Avaliação à medida no Segundo HAREM

Objectives This study compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) formulations of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Methods Patients (n=1262) were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab-SC 162mg weekly+placebo-IV every 4weeks or tocilizumab-IV 8mg/kg every 4weeks+placebo-SC weekly in combination with traditional DMARD. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of tocilizumab-SC to tocilizumab-IV with regard to the proportion of patients in each group achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24 using a 12% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Secondary outcomes were disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28), ACR responses, health assessment questionnaire scores and safety assessments. Results At week 24, 69.4% (95% CI 65.5 to 73.2) of tocilizumab-SC-treated patients versus 73.4% (95% CI 69.6 to 77.1) of tocilizumab-IV-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (weighted difference between groups -4.0%, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.2); the 12% NIM was met. ACR50/70 responses, DAS28 and physical function improvements were comparable between the tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV groups. The safety profiles of tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV were similar, and the most common adverse event was infection. Injection-site reactions (ISR) occurred more frequently in the tocilizumab-SC group than in the tocilizumab-IV (placebo-SC) group. No anaphylaxis was reported over the 24weeks. Conclusions Tocilizumab-SC 162mg weekly demonstrated comparable efficacy to tocilizumab-IV 8mg/kg. The safety profile of tocilizumab-SC is consistent with the known and well-established safety profile of tocilizumab-IV, with the exception of a higher incidence of ISR, which were more common with tocilizumab-SC administration

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

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

2022 update

Funding Information: This study was funded by European League Against Rheumatism. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objectives: To provide an update of the EULAR rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations addressing the most recent developments in the field. Methods: An international task force was formed and solicited three systematic literature research activities on safety and efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and glucocorticoids (GCs). The new evidence was discussed in light of the last update from 2019. A predefined voting process was applied to each overarching principle and recommendation. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned to and participants finally voted on the level of agreement with each item. Results: The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); GCs; biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab including biosimilars), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs, namely the Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib. Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering in sustained clinical remission is provided. Safety aspects, including risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and malignancies, costs and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs were all considered. Initially, MTX plus GCs is recommended and on insufficient response to this therapy within 3-6 months, treatment should be based on stratification according to risk factors; With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD should be added to the csDMARD; after careful consideration of risks of MACEs, malignancies and/or thromboembolic events tsDMARDs may also be considered in this phase. If the first bDMARD (or tsDMARD) fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD (considering risks) is recommended. With sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered but should not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were high for most recommendations. Conclusions: These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on RA management including safety, effectiveness and cost.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update

Background: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. Methods: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. Results: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still’s disease, Castleman’s disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. Conclusions: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers

Clinical scenarios-based guide for tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis

Tofacitinib was the first Janus kinase inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and there is a large body of data to inform the efficacy and safety of this drug for patients at different places in their treatment journeys and with diverse demographics and characteristics. Here, we summarize tofacitinib clinical efficacy and safety data from some clinical trials, post hoc analyses, and real-world studies, which provide evidence of the efficacy of tofacitinib in treating patients with RA at various stages of their treatment journeys, and with differentiating baseline characteristics, such as age, gender, race, and body mass index. In addition, we review the safety data available from different patient subpopulations in the tofacitinib clinical development program, real-world data, and findings from the ORAL Surveillance post-marketing safety study that included patients aged ⩾50 years with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors. The available efficacy and safety data in these subpopulations can enable better discussions between clinicians and patients to guide informed decision-making and individualized patient care

Impact of Tofacitinib on Components of the ACR Response Criteria: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase III and Phase IIIb/IV Trials

Objective. To evaluate the effect of tofacitinib (TOF) on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria components in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. This post hoc analysis pooled data from RA phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing TOF 5 or 10 mg BID, adalimumab (ADA), or placebo, with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and a phase IIIb/IV RCT assessing TOF 5 mg BID monotherapy, TOF 5 mg BID with methotrexate (MTX), or ADA with MTX. Outcomes included proportions of patients achieving ACR20/50/70 responses and ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates in ACR components at week 2 and months 1, 3, and 6; and mean percent improvement in ACR components and Clinical or Simplified Disease Activity Index (CDAI or SDAI) low disease activity or remission rates, at month 3, for ACR20/50/70 responders. Results. Across treatment groups, ≥ 20/50/70% improvement rates were numerically higher for most physician- vs patient-reported measures. In phase III RCTs, at earlier timepoints, ≥ 50/70% improvements in patient global assessment of disease activity, pain, and physician global assessment were similar. Among ACR20 responders receiving TOF, mean percent improvements for tender and swollen joint counts were > 70% at month 3. CDAI/SDAI remission was achieved at month 3 by 27.8-45.0% of ACR70 responders receiving TOF. Conclusion. Among ACR20 responders treated with TOF, physician-reported components particularly exceeded 20% response improvement. At month 3, disease state generally did not corroborate ACR70 response criteria. Divergences between physician- and patient-reported measures highlight the importance of identifying appropriate patient-reported outcome targets to manage RA symptoms in clinical practice

Phase II randomised trial of type I interferon inhibitor anifrolumab in patients with active lupus nephritis

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the type I interferon receptor antibody, anifrolumab, in patients with active, biopsy-proven, Class III/IV lupus nephritis. Methods This phase II double-blinded study randomised 147 patients (1:1:1) to receive monthly intravenous anifrolumab basic regimen (BR, 300 mg), intensified regimen (IR, 900 mg ×3, 300 mg thereafter) or placebo, alongside standard therapy (oral glucocorticoids, mycophenolate mofetil). The primary endpoint was change in baseline 24-hour urine protein–creatinine ratio (UPCR) at week (W) 52 for combined anifrolumab versus placebo groups. The secondary endpoint was complete renal response (CRR) at W52. Exploratory endpoints included more stringent CRR definitions and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (≤7.5 mg/day, W24–52). Safety was analysed descriptively. Results Patients received anifrolumab BR (n=45), IR (n=51), or placebo (n=49). At W52, 24-hour UPCR improved by 69% and 70% for combined anifrolumab and placebo groups, respectively (geometric mean ratio=1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.71; p=0.905). Serum concentrations were higher with anifrolumab IR versus anifrolumab BR, which provided suboptimal exposure. Numerically more patients treated with anifrolumab IR vs placebo attained CRR (45.5% vs 31.1%), CRR with UPCR ≤0.5 mg/mg (40.9% vs 26.7%), CRR with inactive urinary sediment (40.9% vs 13.3%) and sustained glucocorticoid reductions (55.6% vs 33.3%). Incidence of herpes zoster was higher with combined anifrolumab vs placebo (16.7% vs 8.2%). Incidence of serious adverse events was similar across groups. Conclusion Although the primary endpoint was not met, anifrolumab IR was associated with numerical improvements over placebo across endpoints, including CRR, in patients with active lupus nephritis