The Safety and Immunologic Effectiveness of the Live Varicella-Zoster Vaccine in Patients Receiving Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of live virus vaccines, such as the varicella-zoster vaccine, are unknown in patients with inflammatory diseases receiving immunomodulatory therapy such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of the live attenuated zoster vaccine (ZVL) in patients receiving TNFis. DESIGN: Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02538341). SETTING: Academic and community-based rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology practices. PATIENTS: Adults aged 50 years or older receiving TNFis for any indication. INTERVENTION: Random assignment to ZVL versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Glycoprotein enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (gpELISA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISpot) from serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells measured at baseline and 6 weeks after vaccination. Suspected varicella infection or herpes zoster was clinically assessed using digital photographs and polymerase chain reaction on vesicular fluid. RESULTS: Between March 2015 and December 2018, 617 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ZVL (n = 310) or placebo (n = 307) at 33 centers. Mean age was 62.7 years (SD, 7.5); 66.1% of participants were female, 90% were White, 8.2% were Black, and 5.9% were Hispanic. The most common TNFi indications were rheumatoid arthritis (57.6%) and psoriatic arthritis (24.1%); TNFi medications were adalimumab (32.7%), infliximab (31.3%), etanercept (21.2%), golimumab (9.1%), and certolizumab (5.7%). Concomitant therapies included methotrexate (48.0%) and oral glucocorticoids (10.5%). Through week 6, no cases of confirmed varicella infection were found; cumulative incidence of varicella infection or shingles was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0% to 1.2%). At 6 weeks, compared with baseline, the mean increases in geometric mean fold rise as measured by gpELISA and ELISpot were 1.33 percentage points (CI, 1.17 to 1.51 percentage points) and 1.39 percentage points (CI, 1.07 to 1.82 percentage points), respectively. LIMITATION: Potentially limited generalizability to patients receiving other types of immunomodulators. CONCLUSION: This trial informs safety concerns related to use of live virus vaccines in patients receiving biologics. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the American College of Rheumatology.

Clinical response to golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients who were receiving etanercept or adalimumab: results of a multicenter active treatment study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) golimumab + methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite etanercept + MTX or adalimumab + MTX therapy and evaluate whether intravenous (IV) golimumab could rescue patients who were nonresponders to SC golimumab. METHODS: In this multicenter, assessor-blinded, active-switch study of patients with RA (n = 433) with inadequate response to etanercept or adalimumab + MTX, patients continued MTX and received open-label SC golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks through week 12. DAS28-ESR good responders at week 16 continued open-label SC golimumab through week 52 (Group 1); nonresponders were randomized to double-blind golimumab SC 50 mg (Group 2-SC) or IV 2 mg/kg (Group 2-IV). Week 14 ACR20 was the primary endpoint; assessments continued through week 52 and for patients in the voluntary long-term extension through week 76. A major secondary endpoint was the proportions of patients with ACR20 response at week 52 relative to week 16 in Group 2-SC and Group 2-IV. RESULTS: At week 14, 34.9% (p < 0.001) achieved an ACR20. At week 52, patients in Group 1 (n = 75) achieved an ACR20 (62.7%). In Groups 2-SC (n = 91) and 2-IV (n = 184), 13.2% and 9.2% had an ACR20 at week 52 relative to week 16, with no significant difference between the randomized groups; 42.9% and 47.8% achieved DAS28-ESR response relative to week 0. Through week 16, 4.6% of patients had a serious adverse event. No differences in the rates or types of adverse events were observed between SC and IV golimumab from weeks 16 to 52. The trial limitations included a higher than expected discontinuation rate as a result of a programming error. CONCLUSION: SC golimumab + MTX significantly suppressed disease activity in RA patients with inadequate response to etanercept and/or adalimumab + MTX. Patients randomized to Groups 2-SC and 2-IV had lower response rates than Group 1, with no difference between SC or IV mode of administration. The safety profile with IV golimumab was comparable to that established with SC golimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01004432, EudraCT 2009-010582-23.

A multicenter, randomized, open study to evaluate the impact of an electronic data capture system on the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of an electronic data capture system on patient satisfaction and patient-physician interactions in a rheumatology clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: In this multicenter study, 1079 patients with rheumatoid arthritis completed questionnaires quarterly about their health and satisfaction with care using a computer. At 6 months, 901 eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to receive or not to receive graphical summarized health information or Health Tracker (HT) reports. Data collected at each visit included patient satisfaction with care; patient-physician interaction assessments; a 56-joint self-assessment for patients; a 28-joint assessment for physicians; patient pain, fatigue, and global assessments (visual analogue scale, physician global assessment, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and Short Form-12) all of which were cumulatively recorded in the HT report. RESULTS: Patient demographics at baseline were similar between groups. Changes from baseline to 1 year showed that patients in the HT-viewers group were significantly more satisfied with their care (p < 0.001) than those in the HT-nonviewers group (p = 0.131). Physicians reported improved interactions with patients at 1 year in both the HT-viewers (p < 0.001) and HT-nonviewers groups (p = 0.002); however, the improvement was significantly larger for the HT-viewers group than for the HT-nonviewers group (p < 0.001). Adverse events were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient access to systematically collected patient data reports promoted self-involvement and improved patient satisfaction and patient-physician interactions more in the HT-viewers than in HT-nonviewers groups at 1 year (p < 0.001). This was an open, observational study; no formal hypothesis testing was conducted. The HT system was not validated and some bias may have existed with respect to patient comfort level with a computer, user error, and timing of data entry of the physicians' assessments.