Humoral response to coronavirus disease-19 vaccines is dependent on dosage and timing of rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES: Humoral response to vaccines in RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX) in standard dosages (≥1000 mg) is decreased. Ultra-low dosages (500 or 200 mg) may have better response. Also, timing after latest RTX infusion may be an important variable. We aimed to investigate the influence of RTX dosage and timing on response to COVID-19 vaccination in RA patients. METHODS: A single-centre observational study (n = 196) investigated the humoral response, measured by total Ig anti-COVID-19 assay (positive response ≥1.1), 2-6 weeks after complete COVID-19 vaccination. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to study the effect of RTX dosage and time between latest rituximab and vaccination on response, adjusting for age and methotrexate use. RESULTS: After two-dose vaccination, the response rate was significantly better for patients receiving 200 mg (n = 31, 45%) rituximab compared with 1000 mg (n = 98, 26%; odds ratio 3.07, 95% CI 1.14-8.27) and for each additional month between latest rituximab and vaccination (OR 1.67, 1.39-2.01). CONCLUSION: Both increased time between latest rituximab infusion and complete vaccination, and 200 mg as latest dose were associated with a better response to COVID-19 vaccination and should be considered when trying to increase vaccine response after rituximab in RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, https://www.trialregister.nl/, NL9342

Seroconversion after a third COVID-19 vaccine is affected by rituximab dose but persistence is not in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives : In patients with RA treated with (ultra-)low-dose rituximab (RTX), we investigated the association of dosing and timing of RTX on seroconversion after a third coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and the persistence of humoral response after a two-dose vaccination. Material and methods : In this monocentre observational study, patients from the COVAC cohort were included in the third vaccine analysis if humoral response was obtained 2-6 weeks after a third vaccination in previous non-responders and in the persistence analysis if a follow-up humoral response was obtained before a third vaccination in previous responders. Dichotomization between positive and negative response was based on the assay cut-off. The association between the latest RTX dose before first vaccination, timing between the latest RTX dose and vaccination and response was analysed with univariable logistic regression. Results : Of the 196 patients in the cohort, 98 were included in the third vaccine analysis and 23 in the persistence analysis. Third vaccination response was 19/98 (19%) and was higher for 200 mg RTX users [5/13 (38%)] than for 500 and 1000 mg users [7/37 (19%) and 7/48 (15%), respectively]. Non-significant trends were seen for higher response with lower dosing [200 vs 1000 mg: odds ratio (OR) 3.66 (95% CI 0.93, 14.0)] and later timing [per month since infusion: OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.97, 1.35)]. Humoral response persisted in 96% (22/23) and 89% (8/9) of patients who received RTX between the two measurements. Conclusions : Repeated vaccination as late as possible after the lowest RTX dose possible seems the best vaccination strategy. A once positive humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination persists irrespective of intercurrent RTX infusion

Three-year cost-effectiveness analysis of the DRESS study: Protocolised tapering is key

Contains fulltext : 203210.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (REDO study): a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background: Rituximab is an effective treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, given as either two doses of 1000 mg (2 weeks apart) every 6 months (the dose recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) or two doses of 500 mg (2 weeks apart) or one dose of 1000 mg (a standard low dose) every 6 months. Findings of several small uncontrolled studies suggest that doses lower than the recommended dose or standard low dose might be sufficient for maintenance treatment, potentially improving safety and reducing costs. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of ultra-low doses of rituximab (one dose of 500 mg or 200 mg) with a standard low dose of rituximab (one dose of 1000 mg) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who respond to standard doses of rituximab. Methods: The REDO study is a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial done at five centres in the Netherlands. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis responding well to rituximab were randomly allocated (1:2:2) to receive intravenous rituximab as one dose of either 1000 mg, 500 mg, or 200 mg, respectively. Volumes of all doses were equal to achieve masking. Randomisation lists were computer-generated and stratified by rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody status (positive or negative) and concomitant use of conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (yes or no). The primary analysis was a per-protocol hierarchical testing procedure comparing ultra-low doses with a standard low dose (500 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, followed by 500 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months, 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 3 months, and 200 mg vs 1000 mg at 6 months), using a non-inferiority margin of 0·60 on change from baseline in the 28-joint disease activity score based on C-reactive protein levels (DAS28-CRP). The study is registered at www.trialregister.nl, NTR6117. Findings: Between Dec 15, 2016, and Sept 20, 2018, 142 patients were randomly allocated to either 1000 mg rituximab (n=29), 500 mg rituximab (n=58), or 200 mg rituximab (n=55). The 500 mg dose was non-inferior to 1000 mg at 3 months (mean change from baseline in DAS28-CRP, −0·07, 95% CI −0·41 to 0·27) but not at 6 months (0·29, −0·08 to 0·65). Because of the hierarchical testing procedure, non-inferiority could not be tested for the 200 mg dose. 13 patients had serious adverse events, three (10%) in the 1000 mg group, six (10%) in the 500 mg group, and four (7%) in the 200 mg group. The most frequently reported serious adverse events were cardiovascular. No deaths occurred during the study. A significantly lower incidence of infections was seen in the ultra-low-dose groups compared with the standard dose group (1·24 infections per patient-year with the 1000 mg dose vs 0·52 per patient-year with the 500 mg dose and 0·55 per patient-year with the 200 mg dose; rate ratio 0·42, 95% CI 0·21–0·83; p=0·013 for 500 mg vs 1000 mg; 0·44, 0·22–0·88; p=0·019 for 200 mg vs 1000 mg). Interpretation: Our study did not show non-inferiority of ultra-low doses of rituximab for continued treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Nonetheless, in clinical practice, a strategy with an ultra-low dose of rituximab might be considered after evaluation of risks and benefits, although further studies are needed to establish non-inferiority. Further analyses and a 2-year observational extension are ongoing and should provide further insight into efficacy and safety. Funding: Menzis and Centraal Ziekenfonds

Rituximab dose-dependent infection risk in rheumatoid arthritis is not mediated through circulating immunoglobulins, neutrophils or B cells

OBJECTIVES: Rituximab (RTX) is a safe and effective treatment for RA. A dose-dependent infection risk was found in the REDO trial. Some studies associate RTX use with higher infection risks, possibly explained by low immunoglobulin levels and/or neutropenia. Additionally, a higher infection risk shortly after RTX infusion is reported. The objectives of this study were (i) to compare incidence rates of infections between doses and over time, and (ii) to assess B-cell counts, immunoglobulin levels, neutrophil counts and corticosteroid/disease modifying rheumatic drug use as mediating factors between RTX study dose and infection risk. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of the REDO trial were performed. Infection incidence rates between RTX dosing groups and between time periods were compared using Poisson regression. A step-wise mediation analysis was performed to investigate if any of the factors mentioned above act as a mediator in the observed dose-dependent difference in infection risk. RESULTS: The potential mediators that were investigated (circulating B-cell counts, immunoglobulin levels, neutrophil counts and drug use) did not explain the dose-dependent infection risk observed in the REDO trial. Additionally, a trend towards a time-dependent infection risk was found, with higher infection rates shortly after RTX infusion. CONCLUSIONS: These secondary analyses of the REDO trial confirmed the observed dose-dependent infection risk. Additionally, we found that infection risks were higher shortly after RTX infusion. However, a mediating pathway was not found

Feasibility of Reduced Clinical Monitoring in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treated with Thiopurine Therapy

Background: Outpatient visits and laboratory assessments are routinely scheduled every 3 to 4 months in thiopurine-treated patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to timely detect thiopurine-related adverse events (AEs). AEs that require therapy adjustment beyond 12 months of treatment are rare. Aim and Methods: This single-center prospective cohort study evaluated the safety of a reduced 6-monthly monitoring strategy in steroid-free patients with quiescent IBD on stable dose of azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or thioguanine monotherapy. The primary outcome was thiopurine-related AEs requiring therapy adjustments during a follow-up period of 24 months. Secondary outcomes included all AEs including laboratory toxicity, disease flares until 12 months, and the net monetary benefit from this strategy concerning IBD-related health care use. Results: We enrolled 85 patients with IBD (median age 42 years, 61% Crohn’s disease, 62% female), with a median disease duration of 12.5 years and median thiopurine treatment duration of 6.7 years. During follow-up, 3 patients (4%) ceased thiopurines due to AEs: recurrent infections, non-melanoma skin cancer, and gastrointestinal complaints (nausea, vomiting). At 12 months, 25 laboratory toxicities were observed (including 13% myelotoxicity, 17% hepatotoxicity); none required therapy adjustments and all were transient. A reduced monitoring strategy had a net benefit of €136 per patient. Conclusion: Three patients (4%) ceased thiopurine therapy due to thiopurine-related AEs, while no laboratory toxicity required therapy adjustments. Monitoring frequency of every 6 months seems feasible in patients with stable IBD on long-term (median duration > 6 years) maintenance thiopurine therapy and may contribute to reduced patient-burden and health care costs

Quality of Surveillance Impacts the Colitis-Associated Advanced Neoplasia Risk: A Multicenter Case-Control Study

Background and Aims: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is embedded in clinical inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice, a subset of patients still develops advanced neoplasia (AN) (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] and/or CRC). We aimed to assess the impact of surveillance quality on AN risk in IBD. Methods: In this multicenter case-control study, we searched the Dutch nationwide pathology databank to identify IBD cases with AN and controls with indefinite or low-grade dysplasia. The surveillance colonoscopy preceding the index lesion (first indefinite for dysplasia [IND]/low-grade dysplasia [LGD] or AN) was used to assess the impact of surveillance quality. We assessed intervals, bowel preparation, cecal intubation, and absence of inflammation as primary quality indicators. In addition, we assessed chromoendoscopy, endoscopist expertise, hospital setting, and biopsy strategy. Associations of quality indicators with AN risk were determined with multivariable logistic regression analyses with Firth's correction. Results: We included 137 cases and 138 controls. Delayed intervals (58.2% vs 39.6%) and active inflammation (65.3% vs 41.8%) were frequently present in cases and controls and were associated with AN (delayed interval: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07–3.81; P = .03; active inflammation: aOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.33–4.61; P < .01). Surveillance compliant with primary quality indicators was associated with a reduced AN risk (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22–0.91; P = .03), similar to chromoendoscopy (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–0.89; P = .01). Other indicators were not significantly associated with AN. Conclusions: Surveillance compliant with primary quality indicators is associated with a reduced colitis-associated AN risk. Delayed surveillance intervals and active inflammation were associated with an increased AN risk. This underlines the importance of procedural quality, including endoscopic remission to optimize the effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance