Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original article
Impact of tocilizumab administered intravenously or subcutaneously on patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
  1. Vibeke Strand1,
  2. Margaret Michalska2,
  3. Christine Birchwood2,
  4. Jinglan Pei2,
  5. Katie Tuckwell2,
  6. Rebecca Finch3,
  7. Alan J Kivitz4,
  8. Josef S Smolen5 and
  9. Gerd R Burmester6
  1. 1 Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, Stanford University Medical School, Palo Alto, California, USA
  2. 2 US Medical Affairs, Genentech, South San Francisco, California, USA
  3. 3 PDBB-Biostatistics, Roche, Welwyn Garden City, UK
  4. 4 Altoona Center for Clinical Research, Duncansville, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5 Division of Rheumatology and Department of Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  6. 6 Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Free University and Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alan J Kivitz; ajkivitz{at}yahoo.com

Abstract

Objective Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown tocilizumab (TCZ) administered intravenously or subcutaneously with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) to be superior to csDMARDs alone for improving rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity. This study evaluated the effect of TCZ-intravenous and TCZ-subcutaneous on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in three RCT populations.

Methods OPTION (NCT00106548), BREVACTA (NCT01232569) and SUMMACTA (NCT01194414) were independent RCTs evaluating the efficacy and safety of TCZ-intravenous and/or TCZ-subcutaneous with csDMARDs in patients with RA. PROs included patient global assessment, pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Short Form-36. Study outcomes included the proportions of patients reporting changes from baseline in PRO scores ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ age and gender-matched normative values.

Results In OPTION, more patients who received TCZ-intravenous reported improvements in PROs ≥MCID (50%–82% vs 31%–57%) and scores ≥ normative values (16%–44% vs 5%–28%) at week 16 compared with placebo. Similarly, a greater proportion of patients in BREVACTA who received TCZ-subcutaneous reported improvements ≥ MCID (54%–73% vs 42%–55%) and scores ≥ normative values (8%–34% vs 4%–25%) at week 12 compared with placebo. In SUMMACTA, 61%–84% of patients who received TCZ-subcutaneous and 64%–84% of those who received TCZ-intravenous reported improvements ≥ MCID and 14%–41% and 15%–24%, respectively, scores ≥ normative values at week 24.

Conclusions TCZ-intravenous or TCZ-subcutaneous with csDMARDs resulted in more patients reporting clinically meaningful improvements and PRO scores ≥ normative values compared with placebo. These improvements were similar with TCZ-intravenous and TCZ-subcutaneous.

  • biologic therapy
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • rheumatoid arthritis
  • tocilizumab

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors were involved in the study design and/or collection, analysis and interpretation of data, provided critical revision of the manuscript and approved the final version to be submitted for publication.

  • Funding The study was funded by F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

  • Competing interests VS has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Crescendo Bioscience, F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB. MM, CB, JP and KT are employees of Genentech. RF is an employee and shareholder of F Hoffmann-La Roche. AJK has received consulting fees from Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron and UCB; JSS has received grants from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and Roche and has provided expert advice to and/or had speaking engagements for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Astro, Celgene, Celtrion, GlaxoSmithKline, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MedImmune, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB. GRB has received grants and honoraria for consulting and lectures from Roche.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval The OPTION, BREVACTA and SUMMACTA study protocols were approved by an ethics committee or institutional review board at each participating centre before the start of the study.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.