Phase IIa Global Study Evaluating Rituximab for the Treatment of Pediatric Patients With Granulomatosis With Polyangiitis or Microscopic Polyangiitis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of rituximab (RTX) in pediatric patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) or microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). METHODS: The Pediatric Polyangiitis Rituximab Study was a phase IIa, international, open-label, single-arm study. During the initial 6-month remission-induction phase, patients received intravenous infusions of RTX (375 mg/m2 body surface area) and glucocorticoids once per week for 4 weeks. During the follow-up period, patients could receive further treatment, including RTX, for GPA or MPA. The safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and exploratory efficacy outcomes with RTX were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-five pediatric patients with new-onset or relapsing disease were enrolled at 11 centers (19 with GPA [76%] and 6 with MPA [24%]). The median age was 14 years (range 6-17 years). All patients completed the remission-induction phase. During the overall study period (≤4.5 years), patients received between 4 and 28 infusions of RTX. All patients experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE), mostly grade 1 or grade 2 primarily infusion-related reactions. Seven patients experienced 10 serious AEs, and 17 patients experienced 31 infection-related AEs. No deaths were reported. RTX clearance correlated with body surface area. The body surface area-adjusted RTX dosing regimen resulted in similar exposure in both pediatric and adult patients with GPA or MPA. Remission, according to the Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score, was achieved in 56%, 92%, and 100% of patients by months 6, 12, and 18, respectively. CONCLUSION: In pediatric patients with GPA or MPA, RTX is well tolerated and effective, with an overall safety profile comparable to that observed in adult patients with GPA or MPA who receive treatment with RTX. RTX is associated with a positive risk/benefit profile in pediatric patients with active GPA or MPA

Rituximab versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in Patients with Pemphigus Vulgaris

BackgroundRituximab and mycophenolate mofetil are used to treat pemphigus vulgaris, but they have not been adequately compared in clinical trials.MethodsIn a randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with moderate-to-severe pemphigus vulgaris in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous rituximab (1000 mg on days 1, 15, 168, and 182) or oral mycophenolate mofetil (2 g per day), in addition to an oral glucocorticoid administered on the same tapering schedule in the two groups. The primary end point was sustained complete remission at week 52, defined as the healing of lesions with no new active lesions, as reflected by a Pemphigus Disease Area Index (PDAI) activity score of 0 (on a scale of 0 to 250, with higher scores indicating greater disease severity), for at least 16 weeks without the use of glucocorticoids. Secondary end points were the cumulative dose of glucocorticoids, the number of disease flares, and the change from baseline in the score on the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating greater impairment).ResultsOf the 135 patients who underwent randomization, 67 were assigned to receive rituximab and 68 to receive mycophenolate mofetil. The primary outcome was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population: 62 patients in the rituximab group and 63 in the mycophenolate mofetil group. The median PDAI activity scores at baseline were 22.7 in the rituximab group and 18.3 in the mycophenolate mofetil group. At week 52, sustained complete remission was observed in 25 patients (40%) in the rituximab group and in 6 (10%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group (difference, 31 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 15 to 45; P<0.001). The mean cumulative glucocorticoid dose during the 52-week treatment period was 3545 mg in the rituximab group and 5140 mg in the mycophenolate mofetil group (difference, -1595 mg; 95% CI, -2838 to -353; P<0.001). There were 6 disease flares in the rituximab group and 44 in the mycophenolate mofetil group (adjusted rate ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.29; P<0.001). The mean change in DLQI score was -8.87 points and -6.00 points, respectively (difference, -2.87 points; 95% CI, -4.58 to -1.17; P=0.001). Serious adverse events occurred in 15 of 67 patients (22%) in the rituximab group and in 10 of 68 (15%) in the mycophenolate mofetil group.ConclusionsRituximab was superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained complete remission at 52 weeks in patients with pemphigus vulgaris. Rituximab resulted in a greater reduction in glucocorticoid use than mycophenolate mofetil, but more patients in the rituximab group had serious adverse events. Further trials are needed to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil beyond 52 weeks of treatment. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche; PEMPHIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)Rituximab vs. Mycophenolate Mofetil for PemphigusIn a 52-week trial, rituximab was found to be superior to mycophenolate mofetil in producing sustained remission of pemphigus vulgaris and in reducing glucocorticoid use. There were more serious adverse events with rituximab than with mycophenolate mofetil

Time for a Time Window Extension: Insights from Late Presenters in the ESCAPE Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy for large-artery stroke in the extended time window is not yet well-established. We performed a subgroup analysis on subjects enrolled within an extended time window in the Endovascular Treatment for Small Core and Proximal Occlusion Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE) trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine of 315 subjects (33 in the intervention group and 26 in the control group) were randomized in the ESCAPE trial between 5.5 and 12 hours after last seen healthy (likely to have groin puncture administered 6 hours after that). Treatment effect sizes for all relevant outcomes (90-day mRS shift, mRS 0-2, mRS 0-1, and 24-hour NIHSS scores and intracerebral hemorrhage) were reported using unadjusted and adjusted analyses. RESULTS: There was no evidence of treatment heterogeneity between subjects in the early and late windows. Treatment effect favoring intervention was seen across all clinical outcomes in the extended time window (absolute risk difference of 19.3% for mRS 0-2 at 90 days). There were more asymptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage events within the intervention arm (48.5% versus 11.5%, CONCLUSIONS: Patients with an extended time window could potentially benefit from endovascular treatment. Ongoing randomized controlled trials using imaging to identify late presenters with favorable brain physiology will help cement the paradigm of using time windows to select the population for acute imaging and imaging to select individual patients for therapy