Efficacy of tocilizumab in patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis and a previous inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the ROSE study

Objective To evaluate efficacy of tocilizumab in US patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate clinical response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Safety-related outcomes were also analysed. Methods The rapid onset and systemic efficacy study was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind trial. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to tocilizumab 8 mg/kg (n=412) or placebo (n=207) every 4 weeks while continuing background DMARD in both groups. Results The primary efficacy endpoint, percentage of patients achieving ACR50 response at week 24, was higher with tocilizumab versus placebo (30.1% vs 11.2%; p<0.0001). Percentages of ACR20 and ACR50 responders were significantly higher with tocilizumab versus placebo as early as week 4 and continued to week 24; more patients in the tocilizumab versus placebo group also achieved ACR70 responses beginning at week 8 (p<0.01). Significant improvements associated with tocilizumab versus placebo were seen in routine assessment of patient index data responses, EULAR good response, DAS28 and percentages of patients achieving low disease activity and clinical remission (based on DAS28). A substudy examining early response to therapy showed improved patient global assessment of disease activity (p=0.005) and pain (p=0.01) and DAS28 (p=0.007) with tocilizumab versus placebo at day 7. Safety findings were consistent with the known tocilizumab safety profile; rates of serious infections (per 100 patient-years) were 7.87 (95% CI 4.30 to 13.2) and 1.20 (95% CI 0.03 to 6.66) in the tocilizumab and placebo groups, respectively. Conclusions This study demonstrated the efficacy of tocilizumab in improving measures of disease activity in patients with RA who failed to respond adequately to DMARD therapy. Rapid improvement in clinical outcomes was demonstrated in a substudy as early as week 1 as shown by DAS28 scores, patient measures and C-reactive protein. Trial Registry no NCT00531817

[1]  P. Hannonen,et al.  Early combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and tight disease control improve long-term radiologic outcome in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the 11-year results of the Finnish Rheumatoid Arthritis Combination Therapy trial , 2010, Arthritis research & therapy.

[2]  Maurizio Cutolo,et al.  Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: recommendations of an international task force , 2010, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[3]  M. Genovese,et al.  Comparison of tocilizumab monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study , 2009, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[4]  P. Hannonen,et al.  The good initial response to therapy with a combination of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs is sustained over time: the eleven-year results of the Finnish rheumatoid arthritis combination therapy trial. , 2009, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[5]  N. Unwin,et al.  Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National , 2009 .

[6]  M. Genovese,et al.  Interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: the tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study. , 2008, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  F. Breedveld,et al.  Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[8]  A. Sebba,et al.  Tocilizumab: the first interleukin-6-receptor inhibitor. , 2008, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[9]  J. Kremer,et al.  IL-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab improves treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor biologicals: results from a 24-week multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial , 2008, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[10]  J. Smolen,et al.  Effect of interleukin-6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (OPTION study): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial , 2008, The Lancet.

[11]  G. Koch,et al.  Relative efficiencies of physician/assessor global estimates and patient questionnaire measures are similar to or greater than joint counts to distinguish adalimumab from control treatments in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. , 2008, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  J. Jacobs,et al.  Intensive treatment with methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: aiming for remission. Computer Assisted Management in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (CAMERA, an open-label strategy trial) , 2007, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[13]  T. Pincus,et al.  A proposed approach to recognise "near-remission" quantitatively without formal joint counts or laboratory tests: a patient self-report questionnaire routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID) score as a guide to a "continuous quality improvement" s. , 2006, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[14]  B. Dijkmans,et al.  Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial. , 2005, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[15]  P. V. van Riel,et al.  The Disease Activity Score and the EULAR response criteria. , 2005, Clinical and experimental rheumatology.

[16]  D. Cella,et al.  Validation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale relative to other instrumentation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 2005, The Journal of rheumatology.

[17]  A. Kratz,et al.  Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Weekly clinicopathological exercises. Laboratory reference values. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  A. McMahon,et al.  Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial , 2004, The Lancet.

[19]  V. Strand,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes better discriminate active treatment from placebo in randomized controlled trials in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2004, Rheumatology.

[20]  J. Mckenney,et al.  National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) , 2002 .

[21]  P. Hannonen,et al.  Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[22]  P. van Riel,et al.  Validation of rheumatoid arthritis improvement criteria that include simplified joint counts. , 1998, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[23]  M. Prevoo,et al.  Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. , 1996, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[24]  J J Anderson,et al.  American College of Rheumatology. Preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[25]  M. Prevoo,et al.  Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[26]  R. Scully,et al.  Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. , 1990 .

[27]  R. Cully,et al.  Weekly clinicopathological exercises. , 1990, The New England journal of medicine.