Search

Background: Visual involvement is the most feared complication of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Information on the efficacy of tocilizumab (TCZ) for this complication is scarce and controversial. Objective: We assessed a wide series of GCA treated with TCZ, to evaluate its role in the prevention of new visual complications and its efficacy when this manifestation was already present before the initiation of TCZ. Design: This is an observational multicenter study of patients with GCA treated with TCZ. Methods: Patients were divided into two subgroups according to the presence or absence of visual involvement before TCZ onset. Visual manifestations were classified into the following categories: transient visual loss (TVL), permanent visual loss (PVL), diplopia, and blurred vision. Results: Four hundred seventy-one GCA patients (mean age, 74 ± 9 years) were treated with TCZ. Visual manifestations were observed in 122 cases (26%), of which 81 were present at TCZ onset: PVL ( n = 60; unilateral/bilateral: 48/12), TVL ( n = 17; unilateral/bilateral: 11/6), diplopia ( n = 2), and blurred vision ( n = 2). None of the patients without previous visual involvement or with TVL had new episodes after initiation of TCZ, while only 11 out of 60 (18%) patients with PVL experienced some improvement. The two patients with diplopia and one of the two patients with blurred vision improved. Conclusion: TCZ may have a protective effect against the development of visual complications or new episodes of TVL in GCA. However, once PVL was established, only a few patients improved.

Background: With the arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in 2020, it was proposed to make the change from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab (TCZ) to its subcutaneous formulation, in order to avoid rheumatological patients having to go to the day hospital and guarantee enough IV TCZ for those critical patients with COVID who needed it. The aim of this study was to describe the rate and reasons for switching back to IV TCZ from subcutaneous TCZ., Methods: We included patients from the rheumatology service that were on treatment with IV TCZ in February 2020 and were followed up until March 2021. Patients that remained on subcutaneous TCZ were compared with those who switched back to IV TCZ (switch-back group). A subgroup analysis according to rheumatic disease was performed., Results: Fifty-five patients switched to subcutaneous TCZ: 28 rheumatoid arthritis, 19 giant cell arteritis, 4 polymyalgia rheumatica, 2 juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and 2 systemic sclerosis. Seventeen patients switched back to IV TCZ due to ineffectiveness (n = 8), patient preference (n = 4), adverse events (n = 4), and difficulty with the SC administration route (n = 1). In the analysis by disease, 4 of 23 patients switched back to IV TCZ in giant cell arteritis/polymyalgia rheumatica group due to ineffectiveness (n = 2), injection site reaction (n = 1), or patient preference (n = 1). In rheumatoid arthritis group, 11 of 28 patients switched back to IV TCZ: ineffectiveness (n = 5), patient preference (n = 3), headache (n = 1), injection site reaction (n = 1), and due to difficulty with the SC administration route (n = 1)., Conclusions: Mass switch from IV to subcutaneous TCZ during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been safe, effective, and well tolerated after 1 year of follow-up., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)