Tocilizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in giant cell arteritis: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Giant cell arteritis is an immune-mediated disease of medium and large-sized arteries that affects mostly people older than 50 years of age. Treatment with glucocorticoids is the gold-standard and prevents severe vascular complications but is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Tocilizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has been associated with rapid induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. We therefore aimed to study the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the first randomised clinical trial in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent giant cell arteritis. METHODS In this single centre, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 50 years and older from University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, who met the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for giant cell arteritis. Patients with new-onset or relapsing disease were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo intravenously. 13 infusions were given in 4 week intervals until week 52. Both groups received oral prednisolone, starting at 1 mg/kg per day and tapered down to 0 mg according to a standard reduction scheme defined in the study protocol. Allocation to treatment groups was done using a central computerised randomisation procedure with a permuted block design and a block size of three, and concealed using central randomisation generated by the clinical trials unit. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved complete remission of disease at a prednisolone dose of 0·1 mg/kg per day at week 12. All analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01450137. RESULTS Between March 3, 2012, and Sept 9, 2014, 20 patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab and prednisolone, and ten patients to receive placebo and glucocorticoid; 16 (80%) and seven (70%) patients, respectively, had new-onset giant cell arteritis. 17 (85%) of 20 patients given tocilizumab and four (40%) of ten patients given placebo reached complete remission by week 12 (risk difference 45%, 95% CI 11-79; p=0·0301). Relapse-free survival was achieved in 17 (85%) patients in the tocilizumab group and two (20%) in the placebo group by week 52 (risk difference 65%, 95% CI 36-94; p=0·0010). The mean survival-time difference to stop glucocorticoids was 12 weeks in favour of tocilizumab (95% CI 7-17; p<0·0001), leading to a cumulative prednisolone dose of 43 mg/kg in the tocilizumab group versus 110 mg/kg in the placebo group (p=0·0005) after 52 weeks. Seven (35%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (50%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Our findings show, for the first time in a trial setting, the efficacy of tocilizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. FUNDING Roche and the University of Bern.

Short structured feedback training is equivalent to a mechanical feedback device in two-rescuer BLS: a randomised simulation study.

BACKGROUND Resuscitation guidelines encourage the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) feedback devices implying better outcomes after sudden cardiac arrest. Whether effective continuous feedback could also be given verbally by a second rescuer ("human feedback") has not been investigated yet. We, therefore, compared the effect of human feedback to a CPR feedback device. METHODS In an open, prospective, randomised, controlled trial, we compared CPR performance of three groups of medical students in a two-rescuer scenario. Group "sCPR" was taught standard BLS without continuous feedback, serving as control. Group "mfCPR" was taught BLS with mechanical audio-visual feedback (HeartStart MRx with Q-CPR-Technology™). Group "hfCPR" was taught standard BLS with human feedback. Afterwards, 326 medical students performed two-rescuer BLS on a manikin for 8 min. CPR quality parameters, such as "effective compression ratio" (ECR: compressions with correct hand position, depth and complete decompression multiplied by flow-time fraction), and other compression, ventilation and time-related parameters were assessed for all groups. RESULTS ECR was comparable between the hfCPR and the mfCPR group (0.33 vs. 0.35, p = 0.435). The hfCPR group needed less time until starting chest compressions (2 vs. 8 s, p < 0.001) and showed fewer incorrect decompressions (26 vs. 33 %, p = 0.044). On the other hand, absolute hands-off time was higher in the hfCPR group (67 vs. 60 s, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS The quality of CPR with human feedback or by using a mechanical audio-visual feedback device was similar. Further studies should investigate whether extended human feedback training could further increase CPR quality at comparable costs for training.