Search

Background/Objectives: Polymyalgia Rheumatica (PMR) is an inflammatory condition that primarily affects individuals aged 50 and older, especially in Western countries. Although glucocorticoids are the cornerstone of PMR treatment, these drugs are associated with side effects, making it advisable to use them for the shortest duration possible. However, tapering or discontinuation of glucocorticoids often leads to disease relapses. In this review, we focus on the traditional management of PMR, as well as the potential for therapies that may reduce glucocorticoid use. Special attention is given to the efficacy of biologic agents in PMR management. Methods: A literature review, primarily based on articles published in PubMed, was conducted. In addition to discussing various glucocorticoids and conventional disease-modifying drugs used for the management of isolated PMR, this review specifically focused on the information reported regarding new therapies, with particular emphasis on biologic agents. Results: Prednisone or prednisolone at a dose ranging between 12.5 and 25 mg/day is the agreed-upon treatment for PMR. Due to the side effects associated with prolonged glucocorticoid use and the high frequency of relapses when glucocorticoids are tapered, glucocorticoid-sparing agents have emerged as tools in the management of PMR. Methotrexate has traditionally been the conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) unanimously recommended for use in PMR. Other conventional DMARDs, such as leflunomide, have shown promising results but require further study. The use of biologic agents has marked a significant step forward in the management of PMR. While anti-TNF agents failed to provide beneficial effects in isolated PMR, anti-IL-6 receptor agents, such as tocilizumab and sarilumab, have demonstrated efficacy in reducing relapse frequency, lowering the cumulative glucocorticoid burden, and achieving long-term remission of the disease. Other biologic agents, many of which have been used in giant cell arteritis, as well as Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, are currently under investigation. Conclusions: Glucocorticoids are the primary treatment for isolated PMR but are associated with comorbidities, especially in patients with pre-existing conditions or frequent relapses. Glucocorticoid-sparing agents, such as methotrexate and biologics, in particular tocilizumab and sarilumab, offer alternatives, improving symptoms and reducing glucocorticoid use. While biologic agents reduce long-term side effects and help achieve disease remission, their use must consider potential side effects and higher costs compared to traditional therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction The 1-year PROspective sarilumab (preFILled syringe/pen) multinational, obsErvational (PROFILE) study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of sarilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and lab abnormalities. Effectiveness endpoints included the ACR core set. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). All statistics are descriptive and p values were nominal. Results In total, 595 patients were treated, of whom 223 (37.5%) received sarilumab monotherapy and 372 (62.5%) received combination therapy. Upon initiation of sarilumab, an improvement in the mean (SD) CDAI score was observed at week 24 [11.4 (10.3)] and was maintained through week 52 [10.0 (10.5)], resulting in a mean [SD] reduction of −14.9 (12.7) and −14.4 (12.9), respectively. There were consistent improvements in disease activity that were similar for patients on monotherapy vs. combination therapy. An increase in the proportion of patients achieving remission and low disease activity was reported. By week 52, both groups had improved physical function and quality of life. There were no new safety signals. The proportions of any patients reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) or serious treatment-emergent AE (SAE) was 66.2% and 5.9%, respectively, and were similar between both treatment groups. Overall, 15.6% of patients discontinued sarilumab treatment due to TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAE of interest was neutropenia (14.1%). Conclusions In this 1-year, observational real-world study, sarilumab therapy resulted in improved clinical outcomes. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in sarilumab randomized clinical trials. This study was entered on the German website (Paul Ehrlich Institute) on January 11, 2018, with NIS No.: 423.

Introduction: The 1-year PROspective sarilumab (preFILled syringe/pen) multinational, obsErvational (PROFILE) study evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of sarilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs) and lab abnormalities. Effectiveness endpoints included the ACR core set. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). All statistics are descriptive and p values were nominal. Results: In total, 595 patients were treated, of whom 223 (37.5%) received sarilumab monotherapy and 372 (62.5%) received combination therapy. Upon initiation of sarilumab, an improvement in the mean (SD) CDAI score was observed at week 24 [11.4 (10.3)] and was maintained through week 52 [10.0 (10.5)], resulting in a mean [SD] reduction of −14.9 (12.7) and −14.4 (12.9), respectively. There were consistent improvements in disease activity that were similar for patients on monotherapy vs. combination therapy. An increase in the proportion of patients achieving remission and low disease activity was reported. By week 52, both groups had improved physical function and quality of life. There were no new safety signals. The proportions of any patients reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) or serious treatment-emergent AE (SAE) was 66.2% and 5.9%, respectively, and were similar between both treatment groups. Overall, 15.6% of patients discontinued sarilumab treatment due to TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAE of interest was neutropenia (14.1%). Conclusions: In this 1-year, observational real-world study, sarilumab therapy resulted in improved clinical outcomes. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in sarilumab randomized clinical trials. This study was entered on the German website (Paul Ehrlich Institute) on January 11, 2018, with NIS No.: 423. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of sarilumab on unacceptable pain [UP; visual analogue scale (VAS) >40 mm] and inflammation in patients with moderately-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the KAKEHASI study, 243 patients received methotrexate with sarilumab 150 or 200 mg or placebo every other week, over 52 weeks. The proportion of patients with UP and correlations of changes in pain VAS from baseline with uncontrolled inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl) and disease activity indices were assessed. Results: Almost 80% of patients (192/243) had UP at baseline, including ∼60% of patients with uncontrolled inflammation. Among patients receiving sarilumab, inflammation decreased rapidly, with 90% of patients achieving controlled inflammation by Week 2, while 63.1% continued to have UP. The proportion of patients with UP further decreased by Week 16 (28.5%, sarilumab vs. 64.0%, placebo). By Week 52, only ∼10% of patients had UP. Changes in pain VAS correlated with most disease activity indices and patient-reported outcomes. However, marked correlations between changes in pain VAS and C-reactive protein were observed only at Week 16. Conclusion: Sarilumab treatment reduced UP and inflammation in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are currently under investigation as a potential therapeutic option for COVID-19. Clinical trials are examining their efficacy in lowering mortality rates and the requirement for mechanical ventilation (MV). It is necessary to conduct a thorough examination of current randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in order to provide more definitive evidence on their effectiveness for COVID-19 patients. This meta-analysis aims to analyze RCT results on the impact of three mAbs (Anakinra, Sarilumab, Tocilizumab) on COVID-19 patient outcomes. Method: The meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Eligible RCTs were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of three mAbs in treating patients with COVID-19. These trials were identified by searching various databases up to April 1, 2024. In total, this meta-analysis incorporated 19 trials with a total of 8097 patients. Pooled relative risk and studies' heterogeneity were assessed by statistical analysis, which involved the use of fixed effects models and subgroup analysis. Result: The administration of mAbs (Tocilizumab, Sarilumab, and Anakinra) showed various results in the management of COVID-19 patients. While the overall pooled data did not reveal a significant reduction in the need for MV, the study found that the use of mAbs was associated with a decreased risk of clinical worsening (pooled relative risk: 0.75, 95 % CI [0.59, 0.94], p = 0.01) and an increased probability of discharging COVID-19 patients by day 28 or 29 (pooled relative risk: 1.17, 95 % CI [1.10, 1.26]). Notably, the subgroup analysis revealed that Tocilizumab had a significant effect in reducing the risk of clinical worsening compared to Sarilumab. Additionally, the analysis of mortality outcomes indicated that the administration of mAbs had the potential to decrease the overall risk of mortality over time (pooled RR: 0.90, 95 % CI [0.83, 0.97], p = 0.01). Conclusion: In summary, our meta-analysis suggests that mAbs, particularly Tocilizumab, may play a valuable role in managing COVID-19 by reducing the risk of clinical worsening, improving hospital discharge rates, and decreasing mortality.

A 77-year-old woman who had been taking iguratimod and sarilumab for rheumatoid arthritis for 3 months had gas gangrene. After hospitalization, she underwent two debridement surgeries, one drainage procedure, and a free latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap transfer for the resulting tissue defect on the oral cavity through the temple. Following the free flap surgery, she experienced flap ischemia, possibly caused by the vasospasms of the intraflap and recipient arteries on postoperative days 5 and 6. These immunomodulating drugs might cause vasospasms by downregulating the interleukin-6 and/or tumor necrosis factor-α signaling pathway(s). Recent developments in antirheumatic drug therapy have increased the chances of performing microvascular surgeries on patients with inhibited immune systems, and this trend will continue or will be reinforced in the future. Close monitoring of the biochemical and clinical status of the microvascular environment is necessary.

Objectives: An interim analysis of post-marketing surveillance data to assess the safety and effectiveness of sarilumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to previous treatment. Methods: The interim analysis included patients who initiated sarilumab therapy between June 2018 and January 2021. The primary objective of this surveillance was safety. Results: In total, 1036 patients were enrolled and registered by 12 January 2021 (interim cut-off date). Of these, 678 were included in the safety analysis [75.4% female; mean age (± standard deviation) 65.8 ± 13.0 years]. Adverse drug reactions, defined as adverse events classified as possibly or probably related to sarilumab, were reported in 170 patients (incidence: 25.1%), with white blood cell count decreased (4.4%) and neutrophil count decreased (1.6%) most frequently reported. Serious haematologic disorders (3.4%) and serious infections (including tuberculosis) (2.5%) were the most frequently reported priority surveillance items. No malignant tumour was reported. An absolute neutrophil count (ANC) below the minimum standard value did not increase the incidence of serious infections. Conclusions: Sarilumab was well tolerated, and no new safety signals were noted in this analysis. There was no difference in the frequency of serious infections between patients with an ANC below or above normal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Effective steroid-sparing therapies for the treatment of sarcoidosis are lacking; IL-6 antagonists may reduce sarcoidosis disease activity. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of the IL-6 receptor antagonist, sarilumab, in subjects with glucocorticoid-dependent sarcoidosis. Methods This phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal trial enrolled 15 subjects with biopsy-proven sarcoidosis at Stanford University from November 2019 to September 2022. In period 1, subjects were treated with open-label s.c. sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, with predefined tapering of prednisone. Subjects who completed period 1 without a sarcoidosis flare entered period 2 and were randomized to continue sarilumab or to receive matching placebo for 12 weeks. The end points included flare-free survival, as well as changes in pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and laboratory values. Results Fifteen subjects were enrolled in the study (median age 57 years, 80% male, 73.3% White), and 10 subjects successfully completed period 1. During period 1, 4 of the 15 subjects (26.7%) discontinued due to worsening of their sarcoidosis, and CT chest imaging worsened in 5 of the 15 subjects (35.7%). During period 2, 0 of 2 subjects in the sarilumab group and 1 of 8 subjects (12.5%) in the placebo group had a flare. Treatment with sarilumab 200 mg was generally well tolerated in subjects with sarcoidosis. Conclusion In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal trial, a meaningful signal of improvement in subjects with sarcoidosis treated with sarilumab was not observed. Given the small numbers in this study, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov , NCT04008069. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interleukin (IL) 6 is one of the key cytokines whose role in the inflammation development in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), is well proven. The pleiotropic effects of the cytokine and biologic agents that inhibit its action have been studied much worse. The review provides information on the effects of IL-6 and blocking its signaling pathway on adipose tissue, glucose metabolism and adipocytokine levels in RA. It has been shown that prolonged blockade of IL-6 receptors does not lead to the adipose tissue accumulation and improves glycemic control, although it is not clear whether such effect is associated only with the anti-inflammatory properties of tocilizumab and sarilumab. Moreover, the mechanism of this beneficial effect is not fully understood, since the data on increased sensitivity of peripheral tissues to insulin during tocilizumab treatment are ambiguous. Perhaps changes in the relationship of adipocytokines or hormones play a certain role.

Objective. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is a dangerous complication of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19). The study aimed to compare sarilumab (SAR group) with tocilizumab (TOC group) and patients without anticytokine treatment (CON group) in treatment of CRS in COVID-19.Methods. The retrospective real life study included COVID-19 patients with C-reactive protein(CRP) level >60 mg/l.Results. We enrolled 24 patients in SAR group, 27 patients in TOC group and 47 patients in CON group. Mortality was lower in SAR and TOC groups than in CON group (12.5% and 14.8% vs. 31.9%; p=0.021 and p=0.031) with no difference between SAR and TOC groups (p=0.389). SAR patients unlike TOC patients required intensive care unit admission less frequently then CON patients (16.7% and 25.9% vs. 46.3%; p=0.013 and p=0.077). An increase in oxygen saturation was observed in SAR and TOC groups (p=0.001 and p=0.004; greater in SAR group [p=0.022]), but not in CON group (p=0.764) in 7-10 days after administration of these drugs. The decrease in CRP level was greater in SAR and TOC groups than in CON group (p=0.016 and p

Purpose To assess risk factors for arterial and venous thromboses (AVT) in patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen therapy. Methods Our study was based on three randomized studies conducted as part of the CORIMUNO-19 platform in France between 27 March and 26 April 2020. Adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring at least 3 l/min of oxygen but not ventilation were randomized to receive standard care alone or standard care plus biologics. Patients were followed up for 3 months, and adverse events were documented. Risk factor for AVT and bleeding was identified by analyzing clinical, laboratory, and treatment data at baseline among the 315 patients with complete datasets. A Fine and Gray model was used to take account of competing events. Results During the 3-month follow-up period, 39 AVT occurred in 38 (10%) of the 388 patients: 26 deep vein thromboses and/or pulmonary embolisms in 25 (6%) patients, and 14 arterial thrombotic events in 13 (3%) patients. A history of diabetes at inclusion [sHR (95% CI) = 2.65 (1.19–5.91), P  = .017] and the C-reactive protein (CRP) level (sHR = 1 [1–1.01], P  = .049) were significantly associated with an elevated risk of thrombosis. Obesity was not associated with a higher risk of thrombosis (sHR = 1.01 [0.4–2.57], P  = .98). The CRP level and diabetes were not risk factors for hemorrhage. Conclusion Among patients hospitalized in general wards for COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the epidemic, diabetes (but not obesity) and a high CRP level were risk factors for AVT. The use of higher doses of anticoagulant in these high-risk patients could be considered. Key messages What is already known on this topic—Arterial and venous thromboses are potentially serious complications of COVID-19 What this study adds—Arterial and venous thromboses occurred in 10% of the 388 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia in a general ward and requiring oxygen treatment during the first wave of the pandemic. History of diabetes and intense inflammation were associated with an elevated risk of thromboses in this category of patients. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy—Higher doses of anticoagulants could be considered in these high-risk patients (diabetes and/or high CRP) and might open up opportunities for interventional studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab have recently been approved for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). They also affect mood, even though their effect on the post-COVID-19 syndrome-related psychopathology still has to be investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate their effect on psychopathology in a sample of patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome. We included 246 patients (34% female, 66% male) aged 18–75 years who had been hospitalized for COVID. Patients were split into those who received anti-IL-6 receptor agents (Anti-IL-6-R, N = 88) and those who did not (Ctrl, N = 158). The former group was further split into those receiving tocilizumab (TOC, N = 67) and those receiving sarilumab (SAR, N = 21). Groups were compared based on clinical characteristics before and during COVID-19 as well as on physical and psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19. Ctrl had less psychiatric and physical symptoms during hospitalization and more post-COVID-19 diarrhea, headache, cough, and dyspnea upon exertion than those receiving IL-6-receptor inhibitors. Ctrl also showed greater difficulties in emotion regulation. These differences were driven by TOC vs. Ctrl, whereas differences between SAR and Ctrl or TOC did not reach significance. IL-6 receptor inhibitors are related to a lower post-COVID-19 illness burden and seem to be effective in emotion regulation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Sarilumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, is a first-line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug for rheumatoid arthritis. The identification of genetic biomarkers as predictors of response to sarilumab could allow for a personalized treatment strategy to improve clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 62 patients treated with sarilumab to determine whether single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in the IL6R gene could predict efficacy and toxicity responses. Six SNPs previously described in the IL6R gene (rs12083537, rs11265618, rs4329505, rs2228145, rs4537545, and rs4845625) were genotyped in DNA samples obtained from these patients. Using parametric tests, we evaluated the association between these polymorphisms and clinicopathological features. Treatment response was assessed six months after treatment initiation. Satisfactory response was based on EULAR criteria. Low disease activity was determined according to DAS28 and CDAI and quantitative improvements in DAS28 and CDAI scores. Results Three SNPs (rs4845625, rs4329505 and rs11265618) were significantly associated with response outcomes. All of the SNPs, except for rs12083537, had at least one significant association with dyslipidemia or hepatotoxicity. Conclusions These findings support the potential clinical value of SNPs, particularly rs4845625, as potentially useful biomarkers to predict response to sarilumab in patients with RA.

Abstract Background Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is primarily treated with glucocorticoids (GCs), which have substantial toxicity. Tocilizumab, an interleukin-6-receptor inhibitor (IL-6Ri), showed beneficial effects in GCA, leading to its approval. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab (another IL-6Ri) in GCA. Methods This Phase 3, double-blind study comprised a 52-week treatment period and a 24-week follow-up phase. Eligible GCA patients were randomized to receive sarilumab 200 mg (SAR200 + 26W) or 150 mg (SAR150 + 26W) with a 26-week GC taper, or placebo with a 52-week (PBO + 52W) or 26-week (PBO + 26W) GC taper. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained remission (SR) at week 52. Additional endpoints were SR at week 24, cumulative GC dose, and safety. The study was discontinued prematurely due to protracted recruitment timelines, because of the impact of COVID-19. Therefore, only descriptive statistics were summarized. Results Of the planned 360 subjects, only 83 were randomized and 36 were included in the week 52 analysis. At week 52, 46% (n = 6/13) of patients in SAR200 + 26W, 43% (n = 3/7) in SAR150 + 26W, 30% (n = 3/10) in PBO + 52W, and 0 (n = 0/6) in PBO + 26W taper groups achieved SR. Sensitivity analyses, excluding acute-phase reactants from the SR definition, showed similar results for SAR groups, but 60% (n = 6/10) in PBO + 52W and 17% (n = 1/6) in PBO + 26W taper groups achieved SR at week 52. Similar findings were noted at week 24. The proportions of patients who adhered to GC taper from week 12 through week 52 in each group were as follows: 46% (n = 6/13, SAR200 + 26W), 43% (n = 3/7, SAR150 + 26W), 60% (n = 6/10, PBO + 52W), and 33% (n = 2/6, PBO + 26W). The median actual cumulative GC dose received in the SAR200 + 26W group was lower than other groups. Most patients (80–100%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, with similar incidences reported across groups. Conclusions Owing to the small sample size due to the early termination, it is difficult to draw clear conclusions from this study. There were no unexpected safety findings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03600805. Registered on July 26, 2018.

Interleukin (IL-) 6 is a critical factor in inflammatory processes of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is of high interest as the progression of RA may lead to the implantation of joint endoprostheses, which is associated with a pro-inflammatory increase in IL-6 in the periprosthetic tissue. Biological agents such as sarilumab have been developed to inhibit IL-6-mediated signaling. However, IL-6 signaling blockade should consider the inhibition of inflammatory processes and the regenerative functions of IL-6. This in vitro study investigated whether inhibiting IL-6 receptors can affect the differentiation of osteoblasts isolated from patients with RA. Since wear particles can be generated at the articular surfaces of endoprostheses leading to osteolysis and implant loosening, the potential of sarilumab to inhibit wear particle-induced pro-inflammatory processes should be investigated. Both in monocultures and indirect co-cultures with osteoclast-like cells (OLCs), human osteoblasts were stimulated with 50 ng/mL each of IL-6 + sIL-6R and in combination with sarilumab (250 nM) to characterize cell viability and osteogenic differentiation capacity. Furthermore, the influence of IL-6 + sIL-6R or sarilumab on viability, differentiation, and inflammation was evaluated in osteoblasts exposed to particles. Stimulation with IL-6 + sIL-6R and sarilumab did not affect cell viability. Except for the significant induction of RUNX2 mRNA by IL-6 + sIL-6R and a significant reduction with sarilumab, no effects on cell differentiation and mineralization could be detected. Furthermore, the different stimulations did not affect the osteogenic and osteoclastic differentiation of co-cultured cells. Compared to the osteoblastic monocultures, a decreased release of IL-8 was triggered in the co-culture. Among these, treatment with sarilumab alone resulted in the greatest reduction of IL-8. The co-culture also showed clearly increased OPN concentrations than the respective monocultures, with OPN secretion apparently triggered by the OLCs. Particle exposure demonstrated decreased osteogenic differentiation using different treatment strategies. However, sarilumab administration caused a trend toward a decrease in IL-8 production after stimulation with IL-6 + sIL-6R. The blockade of IL-6 and its pathway have no significant effect on the osteogenic and osteoclastic differentiation of bone cells derived from patients with RA. Nonetheless, observed effects on the reduced IL-8 secretion need further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Practical Pharmacy & Clinical Remedies is the property of Editorial Department of Practical Pharmacy & Clinical Remedies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives: Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Methods: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. Results: A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. Conclusion: We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted.

Introduction: Clinical trial findings may not be generalizable to routine practice. This study evaluated sarilumab effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and tested the real-world applicability of a response prediction rule, derived from trial data using machine learning (based on C-reactive protein [CRP] > 12.3 mg/l and seropositivity [anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, ACPA +]). Methods: Sarilumab initiators from the ACR-RISE Registry, with ≥ 1 prescription on/after its FDA approval (2017–2020), were divided into three cohorts based on progressively restrictive criteria: Cohort A (had active disease), Cohort B (met eligibility criteria of a phase 3 trial in RA patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi]), and Cohort C (characteristics matched to the phase 3 trial baseline). Mean changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. In a separate cohort, predictive rule was tested based on CRP levels and seropositive status (ACPA and/or rheumatoid factor); patients were categorized into rule-positive (seropositive with CRP > 12.3 mg/l) and rule-negative groups to compare the odds of achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA)/remission and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) over 24 weeks. Results: Among sarilumab initiators (N = 2949), treatment effectiveness was noted across cohorts, with greater improvement noted for Cohort C at 6 and 12 months. Among the predictive rule cohort (N = 205), rule-positive (vs. rule-negative) patients were more likely to reach LDA (odds ratio: 1.5 [0.7, 3.2]) and MCID (1.1 [0.5, 2.4]). Sensitivity analyses (CRP > 5 mg/l) showed better response to sarilumab in rule-positive patients. Conclusions: In real-world setting, sarilumab demonstrated treatment effectiveness, with greater improvements in the most selective population, mirroring phase 3 TNFi-refractory and rule-positive RA patients. Seropositivity appeared a stronger driver for treatment response than CRP, although optimization of the rule in routine practice requires further data. Plain Language Summary: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a condition that may cause joint damage, if untreated. Sarilumab is an advanced medication, approved for treating moderate-to-severe RA in patients not responding to initial standard medicines. Clinical trials have shown that sarilumab improves RA symptoms; however, some people do not respond. This is a common problem in RA treatment. Physicians measure proteins in people's blood (called biomarkers; e.g., anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies [ACPA], C-reactive protein [CRP], and rheumatoid factor [RF]) to predict a medicine's response. A previous study showed that people with positive blood tests for ACPA and CRP (> 12.3 mg/l) responded well to sarilumab; this study was based on machine learning (a branch of science using computers) and identified factors that could be linked to treatment benefits. The present study analyzed routine data of 2949 people from the ACR-RISE Registry and showed an improvement in RA symptoms after 6 and 12 months of sarilumab, with a greater improvement noted in patients previously treated with other medicines. Biomarkers were tested in 205 people to check whether they could predict treatment response in day-to-day life. People were called rule-positive if they tested positive for RF and/or ACPA with CRP > 12.3 mg/l, and otherwise rule-negative. After 24 weeks of treatment, rule-positive people had a greater chance of disease improvement than rule-negative people. These results showed the benefits of sarilumab in RA in routine care and suggested the usefulness of machine learning in identifying biomarkers that physicians can use to make treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Remedia is the property of Medical Tribune CZ, s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objectives In some patients with RA, joint pain is more severe than expected based on the amount of joint swelling [referred to as disproportionate articular pain (DP)]. We assessed DP prevalence and the effects of sarilumab, an IL-6 inhibitor, on DP. Methods Data from RA patients treated with placebo or 200 mg sarilumab in the phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) MOBILITY and TARGET, adalimumab 40 mg or sarilumab 200 mg in the phase 3 RCT MONARCH and sarilumab 200 mg in open-label extensions (OLEs) were used. DP was defined as an excess tender 28-joint count (TJC28) over swollen 28-joint count (SJC28) of ≥7 (TJC28 − SJC28 ≥ 7). Treatment response and disease activity were determined for patients with and without DP. Results Of 1531 sarilumab 200 mg patients from RCTs, 353 (23%) had baseline DP. On average, patients with DP had higher 28-joint DAS using CRP (DAS28-CRP) and pain scores than patients without DP, whereas CRP levels were similar. After 12 and 24 weeks, patients with baseline DP treated with sarilumab were more likely to be DP-free than those treated with placebo or adalimumab. In RCTs, more sarilumab-treated patients achieved low disease activity vs comparators, regardless of baseline DP status. In OLEs, patients were more likely to lose rather than gain DP status. Conclusion About one-quarter of patients with RA experienced DP, which responded well to sarilumab. These data support the concept that other mechanisms (potentially mediated via IL-6) in addition to inflammation may contribute to DP in RA. Trial registrations NCT01061736, NCT02332590, NCT01709578, NCT01146652. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. Methods: Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2, DAS28-CRP < 2.6, Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI) < 3.3, and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) < 2.8 at 12 weeks. Results: The analysis included 365 patients from TARGET and aggregated data of 333 patients from SELECT-BEYOND. Matching for potential treatment effect baseline modifiers (i.e., age, oral glucocorticoid use, tender joint count of 68 counts, swollen joint count of 66 counts, serum CRP level, and patient global assessment of disease activity) resulted in a reduction of the effective sample size of TARGET population to 166. Following MAIC and STC analysis, the odds of achieving all aforementioned clinical outcomes versus placebo at week 12 were similar for sarilumab and upadacitinib. Conclusion: In the MAIC and STC analyses from TARGET and SELECT-BEYOND trials, the efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib were comparable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction The efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib, in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), was demonstrated in phase 3 clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractive to previous biologic DMARDs. In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, the matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) estimate the relative efficacy of sarilumab and upadacitinib in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to previous biologic DMARDs. Methods Patient-level data for sarilumab were obtained from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578) and published aggregate data for upadacitinib were obtained from the SELECT-BEYOND trial (NCT02706847). For the MAIC, individual patient data from the TARGET trial were assigned weights such that weighted mean baseline characteristics of the treatment effect modifiers matched those from SELECT-BEYOND. For the STC, the TARGET patient-level data and mean baseline values from SELECT-BEYOND were used to simulate sarilumab treatment effects for a SELECT-BEYOND population. Endpoints evaluated included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria ACR20/50/70, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP)

Abstract Backgrounds Interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockers including tocilizumab and sarilumab were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The use of sarilumab or tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients has been related to a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. Recent evidence has emerged concerning drug-induced liver injury (DILI) after sarilumab or tocilizumab applications in COVID-19 patients. Aims The study aimed to estimate DILI associated with sarilumab or tocilizumab in treating moderate to severe patients infected with SARS-Cov-2. Methods We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study by data mining of the FDA’s adverse event reporting systems (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2021 in confirmed COVID-19 patients. We analyzed DILI cases associated with tocilizumab or sarilumab in treating COVID-19 patients from the FAERS during this period. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 patients were utilized for case analysis, and we also next compared the onset time and fatality rates of DILI following tocilizumab or sarilumab. Results A total of 275 cases of TCZ or SAR-related DILI reports were extracted. A total of 192 AEs cases were related to tocilizumab (TCZ), and 83 were related to sarilumab (SAR). In patients treated with TCZ, most were

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists with standard care treatment in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The randomized controlled trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases through February 10, 2022. In total, 17 trials comprising 8,614 patients were included. Compared with exclusive standard care or placebo, IL-6 receptor antagonists with standard of care treatment were associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality at 28 days (pooled risk ratios [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95; 17 studies) and progression to invasive mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.88; nine studies). Particularly, the subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 showed a significant mortality benefit (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81–0.96; four studies) and a reduced risk for mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.91; three studies) with tocilizumab treatment. The frequency of serious adverse events was lower in the tocilizumab treatment group than in the standard of care treatment group (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.97; 11 studies), with no significant difference in the sarilumab treatment group (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.89–1.40; four studies). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that tocilizumab treatment showed promising results in reducing 28-day mortality and progression to mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19, without the burden of serious adverse events.Trial registration: PROSPERO: registration number CRD42021294120.

• Interleukin-6 inhibitors are used to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. • Due to drug shortages, different dosing regimens were used. • 60-day mortality was the lowest for patients treated with 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. • The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had the lowest odds of progression to the intensive care unit or death. Interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors are administered to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. In 2021, due to shortages, different dosing regimens of tocilizumab, and a switch to sarilumab, were consecutively implemented. Using real-world data, we compare the effectiveness of these IL-6 inhibitors. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19, treated with IL-6 inhibitors, were included in this natural experiment study. Sixty-day survival, hospital- and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and progression to ICU or death were compared between 8 mg/kg tocilizumab, fixed-dose tocilizumab, low-dose tocilizumab, and fixed-dose sarilumab treatment groups. A total of 5485 patients from 49 hospitals were included. After correction for confounding, increased hazard ratios (HRs) for 60-day mortality were observed for fixed-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.39), low-dose tocilizumab (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.31), and sarilumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.08-1.42), all relative to 8 mg/kg. The 8 mg/kg dosing regimen had lower odds of progression to ICU or death. Both hospital- and ICU length of stay were shorter for low-dose tocilizumab than for the 8 mg/kg group. We found differences in the probability of 60-day survival and the incidence of the combined outcome of mortality or ICU admission, mostly favoring 8 mg/kg tocilizumab. Because of potential time-associated residual confounding, further clinical studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of single-dose subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab or tocilizumab SC±methotrexate (MTX) and to assess the pharmacodynamics (PD) of sarilumab SC or tocilizumab SC monotherapy in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Methods: TDU13402 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-ascending dose Phase 1 study (NCT01850680). Twenty-four patients (6 per treatment group) received sarilumab 50, 100, or 200 mg plus MTX or placebo (2 per cohort) on Day (D) 1; PK and safety were assessed through D57. PDY14191 was a randomized, open-label, single-dose study (NCT02404558). Thirty patients (15 per arm) received sarilumab 150 mg or tocilizumab 162 mg on D1; PK, PD, and safety were assessed through D43. Results: TDU13402: mean serum sarilumab exposure increased in a greater than dose proportional manner from 50 to 200 mg dose with no clinically meaningful increase in treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). PDY14191: PK profiles of single-dose sarilumab 150 mg or tocilizumab 162 mg were similar; some numerical differences in PD profiles and TEAEs were observed. Neutrophil count decrease/neutropenia was the most frequently reported TEAE with sarilumab treatment in both studies. Conclusions: PK, PD, and safety profiles of single-dose sarilumab SC with/without MTX were consistent with results anticipated in Japanese patients with RA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the current literature on the molecular pathophysiology of interleukin-6 (IL-6) in the genesis of macular edema and on the outcomes with IL-6 inhibitors in the treatment of non-infectious macular edema. The role of IL-6 in the development of macular edema has been well elucidated. IL-6 is produced by multiple cells of the innate immune system and leads to a higher likelihood of developing autoimmune inflammatory diseases, such as non-infectious uveitis, through a variety of mechanisms. These include increasing the helper T-cell population over the regulatory T-cell population and leading to the increased expression of inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha. In addition to being key in the generation of uveitis and subsequent macular edema through these inflammatory pathways, IL-6 also can lead to the development of macular edema through other pathways. IL-6 induces the production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and facilitates vascular leakage by downregulating tight junction proteins in retinal endothelial cells. Clinically, the use of IL-6 inhibitors has been found to be efficacious primarily in the context of treatment-resistant non-infectious uveitis and secondary macular edema. IL-6 is a key cytokine in retinal inflammation and macular edema. It is thus not surprising that the use of IL-6 inhibitors in treatment-resistant macular edema in the setting of non-infectious uveitis has been well documented as an effective treatment option. The use of IL-6 inhibitors in macular edema secondary to non-uveitic processes has only begun to be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of interleukin-6 receptor (IL-6) antagonists (tocilizumab, sarilumab) in adult patients with severe or critical COVID-19. A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov from the inception dates to10 January 2023. Randomized clinical trials comparing IL-6 receptor antagonists (tocilizumab, sarilumab) with a placebo or usual care treatment for adult patients with severe or critical COVID-19 were identified. Two independent reviewers performed the assessment and selection of eligible studies, assessed study quality and extracted data. Relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) with random-effects models was performed in meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of the evidence. The search retrieved a total of 11 RCTs involving 5028 participants were eligible for meta-analysis. Our findings suggest that as the new drug used in adult patients with severe or critical COVID-19, IL-6 antagonists (tocilizumab, sarilumab) may reduce the length of ICU stay and hospital stay. However, they did not significantly increase the risks of serious adverse events and did not reduce all-cause mortality (28-day, 14-day, and 7-day).

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors tocilizumab and sarilumab have recently been approved for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). They also affect mood, even though their effect on the post-COVID-19 syndrome-related psychopathology still has to be investigated. The aim of this study was to investigate their effect on psychopathology in a sample of patients with post-COVID-19 syndrome. We included 246 patients (34% female, 66% male) aged 18–75 years who had been hospitalized for COVID. Patients were split into those who received anti-IL-6 receptor agents (Anti-IL-6-R, N = 88) and those who did not (Ctrl, N = 158). The former group was further split into those receiving tocilizumab (TOC, N = 67) and those receiving sarilumab (SAR, N = 21). Groups were compared based on clinical characteristics before and during COVID-19 as well as on physical and psychiatric symptoms after COVID-19. Ctrl had less psychiatric and physical symptoms during hospitalization and more post-COVID-19 diarrhea, headache, cough, and dyspnea upon exertion than those receiving IL-6-receptor inhibitors. Ctrl also showed greater difficulties in emotion regulation. These differences were driven by TOC vs. Ctrl, whereas differences between SAR and Ctrl or TOC did not reach significance. IL-6 receptor inhibitors are related to a lower post-COVID-19 illness burden and seem to be effective in emotion regulation. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.

Background Interleukin-6 (IL-6) signal blockers have an important role in the management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prevent progression of inflammation. Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of Sarilumab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Aim Evaluation of sarilumab efficacy in severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients and methods In all, 40 patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 severe pneumonia received intravenous sarilumab 400 mg. Results Patients were admitted to the ICU with a mean duration of 18.17 ± 8.75 days. Eighteen (45%) patients on high-flow oxygen with nonrebreather masks and 22 (55%) patients on mechanical ventilation received sarilumab. IL-6 level is with a mean of 62.50 ± 23.01 before sarilumab and a mean of 31.35 ± 33.30 after sarilumab. Thirteen (32.5%) patients improved and 27 (67.5%) patients died. No sarilumab serious adverse effects were detected in this study. Patient oxygen saturation on discharge mean was 95.75±.97%. Concerning serum IL-6 levels among the recruited patients, there was statistically significant difference between the mean baseline level compared with the follow-up levels, 62.50 ± 23.01 and 31.35 ± 33.30 ng/ml, respectively, with a P value of 0.001. Conclusion Sarilumab improves IL-6 level in COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia with no serious adverse effects. Mortality rate increased in severe COVID-19 cases, so early use of sarilumab in moderate cases may decrease disease progression and decrease mortality rate.

Abstract Background Anemia is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Higher hemoglobin (Hb) levels may be associated with better clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). To assess this hypothesis, we conducted two post hoc analyses in three sarilumab phase III studies: TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH. Methods Pooled data from combination therapy from placebo-controlled MOBILITY (sarilumab + methotrexate) and TARGET (sarilumab + conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [csDMARDs]) and monotherapy data from active-controlled MONARCH (sarilumab vs. adalimumab) studies were included. Associations between Hb levels and clinical measures and PROs were assessed over 24 weeks. The mean changes from baseline in clinical outcomes and PROs (to week 24) and radiographic outcomes (to week 52) were evaluated between low and normal Hb levels (based on the World Health Organization [WHO] criteria). Results From TARGET, MOBILITY, and MONARCH, 546, 1197, and 369 patients, respectively, were stratified according to Hb levels (low vs. normal). Over 24 weeks, higher Hb levels were found to be consistently associated with better clinical outcomes and PROs in combination therapy and monotherapy groups and were more pronounced among the patients treated with sarilumab than those treated with placebo and adalimumab. The mean change from baseline to week 24 in clinical efficacy measures and PROs was similar in patients with low vs. normal Hb at baseline. Differences between sarilumab and/or adalimumab, for all outcomes, were larger for low Hb subgroups. In MOBILITY, by week 52, the inhibition of progression of structural damage (assessed via Modified Total Sharp Score [mTSS]) was 84% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with low Hb and 97% (sarilumab 200 mg) and 68% (sarilumab 150 mg) vs. placebo in patients with normal Hb. Similar results were observed for other radiographic outcomes. Conclusions In these post hoc analyses, a consistent relationship was observed between higher Hb levels and better clinical outcomes and PROs in patients with RA. Irrespective of the baseline Hb levels, sarilumab treatment was associated with improvements in clinical measures and PROs over 24 weeks (improvements were more pronounced than those with adalimumab treatment) and mitigation of joint damage progression over 52 weeks. Trial registration ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736, NCT01709578, and NCT02332590

The key role in the development of chronic autoimmune inflammation is played by pro-inflammatory cytokines, in particular, interleukin 6 (IL-6). The introduction into clinical practice of monoclonal antibodies inhibiting IL-6 is a significant event in rheumatology and is currently considered as a promising direction in the treatment of immuno-inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The first inhibitor of IL-6 (IL-6), which entered the practice of rheumatologists, was tocilizumab (TCZ), the second – sarilumab (SAR). Numerous studies have shown the high effectiveness of iIL-6: the use of drugs leads to a rapid decrease in the clinical manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and a decrease in laboratory signs of inflammation, contributing to the achievement of low activity or remission, improves the quality of life of patients, and also slows down the X-ray progression of the disease. At the same time, iIL-6 has a satisfactory safety profile. The universal problem of our time – the pandemic of a new coronavirus infection – has led to attempts to use IL-6 in patients with severe and critical disease, since IL-6 plays an important role in the pathogenesis of COVID-19, which is confirmed by the results of numerous studies. However, data on the efficacy and safety of these drugs in COVID-19 are contradictory, which requires conducting larger-scale controlled studies. This review examines the issues of the effectiveness and safety of TCZ and SAR in rheumatological patients and in patients with COVID-19. The review is illustrated with examples from real clinical practice.

Introduction: The disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a dysregulated immune response and a generalized inflammatory response. Therefore, during the search for effective therapy, attention was paid to drugs affecting and stabilizing such a response - tocilizumab, sarilumab, siltuximab, anakinra, baricitinib. Purpose of the work: Evaluation of the impact of immunosuppressant therapy on the course of the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Material and methods: The work was based on a review of available medical publications about immunosuppressive therapy for COVID-19 treatment. The literature in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases was searched based on the following keywords: tocilizumab, sarilumab, siltuximab, baricitinib, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, immunosuppressive therapy. Conclusion: Based on the analysis of the literature, the most effective therapeutic option seems to be tocilizumab. Promising alternatives may be sarilumab and siltuximab as they have the same target point of action. However, it is necessary to conduct further tests on their operation. The use of baricitinib may be useful, but probably only in certain circumstances. Anakinra proved to be much less effective. It should therefore be used with great caution.

Summary: Background: Among interleukin-6 inhibitors suggested for use in COVID-19, there are few robust evidences for the efficacy of sarilumab. Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sarilumab in severe COVID-19. Methods: In this phase 3, open-labeled, randomized clinical trial, conducted at 5 Italian hospitals, adults with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (excluding mechanically ventilated) were randomized 2:1 to receive intravenous sarilumab (400 mg, repeatable after 12 h) plus standard of care (SOC) (arm A) or to continue SOC (arm B). Randomization was web-based. As post-hoc analyses, the participants were stratified according to baseline inflammatory parameters. The primary endpoint was analysed on the modified Intention-To-Treat population, including all the randomized patients who received any study treatment (sarilumab or SOC). It was time to clinical improvement of 2 points on a 7-points ordinal scale, from baseline to day 30. We used Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test to compare the primary outcome between two arms, and Cox regression stratified by clinical center and adjusted for severity of illness, to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). The trial was registered with EudraCT (2020-001390-76). Findings: Between May 2020 and May 2021, 191 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom, excluding nine dropouts, 176 were assigned to arm A (121) and B (55). At day 30, no significant differences in the primary endpoint were found (88% [95% CI 81–94] in arm A vs 85% [74–93], HR 1.07 [0.8–1.5] in arm B; log-rank p = 0.50). After stratifying for inflammatory parameters, arm A showed higher probability of improvement than B without statistical significance in the strata with C reactive protein (CRP)

Introduction: Etanercept (ETN) has been shown to slow radiographic progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in clinical trials. This real-world, non-interventional study assessed radiographic progression in patients with RA or PsA treated with ETN for ≤ 36 months in outpatient care in Germany (NCT01623752). Methods: Patients with RA or PsA attended ≤ 10 visits across two study phases (phase 1: seven visits, baseline to month 18; phase 2: three visits until month 36). Radiographs were taken at baseline (Rx1), months 12–18 (Rx2), and/or months 30–36 (Rx3). Historic radiographs (Rx0) taken 12–48 months pre-baseline were also evaluated (if available). The primary endpoint was the change in modified total Sharp score (mTSS). The erosion score (ES) and joint space narrowing score (JSN) were also evaluated. Results: Overall, 1821 patients were enrolled (RA: n = 1378; PsA: n = 440). In patients with Rx1 and Rx2 (RA: n = 511; PsA: n = 167), the mean mTSS remained stable for both disease groups, and the annualized median change in mTSS was 0. In patients with Rx0, Rx1, and Rx2 (RA: n = 180; PsA: n = 47), annualized radiographic progression in mTSS, ES, and JSN was larger in the pre-ETN treatment phase than during ETN treatment in both disease groups. The percentage of patients with radiographic non-progression was higher during ETN treatment versus pre-ETN. Improvement in clinical disease activity and patient-reported outcomes was also observed. Conclusions: This was the first real-world, non-interventional study to report systematically collected radiographic data in a large cohort of patients with RA or PsA under treatment with a biologic. In patients with available radiographic data, mean radiographic progression was lower and the proportion of patients without progression was greater during ETN treatment than in the pre-ETN period. Plain Language Summary: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are diseases in which inflammation can lead to damage in the joints. X-ray images can show whether the disease gets worse; this is called radiographic progression. Etanercept is a drug that acts on the body's immune system and can reduce inflammation in the joints. In clinical studies, radiographic progression was slower in people with RA or PsA who received etanercept compared with people who received another drug called methotrexate. In this study, we wanted to know how radiographic progression changes in people in Germany who receive etanercept as part of their routine treatment. A total of 1378 people with RA and 440 people with PsA received etanercept for up to 36 months. We observed little to no radiographic progression for most people during the study. Radiographic progression was worse before people started taking etanercept. More people had no radiographic progression while taking etanercept compared with before they started treatment. The proportion of people who responded to treatment with etanercept as measured by the number of painful joints increased throughout the study. Overall, people felt that their health improved after they started taking etanercept. This was the first large study in which we investigated how radiographic progression changes when people with RA or PsA start taking etanercept as part of their routine treatment. We observed a slowing or halting of radiographic progression in most people and an improvement in their overall health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Remedia is the property of Medical Tribune CZ, s.r.o. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) established the mortality reduction by tocilizumab (Actemra), baricitinib (Olumiant), and sarilumab (Kevzara) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, uncertainty remains about which treatment performs best in patients receiving corticosteroids. To estimate probabilities of noninferiority between baricitinib and sarilumab compared to tocilizumab in patients treated with corticosteroids. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv. Eligible RCTs assigning hospitalized adults with COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids to tocilizumab or baricitinib or sarilumab versus standard of care or placebo (control). Reviewers independently abstracted published data and assessed study quality with the Risk of Bias 2 tool. Unpublished data, if required, were requested from authors of included studies. The outcome of interest was all-cause mortality at 28 days. Twenty-seven RCTs with 13 549 patients were included. Overall, the risk of bias was low. Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses were used to aggregate results of each treatment versus control. The average odds ratio for mortality was 0.78 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.65, 0.94) for tocilizumab; 0.78 (95% CrI: 0.56, 1.03) for baricitinib; and 0.91 (95% CrI: 0.60, 1.40) for sarilumab. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) ranged from moderate to low. Bayesian meta-regressions with multiple priors were used to estimate probabilities of noninferiority (margin of 13% greater effect by tocilizumab). Compared to tocilizumab, there were ≤94% and 90% probabilities of noninferiority with baricitinib and sarilumab, respectively. All but two studies included data with only indirect evidence for the comparison of interest. Among hospitalized COVID-19 treated with corticosteroids, there are high probabilities that both baricitinib and sarilumab are associated with similar mortality reductions in comparison to tocilizumab. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Backgrounds: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) blockers including tocilizumab and sarilumab were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 for the treatment of patients with moderate to severe COVID-19. The use of sarilumab or tocilizumab in COVID-19 patients has been related to a reduction in mortality compared to standard care. Recent evidence has emerged concerning drug-induced liver injury (DILI) after sarilumab or tocilizumab applications in COVID-19 patients. Aims: The study aimed to estimate DILI associated with sarilumab or tocilizumab in treating moderate to severe patients infected with SARS-Cov-2. Methods: We conducted a retrospective pharmacovigilance study by data mining of the FDA's adverse event reporting systems (FAERS) database from the first quarter of 2004 to the fourth quarter of 2021 in confirmed COVID-19 patients. We analyzed DILI cases associated with tocilizumab or sarilumab in treating COVID-19 patients from the FAERS during this period. Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis of COVID-19 patients were utilized for case analysis, and we also next compared the onset time and fatality rates of DILI following tocilizumab or sarilumab. Results: A total of 275 cases of TCZ or SAR-related DILI reports were extracted. A total of 192 AEs cases were related to tocilizumab (TCZ), and 83 were related to sarilumab (SAR). In patients treated with TCZ, most were < 75 years old (51.57%), with more male than female (46.35% vs. 13.02%). The correlation between IL-6 receptor antagonists and DILI was stronger in SAR (ROR = 12.94; 95%CI 9.6–17.44) than in TCZ (ROR = 1.33; 95%CI 1.14–1.55). The onset time of DILI was different between TCZ and SAR, and a significant difference was observed in TCZ than SAR (P < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed in the mortality rate of TCZ and SAR (P = 0.0009). DILI associated with COVID-19 patients treated with TCZ appeared to have earlier onset-time (1(0–46) day) VS. SAR (3.5(0–27) day). Conclusion: This study shows strict monitor ought to be paid for TCZ or SAR when used for COVID-19 patients with poor liver function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which are commonly used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have been linked to a variety of adverse events (AEs). The objective of the study was to compare the safety profiles of six FDA approved mAbs (sarilumab, tocilizumab, adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, and rituximab) marketed for the treatment of RA. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct. The manuscript comprised a total of 23 clinical studies. The percentage of patients who had AEs was calculated and presented using box-whisker and forest plots. Infections and infestations were found to be the most common AEs in RA patients treated with mAbs. Raised alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), upper respiratory tract infection (URTI), and nasopharyngitis were frequently reported. The most common AEs were reported with adalimumab. The highest percentage of patients reporting AEs was associated with golimumab (52%), while rituximab had the fewest AEs (4.9%). In conclusion, rituximab appears to be a safer treatment option for RA as it is found to be associated with a lower risk of AEs, particularly respiratory infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two years have passed since WHO declared a pandemic state for SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19 pathogenesis consists of a first viral phase responsible for early symptoms followed by an inflammatory phase, cytokine-mediated, responsible for late-onset manifestations up to ARDS. The dysregulated immune response has an outstanding role in the progression of pulmonary damage in COVID-19. IL-6, through the induction of pro-inflammatory chemokines and cytokines, plays a key role in the development and maintenance of inflammation, acting as a pioneer of the hyperinflammatory condition and cytokine storm in severe COVID-19. Therefore, drugs targeting both IL-6 and IL-6 receptors have been evaluated in order to blunt the abnormal SARS-CoV-2-induced cytokine release. Sarilumab, a high-affinity anti-IL-6 receptor antibody, may represent a promising weapon to treat the fearsome hyperinflammatory phase by improving the outcome of patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Further prospective and well-designed clinical studies with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-up are needed to assess the efficacy and the safety of this therapeutic approach to achieve improved outcomes in COVID-19.

Background: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) monoclonal antibodies are commonly acknowledged for their efficacy in managing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, there remains a paucity of comprehensive studies on their potential adverse effects., Research Design and Methods: This is a retrospective pharmacovigilance investigation. We employed FAERS using OpenVigil FDA to detect adverse reactions linked to the interleukin-6 antagonist tocilizumab and sarilumab., Results: Completely 67,976 reports were identified as 'primary suspected (PS)' adverse events (AEs) for tocilizumab, and 12,560 reports for sarilumab. 109 significant disproportionality preferred terms (PTs) of tocilizumab and 158 PTs of sarilumab were retained. A higher incidence of adverse reactions occurred in females aged 45-64 years, with a higher rate of subsequent hospitalization. Both drugs exhibited adverse reactions consistent with previously reported side effects, such as leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, and hypercholesterolemia. Additionally, there was a strong correlation with gastrointestinal issues. Unexpected significant adverse events, including diabetes, fluctuations in blood pressure, drug ineffectiveness, malignancies, and disorders of the nervous system, were also observed. Gender and age differences existed in AEs signals related to IL-6RAs., Conclusion: Our study identified significant new AE signals for interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, potentially supporting clinical monitoring and risk identification for this class of drugs.

Aim. To determine the criteria for the optimal use of IL-6 receptor blockers in patients with COVID-19 community-acquired pneumonia based on predictors of adverse outcomes. Materials and methods. The single-center, non-randomized prospective study included 190 patients with community-acquired pneumonia caused by coronavirus 2 between the beginning of March and the end of May 2020. Of these, 89 patients received tocilizumab and 101 patients received sarilumab. The study inclusion criterion for the patient was indications for initiating therapy with one of the inhibitors of IL-6 receptors (anti-IL-6R) according to the Interim guidelines (versions 4 and 5). The exclusion criterion was the need to re-prescribe genetically engineered biological therapy (GEBT). The severity of the patient's condition was assessed according to the early warning score (NEWS2), the volume of lung tissue lesions was assessed according to computed tomography (CT). Laboratory monitoring included counting the absolute (abs) number of lymphocytes, serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), D-dimer, lactate dehydrogenase, fibrinogen. Statistical data processing was conducted by nonparametric methods using the IBM SPSS Statistics V-22 software. Results. The phenotype of a patient with a negative outcome prognosis was described: a male patient over 50 years of age with aggravated premorbid background (with cardiovascular diseases, obesity and/or chronic renal disease), lung lesion CT 34, saturation less than 93% upon inhalation of atmospheric air, persisting for 2448 hours after GEBT. According to the blood test, lymphopenia was below 1000 U/L and CRP levels were above 50 mg/L. The laboratory parameters and clinical picture of the patient progressively worsened after 911 days of illness, regardless of the use of Anti-IL-6R. The features of patients monitoring when administering IL-6 receptor blockers have been determined. Conclusion. IL-6 receptor blockers should be administered to patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 before the development of hyperinflammatory reactions. The optimal "therapeutic window" is 78 days of illness.