Gerd‐Rüdiger Burmester

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with rituximab plus methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and to explore the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rituximab in this population. METHODS: We evaluated primary efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in patients enrolled in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Efficacy of Rituximab in RA (REFLEX) Trial, a 2-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study of rituximab therapy. Patients with active RA and an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF agents were randomized to receive intravenous rituximab (1 course, consisting of 2 infusions of 1,000 mg each) or placebo, both with background MTX. The primary efficacy end point was a response on the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at 24 weeks. Secondary end points were responses on the ACR50 and ACR70 improvement criteria, the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, and the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria at 24 weeks. Additional end points included scores on the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index (DI), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) instruments, as well as Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Patients assigned to placebo (n = 209) and rituximab (n = 311) had active, longstanding RA. At week 24, significantly more (P < 0.0001) rituximab-treated patients than placebo-treated patients demonstrated ACR20 (51% versus 18%), ACR50 (27% versus 5%), and ACR70 (12% versus 1%) responses and moderate-to-good EULAR responses (65% versus 22%). All ACR response parameters were significantly improved in rituximab-treated patients, who also had clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue, disability, and health-related quality of life (demonstrated by FACIT-F, HAQ DI, and SF-36 scores, respectively) and showed a trend toward less progression in radiographic end points. Rituximab depleted peripheral CD20+ B cells, but the mean immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgM, and IgA) remained within normal ranges. Most adverse events occurred with the first rituximab infusion and were of mild-to-moderate severity. The rate of serious infections was 5.2 per 100 patient-years in the rituximab group and 3.7 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: At 24 weeks, a single course of rituximab with concomitant MTX therapy provided significant and clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity in patients with active, longstanding RA who had an inadequate response to 1 or more anti-TNF therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of anakinra (a recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) in a large population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), typical of those seen in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 1,414 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with 100 mg of anakinra or placebo, administered daily by subcutaneous injection. Background medications included disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, corticosteroids, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, alone or in combination. The primary end point was safety, which was evaluated by adverse events (including infections), discontinuation from study due to adverse events, and death. RESULTS: Safety was evaluated in 1,399 patients (1,116 in the anakinra group and 283 in the placebo group; 15 patients were randomized but did not receive any study drug) during the initial 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase of this long-term safety study. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and concomitant medications were similar between the 2 groups. The study group included patients with numerous comorbid conditions and a wide range of RA disease activity. Serious adverse events occurred at a similar rate in the anakinra group and the placebo group (7.7% and 7.8%, respectively). Serious infectious episodes were observed more frequently in the anakinra group (2.1% versus 0.4% in the placebo group). The rate of withdrawal due to adverse events was 13.4% in the anakinra group and 9.2% in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Results from this large, placebo-controlled safety study demonstrate that anakinra is safe and well tolerated in a diverse population of patients with RA, including those with comorbid conditions and those using multiple combinations of concomitant therapies. Although the frequency of serious infection was slightly higher in the anakinra group, no infection was attributed to opportunistic microorganisms or resulted in death.

Six years after we published our first article on the mechanisms of action of glucocorticoids (GCs) (1), there is already a need for an update. GCs are superior to many drugs in terms of the number of patients treated, the variety of potential uses, and the experience with treatment in humans. They still represent the most important and most frequently used class of antiinflammatory drugs, and their therapeutic use has risen continuously in recent years (2). About 10 million new prescriptions for oral GCs are written each year in the US alone (2). They are the silent companions of rheumatologists, and it is impossible to imagine therapy— especially oral therapy, but intravenous and intraarticular as well—without them. From community survey data, the frequency of oral GC use has been estimated to be 0.5% of the general population and 1.75% of women over the age of 55 years (3,4). Between 56% and 68% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis are treated more or less continuously with GCs (5–8). GCs are relatively inexpensive drugs, but it is the sheer volume used that is significant overall; the total market size is believed to be about 10 billion US dollars per year (2). Our understanding of the actions of GCs has also greatly increased in the last few years. In this review, we report on recent insights relating to 1) signaling, transcription processes, and gene expression as induced, inhibited, and/or modified by the interaction of GCs with their cytosolic receptors, 2) relationships between dosages and plasma levels, 3) membrane-bound GC receptors (GCRs), and 4) new (glucocorticoid) drugs on the horizon. These data support the modular concept we proposed in 1998 (1), and so this update follows the same structure.