Tocilizumab Users Research Articles

Hypochloremia: A Potential Indicator of Poor Outcomes in COVID-19.

Background: Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) has posed formidable challenges to healthcare systems. Exploring novel biomarkers that can provide valuable prognostic insights, particularly in critically ill patients, has a significant importance. Against this backdrop, our study aims to elucidate the associations between serum chloride levels and clinical outcomes. Methods: A total of 499 patients were enrolled into the study. The serum chloride levels of patients upon hospital admission were recorded and then categorized into three groups (hypochloremia, normochloremia, and hyperchloremia) for the evaluation of clinical outcomes. Additionally, serum C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and D-dimer measurements were recorded for further evaluation. Results: A total of 390 (78.1%) patients tested positive for COVID-19 via polymerase chain reaction testing. Non-contrast thorax computed tomography scans were indicative of COVID-19 compatibility for all patients. A total of 210 (42%) patients were female and 289 (58%) were male. A total of 214 (42.8%) patients necessitated tocilizumab intervention; 250 (50.1%) were at an intensive care unit (ICU), with 166 (66.4%) of them receiving tocilizumab. A total of 65 (13%) patients died, 40 (61.5%) of whom received tocilizumab; 41 (63%) were in the ICU. Serum chloride levels upon admission were markedly lower and elevated D-dimer levels were apparent in tocilizumab users, patients requiring ICU care, and patients who died. Conclusions: our findings provide robust evidence supporting the value of serum chloride levels as a prognostic biomarker in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Modelling the opportunity for cost-savings or patient access with biosimilar adalimumab and tocilizumab: a European perspective

Objectives Biosimilars improve patient access by providing cost-effective treatment options. This study assessed the potential for savings and expanded patient access with increased use of two biosimilar disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs): (a) approved adalimumab biosimilars and (b) the first tocilizumab biosimilar, representing an established biosimilar field and a recent biosimilar entrant in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Separate ex-ante analyses were conducted for each country, parameterized using country-specific list prices, unit volumes annually, and market shares for each therapy. Discounting scenarios of 10%, 20%, and 30% were tested for tocilizumab. Outputs included direct cost-savings associated with drug acquisition or the incremental number of patients that could be treated if savings were redirected. Two biosimilar conversion scenarios were tested. Results Savings associated with a 100% conversion to adalimumab biosimilar ranged from €10.5 to €187 million (UK and Germany, respectively), or an additional 1,096 to 19,454 patients that could be treated using the cost-savings. Introduction of a tocilizumab biosimilar provided savings up to €29.3 million in the most conservative scenario. Exclusive use of tocilizumab biosimilars (at a 30% discount) could increase savings to €28.8 to €113 million or expand access to an additional 43% of existing tocilizumab users across countries. Conclusion This study demonstrates the benefits that can be realized through increased biosimilar adoption, not only in an untapped tocilizumab market, but also through incremental increases in well-established markets such as adalimumab. As healthcare budgets continue to face downwards pressure globally, strategies to increase biosimilar market share could prove useful to help manage financial constraints.

Initiation of Tocilizumab or Baricitinib Were Associated With Comparable Clinical Outcomes Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Treated With Dexamethasone.

Objectives: This retrospective cohort study aims to explore head-to-head clinical outcomes and complications associated with tocilizumab or baricitinib initiation among hospitalized COVID-19 patients receiving dexamethasone. Methods: Among 10,445 COVID-19 patients hospitalized between January 21st 2020 and January 31st 2021 in Hong Kong, patients who had received tocilizumab (n = 165) or baricitinib (n = 76) while on dexamethasone were included. Primary study outcome was time to clinical improvement (at least one score reduction on WHO clinical progression scale). Secondary outcomes were disease progression, viral dynamics, in-hospital death, hyperinflammatory syndrome, and COVID-19/treatment-related complications. Hazard ratios (HR) of event outcomes were estimated using Cox regression models. Results: The initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had no significant differences in time to clinical improvement (HR = 0.86, 95%CI 0.57-1.29, p = 0.459), hospital discharge (HR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.57-1.27, p = 0.418), recovery without the need for oxygen therapy (HR = 1.04, 95%CI 0.64-1.67, p = 0.883), low viral load (HR = 1.49, 95%CI 0.85-2.60, p = 0.162), and positive IgG antibody (HR = 0.97, 95%CI 0.61-1.54, p = 0.909). Time to viral clearance (HR = 1.94, 95%CI 1.01-3.73, p = 0.048) was shorter in the tocilizumab group with marginal significance, compared to that of baricitinib. Meanwhile, the two treatment modalities were not significantly different in their associated risks of in-hospital death (HR = 0.63, 95%CI 0.29-1.35, p = 0.233), severe liver injury (HR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.43-3.08, p = 0.778), acute renal failure (HR = 2.33, 95%CI 0.61-8.82, p = 0.213), hyperinflammatory syndrome (HR = 2.32, 95%CI 0.87-6.25, p = 0.091), thrombotic and bleeding events (HR = 1.39, 95%CI 0.32-6.00, p = 0.658), and secondary infection (HR = 2.97, 95%CI 0.62-14.31, p = 0.173). Conclusion: Among hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 on background dexamethasone, the initiation of tocilizumab or baricitinib had generally comparable effects on time to clinical improvement, hospital discharge, recovery, low viral load, and positive IgG antibody; risks of in-hospital death, hepatic and renal complications, hyperinflammatory syndrome, thrombotic and bleeding events, and secondary infection. On the other hand, tocilizumab users might achieve viral clearance slightly faster than baricitinib users. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to confirm our findings regarding the evaluation of tocilizumab and baricitinib in COVID-19 patients with different disease severities, at varying stages or timing of drug initiation, and considering the concomitant use of other therapeutics.

Hepatic Disorders With the Use of Remdesivir for Coronavirus 2019

Remdesivir is a nucleotide analog prodrug with antiviral activity against a broad spectrum of human coronavirus in cell cultures and mouse models including severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2. Recently, the Food and Drug Agency (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) recommended remdesivir for the treatment of patients hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.1,2 In the remdesivir clinical development program, some cases have raised concerns regarding potential hepatobiliary disorders associated with remdesivir, including in healthy volunteers and patients with COVID-19.3 In cohort studies of patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, elevated hepatic enzymes were the most frequent adverse drug reaction reported.4,5 In the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial assessing the effect of intravenous remdesivir in adults admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 (n= 237), a higher proportion of remdesivir recipients than placebo recipients had dosing prematurely stopped by the investigators because of adverse events including aminotransferase or bilirubin increases (3 versus 0).6 Although there is no signal from the available data of severe hepatotoxicity or drug-induced liver injury in clinical trials, the number of patients exposed to remdesivir was too limited. Therefore, there is an urgent need to investigate the hepatic safety profile associated with remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.

OP0208 PATIENTS REPORT FATIGUE AS AN ADVERSE DRUG REACTION OF BIOLOGICS

Background:Chronic fatigue is a well-known symptom in patients with rheumatic diseases and other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). Therefore, fatigue as an adverse drug reaction (ADR) to biologics may remain unrecognised or may erroneously be attributed to the disease.Objectives:To assess patient-reported fatigue attributed to biologics for IMIDs and investigate predisposing factors of patient-reported fatigue.Methods:The Dutch Biologic Monitor is a multicenter patient-reported ADR monitoring system that surveys patients using a biologic for an IMID. Patients completed web-based questionnaires regarding ADRs attributed to biologics and the course and experienced burden (5 point Likert scale) of these ADRs. All patient-reported ADRs with MedDRA Preferred Term ‘fatigue’ were defined as biologic-associated fatigue (BA-fatigue). Basic demographics and treatment characteristics were compared between patients reporting BA-fatigue and patients not reporting BA-fatigue (reported other ADRs or no ADRs).Results:Out of 1369 participating IMID patients, 696 patients reported 1844 unique ADRs. BA-fatigue was reported by 100 patients and 48 patients described a consistent pattern of recurring fatigue after each administration. Most of these patients (88%) described recovery from BA-fatigue within one week after biologic administration and 73 patients reported health care professional (HCP) contact following BA-fatigue, with dose adjustment in 8 and discontinuation in 5 patients.Basic demographics and characteristics that differ significantly between patients reporting BA-fatigue and patients not reporting BA-fatigue are summarized in table 1. No significant difference was found for other biologics, IMIDs, combination therapy and comorbidities. BA-fatigue was reported by 27% of rituximab users (n=33), 27% of vedolizumab users (n=26), 16% of tocilizumab users (n=50), 14% of infliximab users (n=159) and 3% of etanercept users (n=418). Although 29 patients in the BA-fatigue population had RA and 29 patients had Crohn’s disease (CD), 571 patients in our overall study population had RA and 194 patients had CD, suggesting BA-fatigue was reported by CD patients more often. The mean burden of BA-fatigue was higher than the mean burden of other ADRs (p<0.001).Table 1.Characteristics of patients with BA-fatigue compared to patients with other ADRs and without ADRsPatients with BA-fatigue n (%)Patients with other ADRs n (%)Patients without ADRs n (%)n100 (100%)596 (100%)673 (100%)Basic demographicsAge (years) (mean ± SD)50.0 ± 14.653.4 ± 13.6 *55.7 ± 14.2 ***Gender (Female)59 (59%)398 (67%)ns342 (51%)nsSmoking n (%)25 (25%)97 (16%) *100 (15%) *BMI (kg/m2) (mean ± SD)25.7 ± 4.425.9 ± 4.7ns26.6 ± 5.5nsBiologicInfliximab22 (22%)53 (9%) ***84 (12%) *Etanercept13 (13%)177 (30%) ***228 (34%) ***Rituximab9 (9%)18 (3%) **6 (1%) ***Tocilizumab8 (8%)29 (5%)ns13 (2%) **Vedolizumab7 (7%)12 (2%) *7 (1%) ***IMIDRheumatoid arthritis29 (29%)270 (45%) **272 (40%) *Crohn’s disease29 (29%)77 (13%) ***88 (13%) ***Other indication16 (16%)53 (9%) *39 (6%) ***Combination therapyMethotrexate23 (23%)167 (28%)ns227 (34%) *ComorbidityPsychiatric disorder11 (11%)49 (8%)ns31 (5%) *Other comorbidity30 (30%)124 (21%) *102 (15%) ***Mean burden of ADR ± SD2.9 ± 0.92.4 ± 1.1 ***Mann Whitney U, independent t-test and Fisher’s exact as appropriatens: not significant *p ≤ 0.05 **p ≤ 0.01 ***p ≤ 0.001Conclusion:HCPs should be aware that fatigue may be associated with biologic therapy and has a significant burden on patients. Evaluating the course of the symptoms might be helpful in recognizing BA-fatigue.Disclosure of Interests:Jette van Lint: None declared, Tom Bakker: None declared, Jouke Ubbink: None declared, Martijn van Doorn Grant/research support from: Unrestricted grants, advisory board, speaker fees and/or other (investigator) from Novartis, Abbvie, Janssen Cilag, Leopharma and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Unrestricted grants, advisory board, speaker fees and/or other (investigator) from Novartis, Abbvie, Janssen Cilag, Leopharma and Pfizer, Phyllis Spuls Grant/research support from: Departmental independent research grant for TREAT NL registry LeoPharma December 2019; Contract support: I am involved in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of e.g. psoriasis and atopic dermatitis for which we get financial compensation paid to the department/hospital, Consultant of: Consultancies in the past for Sanofi 111017 and AbbVie 041217 (unpaid), Sander Tas: None declared, Harald Vonkeman: None declared, Frank Hoentjen Grant/research support from: Received grants from Dr Falk, Janssen-Cilag, and AbbVie., Consultant of: Served on advisory boards, or as speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Takeda, Celltrion, Teva, Sandoz, and Dr Falk, Speakers bureau: Served on advisory boards, or as speaker or consultant for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Takeda, Celltrion, Teva, Sandoz, and Dr Falk, Bart van den Bemt Grant/research support from: UCB, Pfizer and Abbvie, Consultant of: Delivered consultancy work for UCB, Novartis and Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB, Biogen and Sandoz., Michael Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Not related to this research, Consultant of: Not related to this research, Speakers bureau: Not related to this research, Eugène van Puijenbroek: None declared, Naomi Jessurun: None declared

COVID-19 in rheumatic disease patients on immunosuppressive agents

ObjectiveTo analyze clinical characteristics and outcome of COVID-19 patients with underlying rheumatic diseases (RD) on immunosuppressive agents. MethodA case series of COVID-19 patients with RD on disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were studied by a retrospective chart review. A literature search identified 9 similar studies of single cases and case series, which were also included. ResultsThere were 4 COVID-19 inpatients with RD from our hospital, and the mean age was 57 ± 21 years. Two patients had a mild infection, and 2 developed severe COVID-19 related respiratory complications, including 1 patient on secukinumab requiring mechanical ventilation and 1 patient on rituximab developing viral pneumonia requiring supplemental oxygenation. All 4 patients had elevated acute phase reactants, 2 patients had mild COVID-19 with lymphopenia, and 2 patients had severe COVID-19 with normal lymphocyte counts, and high levels of IL-6. None of the patients exhibited an exacerbation of their underlying RD. In the literature, there were 9 studies of COVID-19 involving 197 cases of various inflammatory RD. Most patients were on DMARDs or biologics, of which TNFα inhibitors were most frequently used. Two tocilizumab users had a mild infection. Two patients were on rituximab with 1 severe COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. Six patients were on secukinumab with 1 hospitalization. Of the total 201 cases, 12 died, with an estimated mortality of 5.9% ConclusionPatients with RD are susceptible to COVID-19. Various DMARDs or biologics may affect the viral disease course differently. Patients on hydroxychloroquine, TNFα antagonists or tocilizumab may have a mild viral illness. Rituximab or secukinumab could worsen the viral disease. Further study is warranted.

Severe joint deformity and patient global assessment of disease are associated with discrepancies between sonographic and clinical remission: A cross-sectional study of rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objective Although recent clinical trials showed that ultrasound (US) remission is not required to achieve good outcomes at the group level, it currently remains unclear whether the prognosis of individual patients in clinical remission, but not US remission, i.e. those with subclinical sonographic synovitis (SSS), is favorable. However, it is no longer acceptable to perform US on all patients in order to identify those with SSS. Therefore, the present study was initiated to elucidate the conditions under which SSS is frequently detected. Methods In total, 563 consecutive RA patients were recruited. Bilateral 2-5 MCP, wrist, ankle, and 2–5 MTP joints were scanned by US, and Gray scale and Power Doppler (PD) images were scored semi-quantitatively. Clinical data were obtained by physicians who were blind to US results. Changes in the modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS) of tocilizumab (TCZ) users were calculated. Results A total of 402 patients were included. SSS was more frequently detected in patients with more severe joint deformity, even if they were in remission. In contrast, a high Patient Global Assessment of Disease (PtGA) did not reflect SSS. Furthermore, the relationship between PtGA and PD scores was weak. Although the frequency of SSS was high in TCZ user, the presence of SSS in TCZ users not always results in the progression of mTSS. Conclusions While remission is overestimated in patients with severe joint deformity, underestimations may occur in those who do not fulfill remission criteria because of a high PtGA.

Targets of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of multiple myeloma.

Several commonly used immune-suppressing biologic drugs target proteins and cytokines involved in myeloma pathogenesis. Our objective was to determine whether targeted biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are associated with risk of multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a nested case-control study within a retrospective cohort of 56,886 commercially insured adults undergoing treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis between 2009 and 2015 using the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. MM cases (n = 287) were matched to up to 10 controls (n = 2,760) on age, sex and rheumatologic indication using incidence density sampling without replacement. Our exposures of interest were biologic DMARDs targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin 6, cytotoxic t-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 and depletion of B cells. Relative risks were estimated as adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression models. Cases and controls were similar with respect to use of prescription NSAIDs and concurrent conventional-synthetic DMARDs. Cases had slightly fewer etanercept users (4% vs. 7%) and slightly more tocilizumab users (1.4% vs. 0.4%). Compared to patients treated with only conventional-synthetic DMARDs, those receiving concomitant conventional-synthetic plus biologic DMARDs had lower risk of developing MM (OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.88; p = 0.02). Risks differed by drug target with an inverse association observed with use of etanercept inhibiting tumor necrosis factor-alpha (OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.30-1.02; p = 0.06) and a positive association with tocilizumab inhibiting interleukin-6 (OR = 4.33; 95% CI 1.33-14.19; p = 0.02) compared to biologic DMARD-naïve patients. Further investigation is warranted to understand the roles of drugs suppressing tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 in myeloma pathogenesis.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Risk of Multiple Myeloma

INTRODUCTIONBiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are used more frequently and earlier in the course of rheumatologic conditions in a treat-to-target approach. These medications act on proteins and cytokines with potential pro- and anti-malignancy roles, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF), human interleukin (IL) receptors and B- and T-cell functions. There is concern for hematologic malignancy with some but not all biologic DMARDs. Little is known about possible associations between these medications and development of multiple myeloma (MM). Our purpose was to determine risk of MM in relation to biologic DMARD treatment, duration of use and by biologic target in a large cohort of patients with rheumatologic conditions. METHODSWe conducted a nested case-control study within a cohort of adults undergoing active treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Patients were sampled from a population of commercially-insured U.S. health plan enrollees in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database between 2009 and 2015. MM cases were ascertained using validated algorithms for administrative data. Up to ten controls from the overall cohort were matched to each MM case on age, sex and rheumatologic indication using incidence density sampling with replacement. Index date was defined as the date of MM diagnosis for a case and corresponding time at-risk for matched controls. Exposure was defined as both treatment and duration of biologic DMARD use including TNF inhibitor (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, certolizumab pegol), IL-6 receptor antagonist (tocilizumab), T-cell targeted (abatacept) and B-cell depleting (rituximab) agents and were determined from health claims and pharmacy dispensing data. Data on rheumatologic indication, comorbid conditions and treatment with prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids and conventional synthetic DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine, sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide) were documented in the 12 month baseline period and during follow up as potential confounders. An exposure lag time of 365 days was used to minimize protopathic bias. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for risk of MM associated with biologic DMARDs. RESULTSFrom a retrospective cohort of 56866 adult patients with rheumatologic conditions, 287 MM cases and 2760 matched controls were identified. Compared to controls, a higher proportion of cases had Charlson comorbidity scores of 2 or greater (24% vs 18%) and used oral corticosteroids during follow up (67% vs 61%). Cases and controls were similar with respect to use of prescription NSAIDs (56% vs 59%) and use of conventional DMARDs (63% vs 67%). Use of biologic DMARDs overall was similar between cases and controls (14% vs 15%), although cases had a slightly lower proportion of etanercept users (5% vs 7%) and a slightly higher proportion of tocilizumab users (1.4% vs 0.4%). Biologic DMARD users were younger, more likely to have psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, lower comorbidity and greater use of concomitant NSAIDs and oral corticosteroids.Risk of MM was neither associated with biologic DMARD use overall (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.57, 1.26; P=0.40) nor with longer duration of biologic DMARD use (>2.5 years: OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.34, 1.52; P=0.39). However, compared to patients treated with only conventional DMARDs, those receiving concomitant conventional plus biologic DMARDs had a 48% lower risk of developing MM (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30, 0.88; P=0.02). Associations with MM appeared to differ by specific biologic DMARD agent with estimates suggesting a lowered risk of MM with use of etanercept (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.30, 1.02; P=0.06) and greater risk with use of tocilizumab (OR 4.33; 95% CI 1.33, 14.19; P=0.02) that was statistically significant, although confidence intervals were wide. CONCLUSIONSThe potential influence of biologic DMARDs on multiple myeloma is complex. We found that immune suppression with conventional plus biologic DMARDs is inversely associated with MM risk in patients with rheumatologic conditions, but this association differed by biologic drug target. Further research is needed to understand the roles of DMARDs targeting TNF and IL-6 in relation to subsequent myeloma pathogenesis. DisclosuresPatel:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria.

Use and effectiveness of tocilizumab among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for rheumatoid arthritis

The aims of the present study are to describe the characteristics of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients selected for tocilizumab (TCZ), compare the “real-world” effectiveness of TCZ and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when used as a first biologic and assess the influence of past biologic exposure/concurrent methotrexate (MTX) therapy on post-TCZ treatment outcomes. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR-RA) is a prospective cohort study following RA patients starting biologics in the UK. This includes patients starting TCZ as first or subsequent biologic, alongside biologic-naïve patients starting TNFi. Six-month disease activity and 1-year drug survival were compared between biologic-naïve patients starting TCZ versus TNFi and first-line versus subsequent TCZ users and TCZ users with MTX versus without using regression models adjusted by propensity score. Two hundred seventeen patients started TCZ, and 2419 started TNFi as first biologic. Seven hundred seventy-seven started TCZ after other biologics. First-line TCZ users had a higher prevalence of pulmonary fibrosis and cancer history than TNFi users. The first-line TCZ users were more likely to achieve DAS28 remission at 6 months than first-line TNFi, but other improvement markers were similar. The treatment response at 6 months was similar between subsequent-line TCZ users and first-line users after adjusting for baseline patient differences. Concurrent MTX use was not associated with treatment response in either first- or subsequent-line TCZ users. TCZ has been primarily used as subsequent-line biologic in the UK. When used as first line, the response appears similar to that observed in patients starting TNFi, suggesting that clinical response alone should not decide between initial biologic therapies.

Tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis: A case study of safety evaluations of a large postmarketing data set from multiple data sources

ObjectivesTo evaluate the magnitude of serious adverse events (SAEs) observed in postmarketing reports of tocilizumab (TCZ) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in relation to SAEs observed in TCZ clinical trials and external epidemiology data. MethodsA total of 64,000 patient-years (PY) of TCZ exposure was needed to determine, with 90% power, whether rates of SAEs of interest (eg, death, hepatic, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular) were ≥50% higher (agreed with the Food and Drug Administration) than expected. Reporting rates were calculated for spontaneously reported SAEs, open-label or unblinded postmarketing clinical trials (phase 3b/4), and a Japanese postmarketing surveillance program in the global postmarketing safety database. Event rates were calculated for the registrational placebo-controlled trials and long-term extension data. External comparators for anti-tumor necrosis factor (aTNF)-treated RA patients were derived from a US-based health care insurance claims database or published literature. ResultsThe global postmarketing safety database provided 65,099 PY of TCZ exposure; the aTNF external comparator population provided 53,360 PY. Spontaneous reporting rates per 100 PY (95% confidence interval) were 8.3 (8.1, 8.5) SAEs, 0.39 (0.34, 0.44) deaths, 0.06 (0.04, 0.08) serious hepatic events, 0.15 (0.12, 0.18) serious gastrointestinal events, 0.09 (0.07, 0.12) serious myocardial infarctions, 0.15 (0.12, 0.18) serious strokes, and 0.07 (0.05, 0.09) cardiac deaths in the global postmarketing safety database. These were of similar magnitude to corresponding rates from registrational clinical trials, the aTNF external comparator population, and published literature. ConclusionsSAE rates observed among postmarketing TCZ users were similar to those of various comparison populations. Predetermined design of studies to compare postmarketing AEs using multiple data sources is a useful strategy that can be applied to other medications.

An observational study of tocilizumab and TNF- inhibitor use in a Japanese community hospital: different remission rates, similar drug survival and safety

Objective. To assess the effectiveness, drug survival and safety of tocilizumab compared with TNF-α inhibitors in clinical practice.Methods. Patients in the Cohort of Arthritis Biologic Users at Kameda Institute (CABUKI) registry who were on biologics during July 2003 to October 2010 were included. Remission rates at 6 months, Kaplan–Meier drug survival estimates and serious adverse event (SAE) rates were compared.Results. A total of 247 RA patients were analysed. For first-line biologic users, the 6-month 28-joint DAS (DAS-28)-ESR remission rates were 66.7% for tocilizumab vs 25.8% for TNF inhibitors (P < 0.001, Fisher's exact test). This advantage disappeared with the application of the newly suggested Boolean remission criterion for clinical trials: 0% for tocilizumab vs 8.2% for TNF inhibitors (P = 0.367, Fisher's exact test). Tocilizumab users in DAS-28-ESR remission had lower mean ESR (3.9 mm/h for tocilizumab vs 7.9 mm/h for TNF inhibitors, P = 0.026, t-test) and higher mean swollen joint count (2.6 for tocilizumab vs 1.3 for TNF inhibitors, P = 0.036, t-test), thus failing to meet the more stringent Boolean criteria. First- and second-line tocilizumab users showed similar drug survival and SAE rates compared with TNF inhibitor users.Conclusion. Tocilizumab had drug survival and safety profiles similar to those of TNF inhibitors in this Japanese single-centre registry. Tocilizumab was superior to TNF inhibitors when compared at 6 months by DAS-28-ESR remission. However, the newly suggested Boolean criteria are more appropriate measures of effectiveness as DAS-28-ESR remission by tocilizumab was mainly due to very low ESR in our study population.