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.

Successful Optimization of Adalimumab Therapy in Refractory Uveitis Due to Behçet's Disease.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab (ADA) therapy optimization in a large series of patients with uveitis due to Behçet disease (BD) who achieved remission after the use of this biologic agent. DESIGN: Open-label multicenter study of ADA-treated patients with BD uveitis refractory to conventional immunosuppressants. SUBJECTS: Sixty-five of 74 patients with uveitis due to BD, who achieved remission after a median ADA duration of 6 (range, 3-12) months. ADA was optimized in 23 (35.4%) of them. This biologic agent was maintained at a dose of 40 mg/subcutaneously/2 weeks in the remaining 42 patients. METHODS: After remission, based on a shared decision between the patient and the treating physician, ADA was optimized. When agreement between patient and physician was reached, optimization was performed by prolonging the ADA dosing interval progressively. Comparison between optimized and nonoptimized patients was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness in optimized and nonoptimized groups. To determine efficacy, intraocular inflammation (anterior chamber cells, vitritis, and retinal vasculitis), macular thickness, visual acuity, and the sparing effect of glucocorticoids were assessed. RESULTS: No demographic or ocular differences were found at the time of ADA onset between the optimized and the nonoptimized groups. Most ocular outcomes were similar after a mean ± standard deviation follow-up of 34.7±13.3 and 26±21.3 months in the optimized and nonoptimized groups, respectively. However, relevant adverse effects were only seen in the nonoptimized group (lymphoma, pneumonia, severe local reaction at the injection site, and bacteremia by Escherichia coli, 1 each). Moreover, the mean ADA treatment costs were lower in the optimized group than in the nonoptimized group (6101.25 euros/patient/year vs. 12 339.48; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: ADA optimization in BD uveitis refractory to conventional therapy is effective, safe, and cost-effective.

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.