The 18-month efficacy of a single course of rituximab as compared with conventional immunosuppression with cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine in patients with severe (organ-threatening) ...antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis is unknown.
In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, we compared rituximab (375 mg per square meter of body-surface area administered once a week for 4 weeks) followed by placebo with cyclophosphamide administered for 3 to 6 months followed by azathioprine for 12 to 15 months. The primary outcome measure was complete remission of disease by 6 months, with the remission maintained through 18 months.
A total of 197 patients were enrolled. As reported previously, 64% of the patients in the rituximab group, as compared with 53% of the patients in the cyclophosphamide-azathioprine group, had a complete remission by 6 months. At 12 and 18 months, 48% and 39%, respectively, of the patients in the rituximab group had maintained the complete remissions, as compared with 39% and 33%, respectively, in the comparison group. Rituximab met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority (P<0.001, with a noninferiority margin of 20%). There was no significant difference between the groups in any efficacy measure, including the duration of complete remission and the frequency or severity of relapses. Among the 101 patients who had relapsing disease at baseline, rituximab was superior to conventional immunosuppression at 6 months (P=0.01) and at 12 months (P=0.009) but not at 18 months (P=0.06), at which time most patients in the rituximab group had reconstituted B cells. There was no significant between-group difference in adverse events.
In patients with severe ANCA-associated vasculitis, a single course of rituximab was as effective as continuous conventional immunosuppressive therapy for the induction and maintenance of remissions over the course of 18 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; RAVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00104299.)
Objective
To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and ...harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.
Results
The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.
Conclusion
This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
To evaluate whether the classification of patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) according to ANCA type (anti-proteinase 3 (PR3) or anti-myeloperoxidase ...(MPO) antibodies) predicts treatment response.
Treatment responses were assessed among patients enrolled in the Rituximab in ANCA-associated Vasculitis trial according to both AAV diagnosis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA)/microscopic polyangiitis (MPA)) and ANCA type (PR3-AAV/MPO-AAV). Complete remission (CR) was defined as disease activity score of 0 and successful completion of the prednisone taper.
PR3-AAV patients treated with rituximab (RTX) achieved CR at 6 months more frequently than did those randomised to cyclophosphamide (CYC)/azathioprine (AZA) (65% vs 48%; p=0.04). The OR for CR at 6 months among PR3-AAV patients treated with RTX as opposed to CYC/AZA was 2.11 (95% CI 1.04 to 4.30) in analyses adjusted for age, sex and new-onset versus relapsing disease at baseline. PR3-AAV patients with relapsing disease achieved CR more often following RTX treatment at 6 months (OR 3.57; 95% CI 1.43 to 8.93), 12 months (OR 4.32; 95% CI 1.53 to 12.15) and 18 months (OR 3.06; 95% CI 1.05 to 8.97). No association between treatment and CR was observed in the MPO-AAV patient subset or in groups divided according to AAV diagnosis.
Patients with PR3-AAV respond better to RTX than to CYC/AZA. An ANCA type-based classification may guide immunosuppression in AAV.
NCT00104299; post-results.
Objective
Relapse following remission is common in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis (AAV), particularly with ANCAs directed at proteinase 3 (PR3). This study was ...undertaken to evaluate the association of an increase in PR3‐ANCA level with subsequent relapse.
Methods
Data from the Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for ANCA‐Associated Vasculitis (RAVE) trial were used. Starting from the time of achieving complete remission, serial measurements by direct and capture enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were analyzed in 93 patients with PR3‐ANCA, using Cox proportional hazards regression.
Results
An increase in PR3‐ANCA level was identified in 58 of 93 subjects (62.4%) by direct ELISA and in 59 of 93 (63.4%) by capture ELISA. Relapses occurred in 55 of 93 subjects (59.1%), with 25 and 21 occurring within 1 year after an increase by direct ELISA and capture ELISA, respectively. An increase by direct ELISA was associated with subsequent severe relapses (hazard ratio HR 4.57; P < 0.001), particularly in patients presenting with renal involvement (HR 7.94; P < 0.001) and alveolar hemorrhage (HR 24.19; P < 0.001). Both assays identified increased risk for severe relapse in the rituximab group (HR 5.80; P = 0.002 for direct ELISA and HR 4.54; P = 0.007 for capture ELISA) but not the cyclophosphamide/azathioprine group (P = 0.103 and P = 0.197, respectively).
Conclusion
The association of an increase in PR3‐ANCA level with the risk of subsequent relapse is partially affected by the PR3‐ANCA detection methodology, disease phenotype, and remission induction treatment. An increase in PR3‐ANCA level during complete remission conveys an increased risk of relapse, particularly severe relapse, among patients with renal involvement or alveolar hemorrhage and those treated with rituximab. Serial measurements of PR3‐ANCA may be informative in this subset of patients, but the risk of relapse must be weighed carefully against the risks associated with therapy.
Objective
To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) ...questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
Results
The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).
Conclusion
This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids have been the cornerstone of remission-induction therapy for severe antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis for 40 years. Uncontrolled ...studies suggest that rituximab is effective and may be safer than a cyclophosphamide-based regimen.
We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial of rituximab (375 mg per square meter of body-surface area per week for 4 weeks) as compared with cyclophosphamide (2 mg per kilogram of body weight per day) for remission induction. Glucocorticoids were tapered off; the primary end point was remission of disease without the use of prednisone at 6 months.
Nine centers enrolled 197 ANCA-positive patients with either Wegener's granulomatosis or microscopic polyangiitis. Baseline disease activity, organ involvement, and the proportion of patients with relapsing disease were similar in the two treatment groups. Sixty-three patients in the rituximab group (64%) reached the primary end point, as compared with 52 patients in the control group (53%), a result that met the criterion for noninferiority (P<0.001). The rituximab-based regimen was more efficacious than the cyclophosphamide-based regimen for inducing remission of relapsing disease; 34 of 51 patients in the rituximab group (67%) as compared with 21 of 50 patients in the control group (42%) reached the primary end point (P=0.01). Rituximab was also as effective as cyclophosphamide in the treatment of patients with major renal disease or alveolar hemorrhage. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with respect to rates of adverse events.
Rituximab therapy was not inferior to daily cyclophosphamide treatment for induction of remission in severe ANCA-associated vasculitis and may be superior in relapsing disease. (Funded by the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Genentech, and Biogen; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00104299.)
Objective
To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis.
Methods
We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) ...questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations.
Results
The guideline addresses treatment with disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high‐risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional).
Conclusion
This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision‐making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision‐making process based on patients’ values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.
Objective
To develop a new evidence‐based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and ...harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.
Results
The guideline covers the use of traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat‐to‐target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.
Conclusion
This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision‐making process taking into account patients’ values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.
Objectives. Identifying patients with RA at high risk of rapid radiographic progression (RRP) is critical for making appropriate treatment decisions. We developed an exploratory prediction model for ...the risk of RRP using an RA study population undergoing either conservative or aggressive disease management. Methods. Using data from the active-controlled study of patients receiving infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis of early onset (ASPIRE) early RA study, RRP was defined as a threshold change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS) of ⩾5 U/year. Spearman's rank analysis was used to identify baseline risk factors for RRP. Logistic regression was used to calculate the probability of RRP in 1 year. The results were combined into a matrix model that consisted of risk factors and initiated treatment arranged in increasing risk of RRP. Data from the anti-TNF trial in rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant therapy (ATTRACT) established RA study were applied to the model to test its generalizability in another population. Results. The 28 swollen joint count, RF, CRP and ESR are included as trichotomous variables and initiated treatment (monotherapy or combination therapy) as a dichotomous variable. Two models, one incorporating all risk factors except CRP and another incorporating all risk factors except ESR, were developed to adjust for collinearity. These models identify subpopulations of RA patients at higher predicted risk for RRP. Conclusions. These preliminary matrix models predict the risk of RRP using initiated treatment and easily accessible clinical and laboratory variables. Further testing in other populations and with other therapies is needed to obtain a definitive risk model that will guide rheumatologists in making treatment decisions for individual RA patients.
Regulatory B cells control inflammation and autoimmunity in mice, including the recently identified IL-10–competent B10 cell subset that represents 1% to 3% of spleen B cells. In this study, a ...comparable IL-10–competent B10 cell subset was characterized in human blood. B10 cells were functionally identified by their ability to express cytoplasmic IL-10 after 5 hours of ex vivo stimulation, whereas progenitor B10 (B10pro) cells required 48 hours of in vitro stimulation before they acquired the ability to express IL-10. B10 and B10pro cells represented 0.6% and approximately 5% of blood B cells, respectively. Ex vivo B10 and B10pro cells were predominantly found within the CD24hiCD27+ B-cell subpopulation that was able to negatively regulate monocyte cytokine production through IL-10–dependent pathways during in vitro functional assays. Blood B10 cells were present in 91 patients with rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, primary Sjögren syndrome, autoimmune vesiculobullous skin disease, or multiple sclerosis, and were expanded in some cases as occurs in mice with autoimmune disease. Mean B10 + B10pro-cell frequencies were also significantly higher in patients with autoimmune disease compared with healthy controls. The characterization of human B10 cells will facilitate their identification and the study of their regulatory activities during human disease.
PDF
