Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Comparing Effects of Biologic Agents in Treating Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multiple Treatment Comparison Regression Analysis

Rheumatoid arthritis patients have been treated with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and the newer biologic drugs. We sought to compare and rank the biologics with respect to efficacy. We performed a literature search identifying 54 publications encompassing 9 biologics. We conducted a multiple treatment comparison regression analysis letting the number experiencing a 50% improvement on the ACR score be dependent upon dose level and disease duration for assessing the comparable relative effect between biologics and placebo or DMARD. The analysis embraced all treatment and comparator arms over all publications. Hence, all measured effects of any biologic agent contributed to the comparison of all biologic agents relative to each other either given alone or combined with DMARD. We found the drug effect to be dependent on dose level, but not on disease duration, and the impact of a high versus low dose level was the same for all drugs (higher doses indicated a higher frequency of ACR50 scores). The ranking of the drugs when given without DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), etanercept, tocilizumab/ abatacept and adalimumab. The ranking of the drugs when given with DMARD was certolizumab (ranked highest), tocilizumab, anakinra, rituximab, golimumab/ infliximab/ abatacept, adalimumab/ etanercept. Still, all drugs were effective. All biologic agents were effective compared to placebo, with certolizumab the most effective and adalimumab (without DMARD treatment) and adalimumab/ etanercept (combined with DMARD treatment) the least effective. The drugs were in general more effective, except for etanercept, when given together with DMARDs.

Novel mechanisms of action of the biologicals in rheumatic diseases

Biological drugs targeting pro-inflammatory or co-stimulatory molecules or depleting lymphocyte subsets made a revolution in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Their comparable efficacy in clinical trials raised the point of the heterogeneity of RA pathogenesis, suggesting that we are dealing with a syndrome rather than with a single disease. Several tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) blockers are available, and a burning question is whether they are biosimilar or not. The evidence of diverse biological effects in vitro is in line with the fact that a lack of efficacy to one TNF-α agent does not imply a non-response to another one. As proteins, biologicals are potentially immunogenic. It has been recently raised that anti-drug antibodies (ADA) may affect their bioavailability and eventually the clinical efficacy through local formation of immune complexes and directly by preventing the interaction between the drug and TNF-α. Regular monitoring of drug and ADA levels appears the best way to tailor anti-TNF-α therapies. Owing to the pleiotropic characteristics of the target, anti-TNF-α blockers may affect several mechanisms beyond rheumatoid synovitis. As TNF-α plays a pivotal role in the induction of early atherosclerosis, treatment with TNF-inhibitors may modulate cholesterol handling, in particular, cholesterol efflux from macrophages. Side effects are a major issue because of the systemic TNF-α blocking action. The efficacy of an anti-C5 monoclonal antibody fused to a peptide targeting inflamed synovia in experimental arthritis opened the way for new strategies: Homing to the synovium of molecules neutralizing TNF would allow to maximize the therapeutic action avoiding the side effects.

Risk of infection with biologic antirheumatic therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

There are currently 10 licensed biologic therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in 2014. In this article, we review the risk of serious infection (SI) for biologic therapies. This risk has been closely studied over the last 15 years within randomised controlled trials, long-term extension studies and observational drug registers, especially for the first three antitumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs, namely infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. The risk of SI with the newer biologics rituximab, tocilizumab, abatacept and tofacitinib is also reviewed, although further data from long-term observational studies are awaited. Beyond all-site SI, we review the risk of tuberculosis, other opportunistic infections and herpes zoster, and the effect of screening on TB rates. Lastly, we review emerging opportunities for stratifying the risk. Patients can be risk-stratified based on both modifiable and non-modifiable patient characteristics such as age, co-morbidity, glucocorticoid use, functional status and recent previous SI.

Attainment and characteristics of clinical remission according to the new ACR-EULAR criteria in abatacept-treated patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: new analyses from the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE)

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated various remission criteria in abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX)-treated patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to investigate the time to, and sustainability of, remission, and to evaluate the relationship between remission, function and structure.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses were performed from the 12-month, double-blind period of the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) in patients with early RA (≤2 years) and poor prognostic factors, comparing abatacept plus MTX (n = 210) versus MTX alone (n = 209).

RESULTS

At month 12, Disease Activity Score 28, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index and Boolean remission rates were, for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX alone: 47.6 % versus 27.3 %, 33.3 % versus 12.4 %, 34.3 % versus 16.3 %, and 23.8 % versus 5.7 %, respectively. Cumulative probability demonstrated higher proportions achieving first remission and first sustained remission for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX alone (e.g., 23.3 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 17.6, 29.1] vs 12.9 % [8.4, 17.5] for first SDAI remission over 0-6 months). For patients in SDAI remission at month 3, mean Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index at month 12 was 0.20 versus 0.50 for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX alone. Mean changes in radiographic score from baseline to month 12 were minimal for patients in SDAI remission at month 3 in both groups, while less structural damage progression was seen, 0.75 versus 1.35, respectively, for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX alone for patients with moderate/high disease activity at month 3 (adjusted mean treatment difference: -0.60 [95 % CI: -1.11, -0.09; P < 0.05]).

CONCLUSIONS

High proportions of abatacept plus MTX-treated patients achieved stringent remission criteria. Remission was associated with long-term functional benefit; dissociation was seen between clinical and structural outcomes for abatacept. These findings highlight the impact of reaching stringent remission targets early, on physical function and structural damage, in MTX-naïve biologic-treated patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00122382. Registered 19 July 2005.

The optimal combination therapy for the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory autoimmune condition traditionally viewed as a severe destructive disease affecting physical health and global wellbeing. The treatment strategies for RA have changed in the last decades from mainly symptomatic towards a more vigorous and targeted approach.

AREA COVERED

Reviewing recent literature enhanced by own expertise and research, a case is made for starting early with an intensive combination treatment with glucocorticoids, followed by a treat to target approach in a tight control setting. Implementation issues that need to be addressed to make optimal use of the 'window of opportunity' are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

There is strong evidence in favor of traditional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) combined with a remission induction scheme of glucocorticoids to achieve adequate efficacy in controlling early rheumatoid arthritis with good safety and feasibility in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the most optimal RA treatment should address not only the physician-oriented clinical disease outcomes but also the patient perspective. There is still a need for working on improving implementation of this approach in daily practice in order to provide optimal treatment benefit to more patients.

Concomitant methotrexate and tacrolimus augment the clinical response to abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with a prior history of biological DMARD use

This observational retrospective study examined whether abatacept efficacy could be augmented with concomitant methotrexate (MTX) or tacrolimus (TAC) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who experienced failure with prior biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and in whom favorable therapeutic efficacy is difficult to achieve. All patients with a prior biological DMARD history who were treated with abatacept for 52 weeks and registered in a Japanese multicentre registry were included. Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept according to the concomitant drug used, i.e., none (ABT-mono), MTX (ABT-MTX), and TAC (ABT-TAC), were compared. A greater mean percent change of DAS28-ESR was observed in the ABT-TAC group compared with the ABT-mono group at weeks 12 (-20.5 vs. -5.4 %, p = 0.035) and 24 (-25.0 vs. -11.0 %, p = 0.036). ABT-MTX and ABT-TAC groups had a significantly higher proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) within 52 weeks compared with the respective baselines, while no significant change was observed in the ABT-mono group. A higher proportion of patients in the ABT-TAC group achieved EULAR moderate response compared with the ABT-mono group at week 52 (66.7 vs. 35.0 %, p = 0.025). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that concomitant TAC use was independently associated with the achievement of LDA and EULAR response at 52 weeks, while concomitant MTX use was not. Concomitant TAC use may offer a suitable option for RA patients treated with abatacept after prior biological DMARD failure, likely because both abatacept and TAC affect T cell activation.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and methotrexate in combination with abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis; a retrospective observational study in the TBC Registry

OBJECTIVES

Tacrolimus (TAC) and abatacept (ABT) inhibit T-cells via different mechanisms and, in combination, may be effective against rheumatoid arthritis. However, they may also disrupt normal immune functions. We compared the efficacy and safety of ABT administered to patients in combination with TAC, methotrexate (MTX), or other drugs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multicenter study conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ABT in 211 patients: the drug was administered together with TAC (ABT+ TAC group; 22 patients), MTX (ABT+ MTX group; 102 patients), or patients treated without concomitant MTX or TAC (ABT mono group; 87 patients). The disease activity, treatment continuation rate, and reason for discontinuation of treatment were investigated.

RESULTS

The retention rate at Week 24 was similar in the three groups. There were no cases of discontinuation related to the appearance of adverse events in the ABT+ TAC group. At Week 24, according to the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria, the "good" response rates were 33.3%, 13.4%, and 13.4% in the ABT+ TAC, ABT+ MTX, and ABT mono groups, respectively. Statistically significant decreases in various disease activity scores/indices were observed in all the groups as early as Week 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample size was small, the results of this retrospective study suggest that the ABT+ TAC combination therapy has at least comparable safety and efficacy to those of the ABT+ MTX combination, and that it can thus be a useful option for patients who cannot take MTX.

Why is there persistent disease despite biologic therapy? Importance of early intervention

This short article hypothesizes that the major reason for persistent disease despite biologic therapy is the inappropriately late timing of therapy with biologic agents. There is clear evidence to support this hypothesis. This short review will indicate that patients treated at an earlier phase of disease can achieve a clinical remission rate of 70% and a response rate of above 95%.

Longterm Efficacy and Safety of Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated in Routine Clinical Practice: Effect of Concomitant Methotrexate after 24 Weeks

Objective.

Our study aimed to evaluate the longterm efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA), and to explore factors that increase its longterm efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated in routine clinical practice.

Methods.

There were 231 participants with RA treated with ABA who were prospectively registered in a Japanese multicenter registry. They were followed up for at least 52 weeks.

Results.

Mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, mean disease duration was 12.1 years, mean 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)-C-reactive protein was 4.49, and 48.5% of patients were concomitantly treated with methotrexate (MTX). Overall retention rate of ABA was 77.1% at 52 weeks; 14.8% of patients discontinued because of inadequate response and 3.5% because of adverse events. The proportion of patients achieving DAS28-defined low disease activity (LDA) significantly increased from baseline to 52 weeks (7.3% to 43.8%, p < 0.01); 40.9% of patients who did not achieve LDA at 24 weeks had more than 1 categorical improvement in DAS28-defined disease activity at 52 weeks. Multivariate logistic regression revealed concomitant MTX use to be an independent predictor of the categorical improvement in DAS28-defined disease activity from 24 to 52 weeks (adjusted OR 3.124, p = 0.010).

Conclusion.

In routine clinical practice, ABA demonstrated satisfactory clinical efficacy and safety in patients with established RA for 52 weeks. The clinical efficacy of ABA increased with time even after 24 weeks, and this was strongly influenced by concomitant MTX use. Our study provides valuable real-world findings on the longterm management of RA with ABA.

Effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of subcutaneous methotrexate in early rheumatoid arthritis: A retrospective analysis of real-world data from the St. Gallen cohort

INTRODUCTION

Methotrexate (MTX) is the cornerstone of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. Recently updated recommendations by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) show MTX as an important part of the first-line strategy in patients with active RA. The study presented here aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of subcutaneous (SC) MTX among patients with RA.

METHODS

Patients with RA who were naïve at baseline to both conventional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology/EULAR 2010 criteria, and had one or more follow-up visits were selected through sequential chart review for analysis of retrospective data. Patients received SC MTX at varying doses (10-25mg per week). The primary end point was a change in the Disease Activity Score including 28 joints (DAS28); secondary end points included time to employment of the first biologic agent and cumulative MTX doses.

RESULTS

Overall, 70 patients were in follow-up for a mean of 1.8 years after initiating SC MTX treatment. During this time, 37 (53%) remained on SC MTX without any biologics (MTX-only) and 33 (47%) required the addition of a biologic therapy (MTX-biol). Biologic therapy was required after a mean ± SD of 387 ± 404 days. Mean weekly MTX doses were 17.4mg for patients in the MTX-only group and 19.1mg for patients in the MTX-biol group. Mean baseline DAS28 were similar for patients in the MTX-biol and MTX-only groups (4.9 and 4.7, respectively). Both low disease activity state (LDAS) and remission were achieved by slightly fewer patients in the MTX-biol than MTX-only groups (LDAS, 78.8% vs 81.1%; remission, 69.7% vs 75.7%). Over the full course of the study period, SC MTX was discontinued in 32 patients (46%). Among those who discontinued, the most common reasons were gastrointestinal discomfort (n = 7), lack of efficacy (n = 7), and disease remission (n = 3). Severe infections occurred in 3 patients in the MTX-biol group and 3 patients in the MTX-only group.

CONCLUSIONS

SC MTX is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with RA. SC MTX resulted in high rates of remission and LDAS in early disease, over prolonged periods of time, it, therefore, may extend the time before patients require initiation of biologic therapy.

Rheumatoid arthritis therapy reappraisal: strategies, opportunities and challenges

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered a chronic disease that cannot be cured. Biologic agents have enabled good therapeutic successes; however, the response to biologic therapy depends on treatment history and, especially, disease duration. In general, the more drug-experienced the patients, the lower the response rates, although this limitation can be overcome by promptly adjusting or switching treatment in a treat-to-target approach. Another challenge is the question of how long therapy should be continued once the treatment target, which should be remission or at least a state of low disease activity, has been reached. The data available suggest that, in most patients with established disease, cessation of biologic therapy will be followed by disease flares, whereas a reduction of dose or an increase in the interval between doses enables maintenance of treatment success. Induction therapy very early in the disease course followed by withdrawal of the biologic agent might also be a feasible approach to attain sustained good outcomes, but currently available data are not strong enough to allow for such a conclusion to be reached. Taken together, this underscores the importance of research into the cause(s) of RA so that curative therapies can be developed.

The impact of C677T and A1298C MTHFR polymorphisms on methotrexate therapeutic response in East Bohemian region rheumatoid arthritis patients

Some single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) might be predictive of methotrexate (MTX) therapeutic outcome in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to determine whether SNPs in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene are predictive of MTX response. Comparison was made using EULAR response criteria and according to the change of DAS28 (∆DAS28) after a 6-month MTX treatment in RA patient cohort. The two SNPs C677T (rs1801133) and A1298C (rs1801131) have been genotyped. A total of 120 patients were enrolled in the study, and all of them fulfilled the American College of Rheumatology 1987 RA criteria and are currently or previously taking MTX oral treatment, either as a monotherapy (n = 65) or in a combination with other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (n = 55). Genotyping was performed using qPCR allelic discrimination. We did not found any association of C677T and A1298C genotypes with MTX treatment inefficacy in dominant model (OR 1.23, 95 % CI 0.57-2.65, P = 0.697; and OR 0.98, 95 % CI 0.47-2.14, P = 1.0, respectively), or in recessive and codominant models. However, when ∆DAS28 after a 6-month therapy was used as a measure of treatment efficacy, the 677CT and 1298AC genotypes were found to be significantly associated with less favorable response to MTX (P = 0.025 and P = 0.043, respectively). In addition, even lower ∆DAS28 was determined for double-mutated 677CT-1298AC heterozygotes. It means that a synergistic effect of 677CT and 1298AC genotypes was observed. Nevertheless, the DAS28 baseline was lower here comparing to other genotypes. Unexpectedly, quite the opposite trend-i.e., better response to MTX-was found in genotypes 677CC-1298CC and 677TT-1298AA. It is an intriguing finding, because these double-mutated homozygotes are known for their low MTHFR-specific activity. Global significance was P = 0.013, η (2) = 0.160-i.e., large-size effect. Thus, our data show greater ability of 677CC-1298CC and 677TT-1298AA genotypes to respond to MTX treatment.

Maintenance of remission following 2 years of standard treatment then dose reduction with abatacept in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognosis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate maintenance of response while reducing intravenous abatacept dose from ~10 mg/kg to ~5 mg/kg in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease activity score (DAS)28 (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ESR) <2.6.

METHODS

This 1-year, multinational, randomised, double-blind substudy evaluated the efficacy and safety of ~10 mg/kg and ~5 mg/kg abatacept in patients with early RA with poor prognosis who had reached DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 at year 2 of the AGREE study. The primary outcome was time to disease relapse (defined as additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ≥2 courses high-dose steroids, return to open-label abatacept ~10 mg/kg, or DAS28 (C reactive protein) ≥3.2 at two consecutive visits).

RESULTS

108 patients were randomised (~10 mg/kg, n=58; ~5 mg/kg, n=50). Three and five patients, respectively, discontinued, and four per group returned to open-label abatacept. Relapse over time and the proportion of patients relapsing were similar in both groups (31% (~10 mg/kg) vs 34% (~5 mg/kg); HR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.69)). Mean steady-state trough serum concentration for the ~10 mg/kg group was 20.3-24.1 µg/mL, compared with 8.8-12.0 µg/mL for the ~5 mg/kg group.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study suggests that abatacept dose reduction may be an option in patients with poor prognosis early RA who achieve DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 after ≥1 year on abatacept (~10 mg/kg).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00989235.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous formulation of abatacept: a single-center Italian experience on efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVE

Subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) is comparable to intravenous (IV) formulation in terms of efficacy and safety profile. Our work analyzed the switch to SC formulation from IV administration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients treated with SC ABA were included. Clinical data were obtained from clinical charts.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients relapsed and needed to return to the IV administration. Neither clinical and laboratory features nor the previous therapies were identified as risk factors for SC formulation inefficacy. Disease activity decreased after the return to IV infusions.

CONCLUSION

SC ABA showed a risk of relapse in 27% of cases. The reinsertion of the IV administration quickly reinstated disease control.

Can the painDETECT Questionnaire score and MRI help predict treatment outcome in rheumatoid arthritis: protocol for the Frederiksberg hospital's Rheumatoid Arthritis, pain assessment and Medical Evaluation (FRAME-cohort) study

INTRODUCTION

Pain in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is traditionally considered to be of inflammatory origin. Despite better control of inflammation, some patients still report pain as a significant concern, even when being in clinical remission. This suggests that RA may prompt central sensitisation-one aspect of chronic pain. In contrast, other patients report good treatment response, although imaging shows signs of inflammation, which could indicate a possible enhancement of descending pain inhibitory mechanisms. When assessing disease activity in patients with central sensitisation, the commonly used disease activity scores (eg, DAS28-CRP (C reactive protein)) will yield constant high total scores due to high tender joint count and global health assessments, whereas MRI provides an isolated estimate of inflammation. The objective of this study is, in patients with RA initiating anti-inflammatory treatment, to explore the prognostic value of a screening questionnaire for central sensitisation, hand inflammation assessed by conventional MRI, and the interaction between them regarding treatment outcome evaluated by clinical status (DAS28-CRP). For the purpose of further exploratory analyses, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is performed.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

The painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ), originally developed to screen for a neuropathic pain component, is applied to indicate the presence of central sensitisation. Adults diagnosed with RA are included when either (A) initiating disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment, or (B) initiating or switching to biological therapy. We anticipate that 100 patients will be enrolled, tested and reassessed after 4 months of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION INCLUDES

Clinical data, conventional MRI, DCE-MRI, blood samples and patient-reported outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study aims at supporting rheumatologists to define strategies to reach optimal treatment outcomes in patients with RA based on chronic pain prognostics. The study has been approved by The Capital region of Denmark's Ethics Committee; identification number H-3-2013-049. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals.

Evaluating drug-free remission with abatacept in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the phase 3b, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled AVERT study of 24 months, with a 12-month, double-blind treatment period

Objectives

To evaluate clinical remission with subcutaneous abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) and abatacept monotherapy at 12 months in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and maintenance of remission following the rapid withdrawal of all RA treatment.

Methods

In the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment phase 3b trial, patients with early active RA were randomised to double-blind, weekly, subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg plus MTX, abatacept 125 mg monotherapy, or MTX for 12 months. Patients with low disease activity (Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 (C reactive protein (CRP)) <3.2) at month 12 entered a 12-month period of withdrawal of all RA therapy. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients with DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 at month 12 and both months 12 and 18, for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX.

Results

Patients had <2 years of RA symptoms, DAS28 (CRP) ≥3.2, anticitrullinated peptide-2 antibody positivity and 95.2% were rheumatoid factor positive. For abatacept plus MTX versus MTX, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 was achieved in 60.9% versus 45.2% (p=0.010) at 12 months, and following treatment withdrawal, in 14.8% versus 7.8% (p=0.045) at both 12 and 18 months. DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 was achieved for abatacept monotherapy in 42.5% (month 12) and 12.4% (both months 12 and 18). Both abatacept arms had a safety profile comparable with MTX alone.

Conclusions

Abatacept plus MTX demonstrated robust efficacy compared with MTX alone in early RA, with a good safety profile. The achievement of sustained remission following withdrawal of all RA therapy suggests an effect of abatacept's mechanism on autoimmune processes.

Trial registration number

NCT01142726.

Are sample sizes of randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis too large?

OBJECTIVE

We had the impression that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) frequently over enrolled patients. Thus, we surveyed power calculations in publications of RCTs of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to assess over enrollment.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 40 reports of original RCTs testing the efficacy of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in patients with RA. As a first analysis, based on a two equal arms study with an alpha error of 0·05 and a power of 80% and of 90%, recalculation of the sample size was performed using the primary outcome results. In the second analysis, only those studies with equal number of patients in both arms and also in which all elements of a power calculation were given, were considered. New sample sizes were calculated based on the presented power elements in the related publications.

RESULTS

In the first analysis, when we assigned a power of 80% and of 90%, 32 of 40 (80%) studies enrolled more than required number of patients, with a mean 131 ± 147 (SD), and 31 of 40 (78%) studies having had enrolled extra patients, with a mean 121 ± 147 (SD) in their treatment arms, respectively. Eleven studies qualified for the second analysis. There were still more patients with a mean of 48 ± 30 (SD) extra patients enrolled in the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs in RA enrol more patients than needed. This is costly and has the immediate consequence of exposing needless number of patients to potential harm.

Experience with subcutaneous abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: an update for clinicians

Abatacept is recommended by several expert consensus groups including the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), as a potential choice for biologic therapy for patients with RA. Initially developed, studied, and approved as an intravenous (IV) formulation, abatacept is now also available as a subcutaneous (SC) injection. Having both options available makes abatacept a particularly versatile agent for the management of RA, greatly expanding the population of patients who could benefit from this treatment. This review provides a summary of the most important clinical trials that have investigated this molecule in both of its formulations, with a focus on the more recent trials evaluating the SC formulation, specifically the AMPLE study, the first major trial evaluating two biologic agents (abatacept and the tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitor adalimumab) in a head-to-head manner. In that study, SC abatacept was found to have an efficacy profile similar to that of SC adalimumab, both in combination with methotrexate.

Effect of combination therapy on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods and Findings

The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989–2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.42, −0.22); triple DMARD: −0.46 SMD (CI: −0.60, −0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: −0.30 SMD (CI: −0.36, −0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: −0.20 SMD (CI: −0.33, −0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: −0.34 SMD (CI: −0.48, −0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.40, −0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (−0.26 SMD (CI: −0.45, −0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (−0.16 SMD (CI: −0.31, −0.01)).

Conclusion

Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2–3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept for patients with Sjögren's syndrome associated with rheumatoid arthritis: rheumatoid arthritis with orencia trial toward Sjögren's syndrome Endocrinopathy (ROSE) trial-an open-label, one-year, prospective study-Interim analysis of 32 patients for 24 weeks

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept for secondary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

The primary endpoint of this 1-year, open-labeled, prospective, observational multicenter study of RA-associated secondary SS was the rate of SDAI remission at 52 weeks after initiation of abatacept therapy. The secondary endpoints included that of Saxson's test and Schirmer's test. Adverse events during the study period were also analyzed.

Results

Thirty-two patients (all females) were enrolled in this study. Interim analysis at 24 weeks included assessment of efficacy (n = 31) and safety (n = 32). The mean SDAI decreased from 19.8 ± 11.0 (± SD) at baseline to 9.9 ± 9.9 at 24 weeks (P < 0.05). Patients with clinical remission, as assessed by SDAI, increased from 0 patient (0 week) to 8 patients (25.8%) at 24 weeks. Saliva volume (assessed by Saxson's test) increased slightly from 2232 ± 1908 (0 week) to 2424 ± 2004 (24 weeks) mg/2 min (n = 29). In 11 patients with Greenspan grading 1/2 of labial salivary glands biopsy, saliva volume increased from 2945 ± 2090 (0 week) to 3419 ± 2121 (24 weeks) mg/2 min (P < 0.05). Schirmer's test for tear volume showed increase from 3.6 ± 4.6 (0 week) to 5.5 ± 7.1 (24 weeks) mm/5 min (n = 25; P < 0.05). Five adverse events occurred in five of 32 patients (15.6%), and three of these events were infections.

Conclusion

Abatacept seems to be effective for both RA and RA-related secondary SS.

Methotrexate for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the biologic era: still an "anchor" drug?

The improvement of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management has been strictly related to methotrexate (MTX) long-term effectiveness, safety profile and its widespread use in clinical practice over the last decades. According to the results of several head-to-head comparative trials against other synthetic DMARDs, MTX has been recognised as the "anchor drug" for the treatment of RA at the end of the 1990s. The subsequent increasing knowledge in the area of RA pathophysiology has progressively expanded the arsenal of available therapeutic tools, especially by the introduction of novel drugs such as biological DMARDs. The introduction of therapies targeted to key molecules and cells involved in RA pathogenesis has significantly changed the strategies for disease management, possibly modifying the key role of MTX. This review first analyses data supporting the evolution of MTX towards the role of "anchor drug" for RA in the pre-biologic era. We will then examine how the introduction and progressive spreading of biological agents could have modified the central role of MTX in the approach to RA.

Abatacept inhibits radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis of 6 months of abatacept treatment in routine clinical practice. The ALTAIR study

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives in this study were to determine the inhibitory effects of abatacept on joint damage and its clinical efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Fifty Japanese patients with RA were treated with abatacept for 24 weeks in routine clinical practice.

RESULTS

At week 24, 20 % of patients achieved clinical remission [Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤3.3], whereas 50 % were in remission or had a low disease activity. Structural remission [progression of modified total Sharp score (ΔmTSS) ≤0.5] was achieved in 76 % of patients. The ΔmTSS decreased significantly from 7.1 ± 7.3 at baseline to 1.8 ± 5.7 at week 24. C-reactive protein (CRP) was the only independent prognostic factor for joint damage progression at week 24, whereas SDAI and matrix metalloproteinase-3 levels were not. A very high proportion of patients with CRP levels <1.5 mg/dl (88 %) achieved structural remission. In terms of safety, the retention rate for all patients was favorable (80 %), and stomatitis was the only adverse event observed. No patient withdrew from the study because of infections.

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept has favorable clinical and structural effects, inhibits radiographic progression, and has a good safety profile in routine clinical practice.

Tofacitinib versus methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Methotrexate is the most frequently used first-line antirheumatic drug. We report the findings of a phase 3 study of monotherapy with tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, as compared with methotrexate monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 958 patients to receive 5 mg or 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily or methotrexate at a dose that was incrementally increased to 20 mg per week over 8 weeks; 956 patients received a study drug. The coprimary end points at month 6 were the mean change from baseline in the van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (which ranges from 0 to 448, with higher scores indicating greater structural joint damage) and the proportion of patients with an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 70 response (≥70% reduction in the number of both tender and swollen joints and ≥70% improvement in three of five other criteria: the patient's assessment of pain, level of disability, C-reactive protein level or erythrocyte sedimentation rate, global assessment of disease by the patient, and global assessment of disease by the physician).

RESULTS

Mean changes in the modified total Sharp score from baseline to month 6 were significantly smaller in the tofacitinib groups than in the methotrexate group, but changes were modest in all three groups (0.2 points in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and <0.1 point in the 10-mg tofacitinib group, as compared with 0.8 points in the methotrexate group [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). Among the patients receiving tofacitinib, 25.5% in the 5-mg group and 37.7% in the 10-mg group had an ACR 70 response at month 6, as compared with 12.0% of patients in the methotrexate group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Herpes zoster developed in 31 of 770 patients who received tofacitinib (4.0%) and in 2 of 186 patients who received methotrexate (1.1%). Confirmed cases of cancer (including three cases of lymphoma) developed in 5 patients who received tofacitinib and in 1 patient who received methotrexate. Tofacitinib was associated with increases in creatinine levels and in low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who had not previously received methotrexate or therapeutic doses of methotrexate, tofacitinib monotherapy was superior to methotrexate in reducing signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage. The benefits of tofacitinib need to be considered in the context of the risks of adverse events. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Start ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01039688.).

CD45RA-Foxp3(low) non-regulatory T cells in the CCR7-CD45RA-CD27+CD28+ effector memory subset are increased in synovial fluid from patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Increased numbers of regulatory T (Treg) cells are found in synovial fluid from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RASF) compared with peripheral blood. However, Treg cells in RASF have been shown to have a decreased capacity to suppress T cells. Here we phenotypically classified CD4+ T cells in RASF into six subsets based on the expression of CD45RA, CCR7, CD27 and CD28, and demonstrated that the CCR7-CD45RA-CD27+CD28+ TEM subset was significantly increased in synovial fluid compared with peripheral blood. In addition, the proportion of Foxp3+ Treg cells in the CCR7-CD45RA-CD27+CD28+ TEM subset was significantly increased in RASF. Furthermore, most of the Foxp3+ Treg cells in RASF were non-suppressive CD45RA-Foxp3(low) non-Treg cells, and the frequency of the non-Treg cells in the CCR7-CD45RA-CD27+CD28+ TEM subset was significantly increased in RASF. Our findings suggest that the pro-inflammatory environment in RA joints may induce the increase of CD45RA-Foxp3(low) non-Treg cells in synovial fluid.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept in lupus nephritis: a twelve-month, randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) abatacept, a selective T cell costimulation modulator, versus placebo for the treatment of active class III or IV lupus nephritis, when used on a background of mycophenolate mofetil and glucocorticoids.

METHODS

This was a 12-month, randomized, phase II/III, multicenter, international, double-blind study. A total of 298 patients were treated in 1 of 3 IV treatment arms: placebo, abatacept at the standard weight-tiered dose (approximating 10 mg/kg), or abatacept at 30 mg/kg for 3 months, followed by the standard weight-tiered dose (abatacept 30/10). The primary end point, time to confirmed complete response, was a composite measure that required maintenance of glomerular filtration rate, minimal proteinuria, and inactive urinary sediment over the 52-week treatment period.

RESULTS

There were no differences among treatment arms in the time to confirmed complete response or in the proportion of subjects with confirmed complete response following 52 weeks of treatment. Treatment with abatacept was associated with greater improvements from baseline in anti-double-stranded DNA antibody, C3, and C4 levels. Among 122 patients with nephrotic-range proteinuria, treatment with abatacept resulted in an ∼20-30% greater reduction in mean urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio compared with placebo. Abatacept was well tolerated; rates of deaths, serious adverse events, and serious infections were similar across treatment arms. Gastroenteritis and herpes zoster occurred more frequently with abatacept treatment.

CONCLUSION

Although the primary end point was not met, abatacept showed evidence of biologic activity and was well tolerated in patients with active class III or IV lupus nephritis.

Comparative clinical utility of once-weekly subcutaneous abatacept in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

Biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis are now part of standard practice for disease that proves difficult to control with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. While anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies have been commonly used, other targeted biologic therapies with different mechanisms of action are becoming increasingly available. Abatacept is a recombinant fusion protein that inhibits the T-cell costimulatory molecules required for T-cell activation. Intravenous abatacept has good clinical efficacy with an acceptably low toxicity profile in rheumatoid arthritis, but the subcutaneous mode of delivery has only recently become available. In this article, we examine key efficacy and safety data for subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis, incorporating evidence from five large Phase III studies that included people with an inadequate response to methotrexate and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. The results demonstrate that subcutaneous abatacept has efficacy and safety comparable with that of intravenous abatacept and adalimumab. In addition, inhibition of radiographic progression at year 1 in relatively early rheumatoid arthritis is consistent with that of adalimumab. Subcutaneous abatacept is well tolerated, with very low rates of discontinuation in both short-term and long-term follow-up.

Efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar compared to other biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab.

METHODS

A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals.

RESULTS

Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95% CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95% CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95% CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95% CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95% CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95% CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95% CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments.

CONCLUSION

This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.

Treatment comparison in rheumatoid arthritis: head-to-head trials and innovative study designs

Over the last decades, the increasing knowledge in the area of rheumatoid arthritis has progressively expanded the arsenal of available drugs, especially with the introduction of novel targeted therapies such as biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In this situation, rheumatologists are offered a wide range of treatment options, but on the other side the need for comparisons between available drugs becomes more and more crucial in order to better define the strategies for the choice and the optimal sequencing. Indirect comparisons or meta-analyses of data coming from different randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not immune to conceptual and technical challenges and often provide inconsistent results. In this review we examine some of the possible evolutions of traditional RCTs, such as the inclusion of active comparators, aimed at individualising treatments in real-life conditions. Although head-to-head RCTs may be considered the best tool to directly compare the efficacy and safety of two different DMARDs, surprisingly only 20 studies with such design have been published in the last 25 years. Given the recent advent of the first RCTs truly comparing biological DMARDs, we also review the state of the art of head-to-head trials in RA.

Efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of abatacept administered subcutaneously or intravenously in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: a Phase II/III, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept and background methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).

METHODS

Double-dummy, double-blind study (NCT01001832); 118 adults with ≥ 10 swollen joints, ≥ 12 tender joints and C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 0.8 mg/dL randomized 1:1 to SC abatacept (125 mg weekly) with IV loading (∼10 mg/kg on Day 1), or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg monthly) for 169 days, both also receiving MTX (6-8 mg/week). Primary endpoint was Day 169 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response; other efficacy endpoints, safety and immunogenicity were assessed.

RESULTS

Similar proportions of patients achieved ACR20 responses at Day 169 with SC (91.5% [95% CI 81.3, 97.2]) and IV abatacept (83.1% [71.0, 91.6]). ACR50/70 responses, adjusted mean changes from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores and remission rates (28-joint Disease Activity Score [CRP] < 2.6) were also comparable between groups. Serious adverse event frequencies (5.1% vs. 3.4%) were similar with both formulations. One patient per group tested seropositive for immunogenicity. Weekly SC abatacept dosing achieved mean serum concentrations > 10 μg/mL (minimum therapeutic target).

CONCLUSIONS

SC abatacept demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity rates, in MTX-IR Japanese patients with RA.

Update on the use of abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Abatacept is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including methotrexate or a TNF antagonist, and can be used either as monotherapy or concomitantly with nonbiologic DMARDs. It can be administered either intravenously or subcutaneously. It has demonstrated to improve signs and symptoms of RA, physical function and health-related quality of life, and it inhibits radiographic progression of structural damage across a wide range of early and long-standing RA populations. The safety profile appears good and close to RA patients treated with nonbiologic DMARDs. Meta-analysis and real-world studies support these findings. This article reviews published data on clinical and radiographic efficacy as well as the safety of this drug, incorporating recent relevant information reported at scientific meetings.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update

In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

A critical evaluation of the role of subcutaneous abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: patient considerations

There are now more therapeutic options for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than ever before, involving a range of mechanisms of action and different routes of administration. The T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept is the first biologic therapy for RA to be available in both subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) formulations. This review evaluates the utility of SC abatacept, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcomes, including physical function, pain, fatigue, and quality of life. Practical questions relating to the clinical use of SC abatacept are also addressed, including the relevance of abatacept’s mechanism of action; whether IV and SC abatacept are comparable; if patients can easily switch from IV to SC abatacept; whether an IV loading dose is needed; and if temporary treatment interruptions or lack of concomitant methotrexate can affect efficacy or safety. Topics that are of particular concern to patients when using SC biologics, such as injection-site reactions, are also discussed. Observational data from registries and meta-analyses of clinical studies suggest comparable clinical efficacy between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs; however, such analyses rarely focus on key determinants of patient quality of life such as pain, fatigue, and physical function. The head-to-head AMPLE study is one of the first studies powered to directly compare two biologics in patients with RA. Patient-reported outcomes from year 1 of the ongoing study are evaluated, demonstrating comparable improvements in physical function, pain, fatigue, Short Form-36 Health Survey, and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 scores between SC abatacept and SC adalimumab when administered with concomitant methotrexate. In summary, the data presented herein show that the SC formulation of abatacept provides a valuable addition to the range of available therapy options for patients with RA, capable of significantly improving key patient considerations such as pain, disability, loss of function, fatigue, and quality of life.

Radiological outcomes in randomized controlled trials on biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: a narrative review

Several scores are currently used to estimate the radiologic progression of patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis. Modified Sharp score, Genant-modified Sharp score and van der Heijde-modified Sharp score are actually the most commonly used scores in randomized controlled trials on biologic drugs actually available in scientific literature. An intensive literature search (EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE) was performed in order to identify randomized controlled studies reporting on the efficacy of biologic drugs on radiologic progression in rheumatoid arthritis by means of approved scoring methods such as Sharp score variants. All studies were evaluated for their approach to radiologic outcome, and a global evaluation of trends towards radiologic evaluation was performed. Eighteen studies were identified and analyzed, and data from such randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reported and described regarding their approach to radiologic outcomes. The use of three different scoring methodologies generated similar but non-comparable data; although a big part of the studies reported good efficacy profiles of several biologic drugs on radiologic progression, data from such studies are not comparable as the three different scoring methods are not convertible from one to another. At present, there is no standardization for the evaluation of radiologic outcomes, thus preventing comparison of results obtained by different drugs. The use of a single, standardized and widely approved scoring method would grant the possibility of comparing such data.

Early start and stop of biologics: has the time come?

Despite considerable advances in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, results are still not satisfactory for all patients. The treatment goal in rheumatoid arthritis is remission, and there currently are numerous conventional and biological medications available to reach this aim. There are also different treatment strategies but with only limited comparative evidence about their efficacies. More patients now achieve remission while on treatment, but it remains elusive in the majority of patients. Treatment-free remission, the ultimate goal of therapy, is only achieved in very few patients; even when this happens, it is most likely due to the natural course of the disease rather than to any specific therapies. Modern treatment is based on the initiation of aggressive therapy as soon as the diagnosis is established, and on modifying or intensifying therapy guided by frequent assessment of disease activity. In this commentary we will discuss the current treatment paradigm as well as the possibility of an induction-maintenance regimen with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis.

Abatacept: a review of its use in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug abatacept (Orencia) has a novel mechanism of action; its activity is mediated via the selective modulation of T cell co-stimulation. This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of intravenous and subcutaneous abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and intravenous abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), as well as summarizing its pharmacological properties. In patients with RA, the beneficial effects of intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept on signs and symptoms, disease activity, the progression of structural damage, physical function and/or health-related quality of life were seen in a number of well-designed trials, including in methotrexate-naive patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors and in patients with established RA and an inadequate response to either methotrexate or anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Subcutaneous abatacept plus methotrexate was also noninferior to subcutaneous adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with active RA who were naive to biological therapy and had an inadequate response to methotrexate. In paediatric patients with JIA, intravenous abatacept improved signs and symptoms and delayed the time to flare. Abatacept was generally well tolerated in RA and JIA and was associated with low rates of immunogenicity. In conclusion, abatacept is an important option for use in the treatment of RA and JIA.

Clinical efficacy of abatacept compared to adalimumab and tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with high disease activity

Favourable clinical results in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity (HDA) are difficult to achieve. This study evaluated the clinical efficacy of abatacept according to baseline disease activity compared to adalimumab and tocilizumab. This study included all patients registered in a Japanese multicenter registry treated with abatacept (n = 214), adalimumab (n = 175), or tocilizumab (n = 143) for 24 weeks. Clinical efficacy of abatacept in patients with HDA (DAS28-CRP > 4.1) and low and moderate disease activity was compared. Clinical efficacy of abatacept, adalimumab, and tocilizumab was compared in patients with HDA at baseline. In patients treated with abatacept, multivariate logistic regression identified HDA at baseline as an independent predictor for achieving low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-CRP < 2.7) [OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.14-0.50] or remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.3) [OR 0.26, 95 % CI 0.12-0.56] at 24 weeks. In patients with HDA at baseline, logistic regression did not identify treatment with adalimumab or tocilizumab as independent predictors of LDA or remission compared to abatacept. Retention rates based on insufficient efficacy were significantly higher in patients treated with abatacept compared to adalimumab and lower than tocilizumab. Retention rates based on adverse events in patients treated with abatacept were significantly lower compared to tocilizumab. Clinical efficacy of abatacept was affected by baseline disease activity. There were no significant differences between the three different classes of biologics regarding clinical efficacy for treating RA patients with HDA, although definitive conclusions regarding long-term efficacy will require further research.

Practice guidelines for the use of subcutaneous abatacept

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical evidence on subcutaneous (sc) abatacept and to formulate recommendations in order to clear up points related to its use in rheumatology.

METHOD

An expert panel of rheumatologists objectively summarized the evidence on the mechanism of action, practicality, effectiveness, and safety of abatacept sc and formulated recommendations after a literature review.

RESULTS

The efficacy and safety of abatacept sc was studied in 7 clinical trials, 3 double-blind, 3 open, and one mixed, with the following endpoints: comparison against abatacept iv, impact on immunogenicity, effect of replacing iv by sc, abatacept sc in monotherapy, and non-inferiority to adalimumab. No significant differences were found between sc and iv abatacept on efficacy or safety. The development of sc abatacept has allowed a complementary study to the iv, formulation, thus making the abatacept profile better defined.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a practical document to supplement the summary of product characteristics. In summary, abatacept sc is presented as an effective and safe drug and, therefore, as an alternative for use within the broad armamentarium the rheumatologist has to treat RA. It also has the advantage of being the only biological agent that can be administered iv and sc which can facilitate its use in certain patients.

Update of the Mexican College of Rheumatology guidelines for the pharmacologic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis has progressed substantially over the past years. It is therefore desirable that existing information be periodically updated. There are several published international guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis that hardly adapt to the Mexican health system because of its limited healthcare resources. Hence, it is imperative to unify the existing recommendations and to incorporate them to a set of clinical, updated recommendations; the Mexican College of Rheumatology developed these recommendations in order to offer an integral management approach of rheumatoid arthritis according to the resources of the Mexican health system.

OBJECTIVE

To review, update and improve the available evidence within clinical practice guidelines on the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis and produce a set of recommendations adapted to the Mexican health system, according to evidence available through December 2012.

METHODS

The working group was composed of 30 trained and experienced rheumatologists with a high quality of clinical knowledge and judgment. Recommendations were based on the highest quality evidence from the previously established treatment guidelines, meta-analysis and controlled clinical trials for the adult population with rheumatoid arthritis.

RESULTS

During the conformation of this document, each working group settled the existing evidence from the different topics according to their experience. Finally, all the evidence and decisions were unified into a single document, treatment algorithm and drug standardization tables.

CONCLUSIONS

This update of the Mexican Guidelines for the Pharmacologic Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis provides the highest quality information available at the time the working group undertook this review and contextualizes its use for the complex Mexican health system.

What is the best treatment strategy for early RA?

Treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis has to be started very early, when the diagnosis is made, preferentially before 6 months of symptoms. Combination therapy with conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with low-dose, oral glucocorticoids in the induction phase from the start gives the best results. The patient should be monitored systematically, at start between 1 and 3 months, and the patient should have access to additional visits if a flare or arthritis or adverse event occurs. The treatment should aim to remission (no tender and swollen joints, no signs of inflammatory activity), which can be reached by 60-80% of the patients. Intra-articular glucocorticoid injections as part of the treatment strategy increase the suppression of arthritis and retard joint destruction. Biological drugs are reserved for patients who have consistent active disease and who do not respond to conventional combinations.

Non-tumor necrosis factor-based biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: present, future, and insights into pathogenesis

The way rheumatoid arthritis is treated has changed dramatically with the introduction of anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologics. Nevertheless, many patients still have less than adequate control of their disease activity even with these therapeutic regimens, and current knowledge fails to explain all the data already gathered. There is now a wide range of drugs from different classes of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs available (and soon this number will increase significantly), that provides the opportunity to address each patient as a particular case and thereby optimize medical intervention. Currently available biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis apart from anti-TNF-based therapies are reviewed, along with an analysis of the new insights they provide into the pathogenesis of the disease and a discussion of future prospects in the area.