True infliximab resistance in rheumatoid arthritis: a role for lymphotoxin α?

Background: The combination of methotrexate and the anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antibody infliximab is a very effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, a proportion of patients are not responsive to this treatment. Inefficacy may represent a TNF independent disease or insufficient drug at the site of action. Case report: A patient with RA resistant to repeated high dose infliximab infusions and intra-articular infliximab into an inflamed knee is described. No beneficial clinical effect was observed. Pre-injection arthroscopic biopsy of the study knee demonstrated TNF staining but also confirmed the presence of lymphotoxin (LT or TNFß) on immunohistochemistry. Subsequent treatment with etanercept (which blocks LT as well as TNF) resulted in clinical remission of disease. Conclusion: This case suggests that resistance to TNF blockade may occur when TNF is not the dominant inflammatory cytokine and suggests that LT may have a pathogenic role in RA

Domains and outcome measures for the assessment of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a scoping review protocol

Introduction: Limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (lcSSc) is the most frequent subset of systemic sclerosis. Despite this, lcSSc is not the major focus of clinical studies. The lack of interventional studies in lcSSc is due, in part, to a paucity of relevant outcome measures to effectively evaluate this subset. A combined response index dedicated to lcSSc would facilitate development of well-designed trials and approval of new drugs. The objective of this scoping review is to perform a broad and comprehensive identification of the outcome measures (core set items) within relevant domains, which have been used so far to assess lcSSc. Methods and analysis: The planned scoping review will be based on the approach proposed by Arksey et al and further developed by Levac et al. Development and reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and guidelines. The development of the search strategy was guided by the concepts of domains and outcomes based on the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology approach and by the different names and definitions of SSc, with a specific emphasis on their occurrence in clinical trial studies. Two databases will be searched: MEDLINE and Embase. Studies in English, published from the year 1988 onwards, will be included, since 1988 corresponds to the publication of LeRoy’s first consensus definition of lcSSc. Data will be extracted and analysed using a standardised charting tool. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is required for this study. The results will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences, informing the discussion on which items should be included in a combined response index dedicated to lcSSc (the CRISTAL project: Combined Response Index for Scleroderma Trial Assessing lcSSc)

Updated consensus statement on the use of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background Since initial approval for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), rituximab has been evaluated in clinical trials involving various populations with RA. Information has also been gathered from registries. This report therefore updates the 2007 consensus document on the use of rituximab in the treatment of RA. Methods Preparation of this new document involved many international experts experienced in the treatment of RA. Following a meeting to agree upon the core agenda, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify all relevant data. Data were then interrogated by a drafting committee, with subsequent review and discussion by a wider expert committee leading to the formulation of an updated consensus statement. These committees also included patients with RA. Results The new statement covers wide-ranging issues including the use of rituximab in earlier RA and impact on structural progression, and aspects particularly pertinent to rituximab such as co-medication, optimal dosage regimens, repeat treatment cycles and how to manage non-response. Biological therapy following rituximab usage is also addressed, and safety concerns including appropriate screening for hepatitis, immunoglobulin levels and infection risk. This consensus statement will support clinicians and inform patients when using B-cell depletion in the management of RA, providing up-to-date information and highlighting areas for further research. Conclusion New therapeutic strategies and treatment options for RA, a chronic destructive and disabling disease, have expanded over recent years. These have been summarised in general strategic suggestions and specific management recommendations, emphasising the importance of expedient disease-modifying antirheumatic drug implementation and tight disease control. This consensus statement is in line with these fundamental principles of management

Rituximab versus tocilizumab and b-cell status in tnf-alpha inadequate-responder rheumatoid arthritis patients: the r4-ra rct

Background Although biological therapies have transformed the outlook for those with rheumatoid arthritis, there is a lack of any meaningful response in approximately 40% of patients. The role of B cells in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis is well recognised and is supported by the clinical efficacy of the B-cell-depleting agent rituximab (MabThera, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland). Rituximab is licensed for use in rheumatoid arthritis following failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. However, over 50% of patients show low/absent synovial B-cell infiltration, suggesting that, in these patients, inflammation is driven by alternative cell types. This prompted us to test the hypothesis that, in synovial biopsy B-cell-poor patients, tocilizumab (RoActemra, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) (targeting interleukin 6) is superior to rituximab (targeting CD20+/B cells). Design The R4–RA (A Randomised, open-labelled study in anti-TNFalpha inadequate responders to investigate the mechanisms for Response, Resistance to Rituximab versus Tocilizumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients) trial is a 48-week Phase IV, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 19 European centres that recruited patients failing on or intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and at least one tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Participants Synovial tissue was obtained at trial entry and classified histologically as B-cell rich or B-cell poor to inform balanced stratification. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to receive standard therapy with rituximab or tocilizumab. B-cell-poor/-rich molecular classification was also carried out. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab at 16 weeks in the B-cell-poor population. Main outcome measures The primary end point was defined as an improvement in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of ≥ 50% from baseline. In addition, patients were considered to be non-responders if they did not reach an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% and a CDAI score of < 10.1, defined for simplicity as CDAI major treatment response (CDAI-MTR). Secondary outcomes included the assessment of CDAI response in the B-cell-rich cohort, in which the non-inferiority of rituximab compared with tocilizumab was evaluated. Safety data up to week 48 are reported. Results In total, 164 patients were randomised: 83 patients received rituximab and 81 received tocilizumab. Eighty-one out of 83 rituximab patients and 73 out of 81 tocilizumab patients completed treatment up to week 16 (primary end point). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups. In the histologically classified B-cell-poor population (n = 79), no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome, an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% from baseline (risk ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.96). A supplementary analysis of the CDAI-MTR, however, did reach statistical significance (risk ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.78). In addition, when B-cell-poor classification was determined molecularly, both the primary end point and the CDAI-MTR were statistically significant (risk ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.91, and risk ratio 4.12, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 11.01, respectively). Moreover, a larger number of secondary end points achieved significance when classified molecularly than when classified histologically. In the B-cell-rich population, there was no significant difference between treatments in the majority of both primary and secondary end points. There were more adverse events and serious adverse events, such as infections, in the tocilizumab group than in the rituximab group. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first biopsy-based, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of rheumatoid arthritis. We were unable to demonstrate that tocilizumab was more effective than rituximab in patients with a B-cell-poor pathotype in our primary analysis. However, superiority was shown in most of the supplementary and secondary analyses using a molecular classification. These analyses overcame possible unavoidable weaknesses in our original study plan, in which the histological method of determining B-cell status may have misclassified some participants and our chosen primary outcome was insufficiently sensitive. Given the significant results observed using the molecular classification, future research will focus on refining this stratification method and evaluating its clinical utility

EULAR definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

Background: Despite treatment according to the current management recommendations, a significant proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remain symptomatic. These patients can be considered to have ‘difficult-to-treat RA’. However, uniform terminology and an appropriate definition are lacking. Objective: The Task Force in charge of the „Development of EULAR recommendations for the comprehensive management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis” aims to create recommendations for this underserved patient group. Herein, we present the definition of difficult-to treat RA, as the first step. Methods: The Steering Committee drafted a definition with suggested terminology based on an international survey among rheumatologists. This was discussed and amended by the Task Force, including rheumatologists, nurses, health professionals and patients, at a face-to-face meeting until sufficient agreement was reached (assessed through voting). Results: The following three criteria were agreed by all Task Force members as mandatory elements of the definition of difficult-to-treat RA: 1) Treatment according to EULAR rec-ommendation and failure of ≥2 b/tsDMARDs (with different mechanisms of action) after failing csDMARD therapy (unless contraindicated); 2) presence of at least one of the follow-ing: at least moderate disease activity; signs and/or symptoms suggestive of active disease; inability to taper glucocorticoid treatment; rapid radiographic progression; RA symptoms that are causing a reduction in quality of life; 3) the management of signs and/or symptoms is perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient. Conclusions: The proposed EULAR definition for difficult-to-treat RA can be used in clinical practice, clinical trials and can form a basis for future research

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

Objective: To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA). Methods: A EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies, D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree, 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members. Results: Two overarching principles and eleven PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6). Conclusions: These points to consider for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation &lt;92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p&lt;0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p&lt;0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research