Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 58
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33512428

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether serum antibodies against selected periodontal pathogens are associated with early symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) development in healthy individuals at risk of developing the disease. METHODS: Within an ongoing study cohort of first-degree relatives of patients with RA (RA-FDRs), we selected four groups corresponding to specific preclinical phases of RA development (n = 201). (1) RA-FDR controls without signs and symptoms of arthritis nor RA-related autoimmunity (n = 51); (2) RA-FDRs with RA-related autoimmunity (n = 51); (3) RA-FDRs with inflammatory arthralgias without clinical arthritis (n = 51); (4) RA-FDRs who have presented at least one swollen joint ("unclassified arthritis") (n = 48). Groups were matched for smoking, age, sex and shared epitope status. The primary outcome was IgG serum levels against five selected periodontal pathogens and one commensal oral species assessed using validated-in-house ELISA assays. Associations between IgG measurements and preclinical phases of RA development were examined using Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: None of the IgGs directed against individual periodontal pathogens significantly differed between the four groups of RA-FDRs. Further analyses of cumulated IgG levels into bacterial clusters representative of periodontal infections, revealed significantly higher IgG titers against periodontopathogens in anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)-positive RA-FDRs (p = 0.015). Current smoking displayed a marked trend towards reduced IgG titers against periodontopathogens. CONCLUSION: Our results do not suggest an association between serum IgG titers against individual periodontal pathogens and specific preclinical phases of RA development. However, associations between cumulative IgG titers against periodontopathogens and the presence of ACPAs suggest a synergistic contribution of periodontopathogens to ACPA development.

3.
Clin Exp Rheumatol ; 38(6): 1056-1067, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33253107

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Despite availability of efficacious treatments, unmet needs still exist, preventing optimal and comprehensive management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Evolving the management of RA (eRA) is a European-wide educational initiative aiming to support improved patient care through practical and educational tools addressing specific unmet needs. METHODS: A multidisciplinary Steering Committee (17 members, 12 countries) identified unmet needs within the management of RA and prioritised those with the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Practical educational tools addressing priority needs were then developed for dissemination and implementation by the rheumatology community across Europe. RESULTS: Five areas of priority need were identified: increasing early recognition of RA and treatment initiation; treating RA to target; optimal, holistic approach to selection of treatment strategy, including shared decision-making; improving identification and management of comorbidities; and non-pharmacological patient management. A suite of 14 eRA tools included educational slides, best-practice guidance, self­assessment questionnaires, clinical checklists, a multidisciplinary team training exercise, an interactive patient infographic, and case scenarios. By April 2020, rheumatology professionals in 17 countries had been actively engaged in the eRA programme; in 11 countries, eRA tools were selected by national leaders in rheumatology and translated for local dissemination. A web platform, with country-specific pages, was developed to support access to the translated tools (https://www.evolvingthemanagementofra.com/). CONCLUSIONS: The eRA programme supports comprehensive management of RA across Europe through development and dissemination of practical educational tools. The eRA tools address priority needs and are available free of charge to the rheumatology community.

4.
N Engl J Med ; 383(16): 1511-1521, 2020 10 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33053283

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear. METHODS: In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).


Assuntos
Abatacepte/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis/uso terapêutico , Proteína Coestimuladora de Linfócitos T Induzíveis/antagonistas & inibidores , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/uso terapêutico , Abatacepte/efeitos adversos , Administração Oral , Antirreumáticos/efeitos adversos , Artrite Reumatoide/sangue , Proteína C-Reativa/análise , Método Duplo-Cego , Tolerância a Medicamentos , Feminino , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Infusões Intravenosas , Análise de Intenção de Tratamento , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Indução de Remissão
5.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 2020 Sep 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32963052

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the transient reduction in rheumatology services imposed by virus containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with disease worsening in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Patient-reported disease activity assessed during face-to-face visits and/or via a smartphone application were compared between three periods of each 2 months duration (before, during and after the COVID-19-wave) from January to June 2020 in 666 patients with axSpA, RA and PsA in the Swiss Clinical Quality Management cohort. RESULTS: The number of consultations dropped by 52%, whereas the number of remote assessments increased by 129%. The proportion of patients with drug non-compliance slightly increased during the pandemic, the difference reaching statistical significance in axSpA (19.9% vs 13.2% before the pandemic, p=0.003). The proportion of patients with disease flares remained stable (<15%). There was no increase in mean values of the Bath Ankylosing Disease Activity Index, the Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 and the Patient Global Assessment in patients with axSpA, RA and PsA, respectively. CONCLUSION: A short interruption of in-person patient-rheumatologist interactions had no major detrimental impact on the disease course of axSpA, RA and PsA as assessed by patient-reported outcomes.

6.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32844216

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which disease duration, alone or in combination with other baseline clinical and non-clinical factors, explains variations in outcome of tocilizumab initiated in biologic-naïve patients with established RA. METHODS: In this pooled analysis of phase 3 and 4 clinical trials conducted by the sponsor, predictors of response, including demographics, disease characteristics at baseline (start of tocilizumab dosing) and study characteristics (e.g. patient inclusion criteria, tocilizumab dosing regimen) were evaluated. Response was measured as change from baseline to week 24 in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and HAQ-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores and as the proportions of patients who experienced ≥50% improvement based on ACR criteria (ACR50) and CDAI remission (≤2.8) rates at week 24. RESULTS: Improvements in all outcomes investigated were observed in patients receiving tocilizumab. Although disease duration was statistically significant in the models, it accounted for <2% of variation in CDAI and HAQ-DI score changes from baseline to week 24; baseline CDAI and HAQ-DI values accounted for 32% and 15% of variations, respectively. Doubling of disease duration reduced the odds of achieving an ACR50 response by only 9%, and each additional 5-year period of disease duration decreased the odds of achieving CDAI remission by only 15%. CONCLUSION: RA duration, alone or in combination with other baseline characteristics, had a statistically significant but clinically small effect on the outcomes of tocilizumab initiated in biologic-naïve patients with established RA.

7.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(8): 1090-1097, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32404342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of interleukin (IL)-1 represents a promising treatment option in adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of canakinumab in patients with AOSD and active joint involvement by means of a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Patients with AOSD and active joint involvement (tender and swollen joint counts of ≥4 each) were treated with canakinumab (4 mg/kg, maximum 300 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks) or placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a clinically relevant reduction in disease activity at week 12 as determined by the change in disease activity score (ΔDAS28>1.2). RESULTS: At enrolment, patients had high active disease with a mean DAS28(ESR) of 5.4 in the canakinumab and 5.3 in the placebo group, respectively. In the intention-to-treat analysis, 12 patients (67%) in the canakinumab group and 7 patients (41%) in the placebo group fulfilled the primary outcome criterion (p=0.18). In the per-protocol analysis, significantly higher American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 30% (61% vs 20%, p=0.033), ACR 50% (50% vs 6.7%, p=0.009) and ACR 70% (28% vs 0%, p=0.049) response rates were observed in the canakinumab group compared with the placebo group. Two patients in the canakinumab group experienced a serious adverse event. CONCLUSION: Although the study was terminated prematurely and the primary endpoint was not achieved, treatment with canakinumab led to an improvement of several outcome measures in AOSD. The overall safety findings were consistent with the known profile of canakinumab. Thus, our data support indication for IL-1 inhibition with canakinumab in AOSD.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Doença de Still de Início Tardio/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento
9.
Ann Rheum Dis ; 79(6): 685-699, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31969328

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field. METHODS: An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items. RESULTS: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high. CONCLUSIONS: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Sociedades Médicas , Medicamentos Sintéticos/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/economia , Produtos Biológicos/economia , Consenso , Quimioterapia Combinada , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/uso terapêutico , Medicamentos Sintéticos/economia , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inibidores
11.
RMD Open ; 5(2): e001017, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31673415

RESUMO

Objective: Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE). Methods: During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated. Results: In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values. Conclusions: During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit.


Assuntos
Adalimumab/uso terapêutico , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Substituição de Medicamentos , Adalimumab/administração & dosagem , Adalimumab/efeitos adversos , Adulto , Idoso , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/administração & dosagem , Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/efeitos adversos , Antirreumáticos/administração & dosagem , Antirreumáticos/efeitos adversos , Artrite Reumatoide/diagnóstico , Biomarcadores , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Prognóstico , Resultado do Tratamento
13.
Autoimmun Rev ; 18(12): 102398, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31639514

RESUMO

The five TNF inhibitors currently approved for the treatment of RA are characterised by differences in their molecular structures, half-lives, administration routes, dosing intervals, immunogenicity, and use in women who wish to become pregnant. TNF inhibitors still represent the first biologic after conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in the majority of patients according to registry data. This was possibly because they were historically the first biological agents available (biological DMARDS with a different mechanism of action or targeted synthetic DMARDs did not become available until 2006s), and so switching from one to another was frequent in the case of an inadequate response and/or side effects. TNF inhibitors are also efficacious for other inflammatory joint and spine diseases, and have been approved for inflammatory bowel disease, uveitis and psoriasis. In addition, national registries have provided long-term safety data and demonstrated their beneficial effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, approximately 30-40% of patients discontinue anti-TNF treatment because of primary failure, secondary loss of response, or intolerance. The options for managing anti-TNF treatment failures include switching to an alternative anti-TNF (cycling) or to another class of targeted drug with a different mechanism of action (swapping). The aim of this review is to evaluate the pros and cons of whether it is more appropriate to choose a second anti-TNF biological agents after the failure of the first or swap treatment early.


Assuntos
Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/uso terapêutico , Fatores Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Terapia Biológica/métodos , Substituição de Medicamentos , Feminino , Humanos
14.
J Clin Med ; 8(10)2019 Sep 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31561582

RESUMO

: Introduction: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy and safety of tofacitinib have been shown in several randomized clinical trials. The study presented here aimed to assess the clinical tolerability and effectiveness of tofacitinib among RA patients in real life. Methods: Consecutive patients between January 2015 and April 2017 with RA who fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) 2010 criteria were included in a prospectively designed analysis of retrospective data. Patients were initiated on tofacitinib 5 mg bid. The primary objective was to analyze the safety of tofacitinib in a real-life cohort. Safety was assessed by the reasons to stop tofacitinib during follow up and changes of liver enzymes, hemoglobin, and creatinine. The secondary outcome was to analyze the frequency of and time to achieve low disease activity (LDA) and remission as defined by 28 joint count disease activity score (DAS28). Results: A total of 144 patients were treated with tofacitinib. A total of 84.9% of patients were pre-exposed to at least one biological agent. The average DAS28 at the initiation of tofacitinib was 4.43. A total of 50.0% of patients were positive for rheumatoid factor and 49.0% for ACPA. The mean follow up was 1.22 years (range 10d-3.7a) after initiation of tofacitinib treatment. A total of 94 (64.4%) patients remained on tofacitinib during follow-up. The average time to stop tofacitinib was 190.0 days. Reasons to stop tofacitinib were: insufficient response (n = 23), gastrointestinal symptoms (n = 18), infection (n = 5), myalgia (n = 2), remission (n = 2), headache (n = 2), cough, blue finger syndrome, intolerance, heartburn, psoriasis, and increased liver enzymes (all n = 1). Increased alanine amino transferase (ALAT) or aspartate amino transferase (ASAT) > 2× upper limit of normal (ULN) were detected in 3.3% and 4.4% of patients, respectively. Hemoglobin decrease of >10% was detected in 15.1% of the patients and decreased lymphocytes <500/µL in 3.4%. An increase of creatinine >20% was detected in 9.4% of patients. A total of 62.9% and 50.0% of the patients achieved low disease activity (LDA) or remission after a median of 319 and 645 days, respectively. These rates were significantly higher in patients naïve to biologic agents as compared to patients pre-exposed to biologics (LDA: naïve 100% 92 d, pre-exposed 57.0% 434 d, p ≤ 0.001; remission: naïve 86.7% 132 d, pre-exposed 44.1%, 692 d, p = 0.001). Conclusions: Tofacitinib is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RA. Tofacitinib may induce high rates of LDA and remission in patients with active disease, even after the use of one or more biologics, though the rate appeared higher in patients naïve to biologics. Tofacitinib may be a valuable option in a treat-to-target approach. Our data demonstrate that Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are safe and efficacious in real life patients.

15.
Clin Exp Rheumatol ; 37(6): 937-945, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31025930

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Monoclonais Humanizados/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos , Artrite Reumatoide , Rituximab/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Indução de Remissão , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
Lancet ; 391(10139): 2513-2524, 2018 06 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29908670

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Phase 2 studies with upadacitinib, a selective Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) inhibitor, have shown safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. We did this study to further assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib in patients with an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). METHODS: We did this double-blind, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 153 sites in 26 countries. Patients were aged 18 years or older, had active rheumatoid arthritis and previous inadequate response or intolerance to bDMARDs, and were receiving concomitant background conventional synthetic DMARDS (csDMARDs). We randomly assigned patients (2:2:1:1) by interactive response technology to receive once-daily oral extended-release upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg or placebo for 12 weeks, followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg from week 12 onwards. The two separate primary endpoints were the proportions of patients achieving a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12 and the proportion of patients achieving a 28-joint disease activity score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) of 3·2 or less at week 12. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Data are presented up to week 24 of this ongoing study. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847). FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2016, and Jan 10, 2017, 499 patients were randomly assigned (n=165 upadacitinib 15 mg; n=165 upadacitinib 30 mg; n=85 placebo then upadacitinib 15 mg; and n=84 placebo then upadacitinib 30 mg) and one patient was withdrawn from the 15 mg upadacitinib group before the start of study treatment. Mean disease duration was 13·2 years (SD 9·5); 235 (47%) of 498 patients had received one previous bDMARD, 137 (28%) had received two, and 125 (25%) had received at least three; 451 (91%) patients completed treatment up to week 12 and 419 (84%) patients completed treatment up to week 24. At week 12, ACR20 was achieved by 106 (65%; 95% CI 57-72) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 93 (56%; 49-64) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg compared with 48 (28%; 22-35) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). DAS28(CRP) of 3·2 or less was achieved by 71 (43%; 95% CI 36-51) of 164 patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 70 (42%; 35-50) of 165 patients receiving upadacitinib 30 mg versus 24 (14%; 9-20) of 169 patients receiving placebo (p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo). Up to week 12, overall numbers of patients with adverse events were similar for the placebo group (95 [56%] of 169) and the upadacitinib 15 mg group (91 [55%] of 164), but higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (111 [67%] of 165). At week 12, the most common adverse events occurring in at least 5% of patients in any treatment group were upper respiratory tract infection (13 [8%] of 169 in the placebo group; 13 [8%] of 164 in the upadacitinib 15 mg group; ten [6%] of 165 in the upadacitinib 30 mg group), nasopharyngitis (11 [7%]; seven [4%]; nine [5%]), urinary tract infection (ten [6%]; 15 [9%]; nine [5%]), and worsening of rheumatoid arthritis (ten [6%]; four [2%]; six [4%]). The number of patients with serious adverse events was higher in the upadacitinib 30 mg group (12 [7%]) than in the upadacitinib 15 mg group (eight [5%]); no serious adverse events were reported in patients receiving placebo. More patients in the upadacitinib 30 mg group had serious infections, herpes zoster, and adverse events leading to discontinuation than in the upadacitinib 15 mg and placebo groups. During the placebo-controlled phase of the study, one case of pulmonary embolism, three malignancies, one major adverse cardiovascular event, and one death were reported in patients receiving upadacitinib; none were reported in patients receiving placebo. INTERPRETATION: Both doses of upadacitinib led to rapid and significant improvements compared with placebo over 12 weeks in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: AbbVie Inc.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis/administração & dosagem , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis/efeitos adversos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/administração & dosagem , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/efeitos adversos , Idoso , Antirreumáticos/administração & dosagem , Preparações de Ação Retardada/administração & dosagem , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Compostos Heterocíclicos com 3 Anéis/farmacologia , Humanos , Inibidores de Janus Quinases/farmacologia , Metotrexato/administração & dosagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Índice de Gravidade de Doença
17.
Rheumatol Ther ; 5(1): 21-42, 2018 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29502236

RESUMO

Tocilizumab (TCZ) is the first humanized anti-interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), Castleman's disease, polyarticular and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and, most recently, giant cell arteritis as well as for the treatment of chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy-induced cytokine release syndrome. The global clinical development program for TCZ provides a wealth of clinical data on intravenous TCZ, and more recent studies in patients with RA have provided evidence characterizing the role of intravenous TCZ as monotherapy in early disease and led to the introduction of a subcutaneous formulation of TCZ. In addition, recently published open-label extension and observational studies continue to support the long-term efficacy and safety of TCZ in both clinical trial and real-world settings. Given the involvement of IL-6-mediated signaling in inflammatory disorders, TCZ is also being investigated in other immunological diseases. In particular, a phase 2 trial on the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous TCZ in adults with systemic sclerosis shows clinically relevant improvements in skin sclerosis and lung function in these patients. Another anti-IL-6 receptor agent, sarilumab, targeting the IL6 receptor alpha subunit, was recently approved for the treatment of patients with RA, although long-term data for this biologic are not yet published. In this article we review the placement of TCZ in current treatment guidelines; recent clinical trial data, including quality of life in patients with RA; recent updates to the TCZ safety profile; recent investigations of TCZ in other immunological diseases; and the clinical development of other novel IL-6-targeted agents.

18.
Arthritis Res Ther ; 20(1): 1, 2018 01 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29329602

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate (MTX) remains the anchor drug in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment, but is poorly tolerated or contraindicated in some patients. There is a wealth of data supporting the use of abatacept in combination with MTX, but data on alternative conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) combinations with abatacept are scarce. METHODS: In this post-hoc exploratory analysis, efficacy and safety data were extracted from abatacept RA studies in which combination with csDMARDs other than MTX was permitted: three interventional trials (ATTAIN, ASSURE, and ARRIVE) and one real-world study (ACTION). Patients with moderate-to-severe RA received abatacept in combination with MTX, hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, azathioprine, or leflunomide for 6 months to 2 years according to the study design. Change from baseline in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI); all studies) and 28-joint Disease Activity Score (C-reactive protein) (DAS28 (CRP); ATTAIN, ARRIVE, and ACTION), American College of Rheumatology response rates (ATTAIN), and safety were assessed for individual and pooled csDMARD combinations for each trial. A meta-analysis was also performed on pooled data for HAQ-DI and DAS28 (CRP) across interventional trials. RESULTS: Across all four studies, 731 patients received abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD (hydroxychloroquine n = 152; sulfasalazine n = 123; azathioprine n = 59; and leflunomide n = 397) and 2382 patients received abatacept plus MTX. Mean changes from baseline in HAQ-DI scores for abatacept plus MTX (all csDMARDs pooled) vs abatacept plus a non-MTX csDMARD were -0.54 vs -0.44 (ATTAIN), -0.43 vs -0.43 (ASSURE), and -0.39 vs -0.36 (ARRIVE). Mean changes from baseline in DAS28 (CRP) and ACR response rates were also similar with abatacept plus MTX or non-MTX csDMARDs. Data for individual non-MTX csDMARDs (pooled across studies) and real-world data were consistent with these findings. Rates of treatment-related adverse events and serious adverse events, respectively, for abatacept plus one non-MTX csDMARD vs abatacept plus MTX were 35.7% vs 41.7% and 2.4% vs 2.3% (ATTAIN), 58.0% vs 55.9% and 4.2% vs 1.7% (ASSURE), and 38.1% vs 44.3% and 0.6% vs 2.9% (ARRIVE). CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept in combination with non-MTX csDMARDs is clinically effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA, providing similar benefits to those seen with abatacept plus MTX. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048581 . Registered 2 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00048932 . Registered 11 November 2002. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124982 . Registered 30 June 2005. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02109666 . Registered 8 April 2014.


Assuntos
Abatacepte/uso terapêutico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapêutico , Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Metotrexato/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Idoso , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , Avaliação da Deficiência , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Autoimmun Rev ; 17(1): 24-28, 2018 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29108829

RESUMO

The advent of anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA) has revolutionised the approach to patients with active disease who do not respond to conventional therapy. Although there are differences in their structure, morphology, pharmacokinetic properties and activity, all anti-TNF drugs ultimately neutralise the TNFα pathway of inflammation. However, despite their similar clinical efficacy, there are disagreements concerning drug survival and safety, with systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirming one result or the other. The fact that 20-30% of patients fail to respond to TNFα inhibitors indicates the possibility of primary resistance or the development of an immune response to the drugs themselves, which may act as antigens. The overall benefit of switching to another anti-TNF drug or a biological agent with a different mechanism of action, may be a valuable option in individual patients. There are few data concerning the use of anti-TNF drugs in patients with SpA but it seems that there are fewer adverse advents and higher drug survival in comparison with patients with RA.


Assuntos
Artrite Reumatoide/tratamento farmacológico , Espondilartrite/tratamento farmacológico , Fator de Necrose Tumoral alfa/antagonistas & inibidores , Artrite Reumatoide/patologia , Humanos , Espondilartrite/patologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA