Abstract:Background Although biological therapies have transformed the outlook for those with rheumatoid arthritis, there is a lack of any meaningful response in approximately 40% of patients. The role of B cells in rheumatoid arthritis pathogenesis is well recognised and is supported by the clinical efficacy of the B-cell-depleting agent rituximab (MabThera, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland). Rituximab is licensed for use in rheumatoid arthritis following failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy. However, over 50% of patients show low/absent synovial B-cell infiltration, suggesting that, in these patients, inflammation is driven by alternative cell types. This prompted us to test the hypothesis that, in synovial biopsy B-cell-poor patients, tocilizumab (RoActemra, F. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland) (targeting interleukin 6) is superior to rituximab (targeting CD20 + /B cells). Design The R4–RA (A Randomised, open-labelled study in anti-TNFalpha inadequate responders to investigate the mechanisms for Response, Resistance to Rituximab versus Tocilizumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis patients) trial is a 48-week Phase IV, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted in 19 European centres that recruited patients failing on or intolerant to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and at least one tumour necrosis factor inhibitor. Participants Synovial tissue was obtained at trial entry and classified histologically as B-cell rich or B-cell poor to inform balanced stratification. Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis to receive standard therapy with rituximab or tocilizumab. B-cell-poor/-rich molecular classification was also carried out. The study was powered to test the superiority of tocilizumab over rituximab at 16 weeks in the B-cell-poor population. Main outcome measures The primary end point was defined as an improvement in the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of ≥ 50% from baseline. In addition, patients were considered to be non-responders if they did not reach an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% and a CDAI score of < 10.1, defined for simplicity as CDAI major treatment response (CDAI-MTR). Secondary outcomes included the assessment of CDAI response in the B-cell-rich cohort, in which the non-inferiority of rituximab compared with tocilizumab was evaluated. Safety data up to week 48 are reported. Results In total, 164 patients were randomised: 83 patients received rituximab and 81 received tocilizumab. Eighty-one out of 83 rituximab patients and 73 out of 81 tocilizumab patients completed treatment up to week 16 (primary end point). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the treatment groups. In the histologically classified B-cell-poor population ( n = 79), no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome, an improvement in CDAI score of ≥ 50% from baseline (risk ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.96). A supplementary analysis of the CDAI-MTR, however, did reach statistical significance (risk ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.78). In addition, when B-cell-poor classification was determined molecularly, both the primary end point and the CDAI-MTR were statistically significant (risk ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.91, and risk ratio 4.12, 95% confidence interval 1.55 to 11.01, respectively). Moreover, a larger number of secondary end points achieved significance when classified molecularly than when classified histologically. In the B-cell-rich population, there was no significant difference between treatments in the majority of both primary and secondary end points. There were more adverse events and serious adverse events, such as infections, in the tocilizumab group than in the rituximab group. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first biopsy-based, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of rheumatoid arthritis. We were unable to demonstrate that tocilizumab was more effective than rituximab in patients with a B-cell-poor pathotype in our primary analysis. However, superiority was shown in most of the supplementary and secondary analyses using a molecular classification. These analyses overcame possible unavoidable weaknesses in our original study plan, in which the histological method of determining B-cell status may have misclassified some participants and our chosen primary outcome was insufficiently sensitive. Given the significant results observed using the molecular classification, future research will focus on refining this stratification method and evaluating its clinical utility. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97443826. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ; Vol. 9, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treat-to-target fixed dose rituximab retreatment versus fixed interval retreatment with disease activity-guided rituximab dose optimisation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial focusing on long-term disease impact (RITUXERA)

Rituximab As Maintenance Therapy Following Remission Induction in Relapsing or Refractory Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

Treat-to-target vs fixed interval retreatment strategy with rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study

Clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation of the window of opportunity for retreatment with rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis patients from a multicentre real-life study

E054 Rituximab dose minimisation in rheumatoid arthritis, a retrospective outcome analysis

The effect of rituximab on patient reported outcomes in the preclinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis: 2 year data from the PRAIRI study

Long-term clinical and radiological effectiveness and safety of ultralow doses of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis: observational extension of the REDO trial

Rituximab versus tocilizumab and B-cell status in TNF-alpha inadequate-responder rheumatoid arthritis patients: the R4-RA RCT

Rituximab versus azathioprine for maintenance of remission for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis and relapsing disease: an international randomised controlled trial

A randomised, two-arm (1:1 ratio), double blind, placebo controlled phase III trial to assess the efficacy, safety, cost and cost-effectiveness of Rituximab in treating de novo or relapsing NS in patients with MCD/FSGS (TURING)

Multiple courses of rituximab produce sustained clinical and radiographic efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: 5-year data from the REFLEX study

Does intensive management improve remission rates in patients with intermediate rheumatoid arthritis? (the TITRATE trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Doses of rituximab for retreatment in rheumatoid arthritis: influence on maintenance and risk of serious infection

Patients' and rheumatologists' perceptions on dose reduction of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis

Single-dose Versus Low-Dose Rituximab in Corticosteroid-Resistant or Relapsed ITP: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Rituximab for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

Long-Term Follow-Up of the RESORT Study (E4402): A Randomized Phase III Comparison of Two Different Rituximab Dosing Strategies for Low–Tumor Burden Follicular Lymphoma

Randomized clinical trial to compare efficacy and safety of repeated courses of rituximab to single-course rituximab followed by maintenance mycophenolate-mofetil in children with steroid dependent nephrotic syndrome

Pharmacological conditioning in the treatment of recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

Effectiveness of methotrexate and bridging glucocorticoids with or without early introduction of a 6-month course of etanercept in early RA: results of the 2-year, pragmatic, randomised CareRA2020 trial

COMBAT‐MS: A Population‐Based Observational Cohort Study Addressing the Benefit–Risk Balance of Multiple Sclerosis Therapies Compared with Rituximab