The anti-viral facet of anti-rheumatic drugs: Lessons from COVID-19.

The outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has posed the world at a pandemic risk. Coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, which causes pneumonia, requires intensive care unit hospitalization in about 10% of cases and can lead to a fatal outcome. Several efforts are currently made to find a treatment for COVID-19 patients. So far, several anti-viral and immunosuppressive or immunomodulating drugs have demonstrated some efficacy on COVID-19 both in vitro and in animal models as well as in cases series. In COVID-19 patients a pro-inflammatory status with high levels of interleukin (IL)-1B, IL-1 receptor (R)A and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α has been demonstrated. Moreover, high levels of IL-6 and TNF-α have been observed in patients requiring intensive-care-unit hospitalization. This provided rationale for the use of anti-rheumatic drugs as potential treatments for this severe viral infection. Other agents, such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine might have a direct anti-viral effect. The anti-viral aspect of immunosuppressants towards a variety of viruses has been known since long time and it is herein discussed in the view of searching for a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Comparison of infection-related hospitalization risk and costs in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept or other targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs).

Background: Evidence on the cost and risk of infection-related hospitalizations associated with targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) in patients with RA previously treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is limited. This study compared the risk and cost of infection-related hospitalizations in commercially insured TNFi-experienced RA patients receiving abatacept, TNFi, or another non-TNFi.Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using 2 large insurance claims databases (1 January 2009-30 June 2017). Adult TNFi-experienced RA patients initiating a subsequent tDMARD (initiation date of tDMARD = index date) with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre-index date, and who had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical RA claims on 2 different dates were included. Abatacept was compared to TNFis (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) and other non-TNFis (tocilizumab, rituximab, and tofacitinib). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the adjusted risk for infection-related hospitalization; costs were calculated on a per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis using generalized linear models.Results: More patients in the abatacept cohort had an infection-related hospitalization at baseline (4.5%) vs TNFis (2.0%, p < .0001) and other non-TNFis (3.6%, p = .2619). However, during follow-up abatacept patients had fewer infection-related hospitalizations (abatacept: 2.8%, TNFi: 3.7% and other non-TNFis: 5.2%; p < .05). Regression results indicated that compared to patients on abatacept, patients receiving a TNFi [HR: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.2)] and other non-TNFis [HR: 1.9 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.8)] had a significantly higher risk of infection-related hospitalization. Abatacept PMPM costs were lowest ($0.25 vs $0.39 and $0.43 for TNFi and other non-TNFi respectively). Mean PPPM (95% CI) cost in the follow-up was lower for abatacept compared to TNFi ($73 vs. $115; p = .042), and other non-TNFi ($73 vs. $125; p = .039).Conclusions: There were significantly lower infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs in TNF-experienced RA patients treated with abatacept than TNFis and other non-TNFis.