was generally preferred, by patients with RA, over a prefilled syringe with regard to use, acceptability, and satisfaction. This is supported by the strong appreciation of their attending study nurses and physicians, for its convenience.