User login
Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.
Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAImajor treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).
Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).
Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.
Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.
Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAImajor treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).
Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).
Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.
Key clinical point: Tocilizumab is more effective than rituximab for reducing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors stratified for synovial B-cell status.
Major finding: At 16 weeks, the rituximab group vs. the tocilizumab group showed no significant difference in the rate of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI50%; 45% vs. 56%; P = .31). However, the tocilizumab group had a significantly higher response rate compared with the rituximab group for both CDAI50% (63% vs. 36%; P = .035) and CDAImajor treatment response (50% vs. 12%, P = .0012).
Study details: The data come from a 48-week, biopsy-driven, multicenter, open-label, phase 4 trial involving 164 patients randomly assigned to receive either 2 1 gm rituximab infusions at an interval of 2 weeks (n=83) or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab infusions at 4-week intervals (n=81).
Disclosures: The study received funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. MH Buch, A Nerviani, VC Romão, P Verschueren, B Dasgupta, A Cauli, PC Taylor, CJ Edwards, J Isaacs, E Choy, C Pitzalism, P Sasieni, MJ Lewis, and F Humby reported relationships with various pharmaceutical companies and/or research organizations. C Pitzalis reported a patent relevant to the work. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.
Source: Humby F et al. Lancet. 2021 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32341-2.