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

[Phase IV non-interventional studies in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologicals in Germany : real-life clinical practice data]

BACKGROUND

In contrast to the restrictive nature of randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-interventional studies (NIS) investigate the features of a therapy in daily clinical practice. The observational plan of NIS does not dictate a treatment strategy, but is based on the product label. Unlike RCT, NIS therefore have no actual inclusion and exclusion criteria, allowing the study of broad heterogeneous patient populations.

METHODS

NIS carried out in Germany with support from the pharmaceutical industry and investigating the use of biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis were identified and their findings were compared with those from the RCT of the respective biologic.

RESULTS

Analysis of the identified NIS revealed the following: (1) populations in NIS were on average more than twice as large as in RCT, (2) patient characteristics in NIS and RCT were different, (3) the effectiveness of biologics in NIS was comparable to the efficacy observed in RCT, and (4) NIS collected supplementary data, e.g. on usage and dosing in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

NIS represent an important tool for the assessment of daily clinical practice. Despite methodological drawbacks, NIS provide valuable data that contribute to a more complete picture of the value of treatment with biologics. The English version of this article is available at SpringerLink (under "Supplemental").

Efficacy of abatacept for arthritis in patients with an overlap syndrome between rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus

Introduction. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of abatacept for arthritis in patients with rhupus, an overlap syndrome between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods. Patients who fulfilled both the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria for RA classification and the 1997 ACR revised criteria for classification of SLE and received abatacept treatment for arthritis were retrospectively studied. Results. Six rhupus patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria above were identified. All patients had active arthritis despite receiving antirheumatic drugs including methotrexate when abatacept was initiated. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) significantly decreased between baseline and 12 weeks (P = 0.028) and remained low through 24 weeks. All patients achieved either a good or moderate response according to the EULAR response criteria at 24 weeks. Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) also significantly decreased between baseline and 24 weeks (P = 0.043). In addition, the levels of immunoglobulin G and anti-DNA antibody significantly decreased between baseline and 24 weeks (P = 0.028 and P = 0.043, resp.). Conclusions. Treatment with abatacept is likely to be efficacious in patients with rhupus whose arthritis is refractory to methotrexate. In addition, abatacept may have a moderate effect on abnormal antibody production in rhupus patients.

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: two-year efficacy and safety findings from AMPLE trial

Objectives

To compare over 2 years the safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

AMPLE is a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomised, investigator-blinded study with a 1-year primary endpoint. Biologic-naive patients with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomised to 125 mg abatacept weekly or 40 mg adalimumab bi-weekly, both with a stable dose of MTX.

Results

Of 646 patients randomised, 79.2% abatacept and 74.7% adalimumab patients completed year 2. At year 2, efficacy outcomes, including radiographic, remained comparable between groups and with year 1 results. The American College Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 responses at year 2 were 59.7%, 44.7% and 31.1% for abatacept and 60.1%, 46.6% and 29.3% for adalimumab. There were similar rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). More serious infections occurred with adalimumab (3.8% vs 5.8%) including two cases of tuberculosis with adalimumab. There were fewer discontinuations due to AEs (3.8% vs 9.5%), SAEs (1.6% vs 4.9%) and serious infections (0/12 vs 9/19 patients) in the abatacept group. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred less frequently with abatacept (4.1% vs 10.4%).

Conclusions

Through 2 years of blinded treatment in this first head-to-head study between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, subcutaneous abatacept and adalimumab were similarly efficacious based on clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes. Overall, AE frequency was similar in both groups but there were less discontinuations due to AEs, SAEs, serious infections and fewer local ISRs with abatacept.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier

NCT00929864.

CTLA4-Ig (abatacept) therapy modulates T cell effector functions in autoantibody-positive rheumatoid arthritis patients

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease with a strong MHC class II component and where many patients develop characteristic autoantibodies towards the noncoding amino acid citrulline. Such anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) have recently been put forward as an independent predictive factor for treatment response by co-stimulation blockade by CTLA4-Ig (abatacept). We have performed a mechanism of action study to dissect T cell functionality in RA patients with long-standing disease undergoing abatacept treatment and the influence of ACPA status.

Results

Peripheral blood samples were collected from RA patients as they started CTLA4-Ig treatment and 3 and 6 months later. A general decrease of regulatory T cell subsets was observed in the cohort. Additionally within the ACPA-positive group significant down-regulation of all key T cell effector subsets including Th1, Th2, and Th17 was observed by analyzing cytokines by intracellular flow cytometry and in cell culture supernatants.

RA synovial fluid samples were cultured in vitro in the presence or absence of CTLA4-Ig (abatacept). T cell cytokine production was diminished, but without increasing the functional capacity of CD4+CD25hi regulatory T cells as previously demonstrated in the context of TNF-blockade and anti-IL6R therapy.

Conclusions

Our immunological study of T cell functionality in RA patients, both ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative, starting biological therapy with the co-stimulation blockade abatacept (CTLA4-Ig) supports the recently published registry study implicating ACPA seropositivity as an independent predictive factor to treatment response as we observed the most striking effect on T cell subset modulation in ACPA-positive patients. These data further support the notion of RA as a disease with several sub-entities, where the ACPA-positive fraction represents a classical HLA-associated autoimmune disorder while ACPA-negative patients may have other driving forces apart from classical adaptive immune responses.

WITHDRAWN: Abatacept as a first-line biological therapy

The Publisher regrets that this article is an accidental duplication of an article that has already been published, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2013.06.008. The duplicate article has therefore been withdrawn.

Modulating the co-stimulatory signal for T cell activation in rheumatoid arthritis: could it be the first step of the treatment?

Advances in our understanding of the key mediators of chronic inflammation and tissue damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have fostered the development of targeted therapies and greatly expanded the available treatment options. Abatacept, a soluble human fusion protein that selectively modulates the co-stimulatory signal required for full T-cell activation, is approved for the treatment of moderate to severe RA in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. This review summarises the data on efficacy (disease activity, quality of life, prevention of structural damage) and safety from randomised clinical trials of abatacept plus methotrexate in patients with: i) active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate who are naïve to biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs; and ii) methotrexate-naïve early RA with poor prognostic factors. Novel imaging outcomes and biological changes induced by abatacept treatment are also briefly reviewed. Optimal use of abatacept as a first-line biological therapy is discussed in light of the current recommendations and guidelines.

Safety of abatacept administered intravenously in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analyses of up to 8 years of treatment from the abatacept clinical trial program

OBJECTIVE

To assess the overall safety, including rare events, of intravenous (IV) abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Data from 8 clinical trials of IV abatacept in RA were pooled. Safety events were assessed during the short-term (duration ≤ 12 months) and cumulative (short-term plus longterm extensions) abatacept treatment periods. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years were calculated. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) for hospitalized infections and malignancies were compared with external RA cohorts and, for malignancies, with the US general population.

RESULTS

There were 3173 IV abatacept-treated patients with 2331 patient-years of exposure in the short-term periods, and 4149 IV abatacept-treated patients with 12,132 patient-years of exposure in the cumulative period. Incidence rates for serious infections were low and consistent over time (3.68 for abatacept vs 2.60 for placebo during the short-term, and 2.87 for abatacept during the cumulative period). Hospitalized infections were generally similar to external RA patient cohorts and were consistent over time. Incidence rates of malignancies were similar for abatacept- and placebo-treated patients during the short-term period (0.73 vs 0.59) and remained low during the abatacept cumulative period (0.73). SIR of some tissue-specific malignancies (e.g., colorectal and breast) in the cumulative period tended to be lower, while others (lymphoma and lung) tended to be higher, compared with the general population; however, incidence rates were comparable with RA cohorts. Autoimmune events were rare and infusion reactions uncommon.

CONCLUSION

Longterm safety of IV abatacept was consistent with the short-term, with no unexpected events and low incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events.

Cellular targeting in autoimmunity

Many biologic agents that were first approved for the treatment of malignancies are now being actively investigated and used in a variety of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA), antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and Sjogren's syndrome. The relatively recent advance of selective immune targeting has significantly changed the management of autoimmune disorders and in part can be attributed to the progress made in understanding effector cell function and their signaling pathways. In this review, we will discuss the recent FDA-approved biologic therapies that directly target immune cells as well as the most promising investigational drugs affecting immune cell function and signaling for the treatment of autoimmune disease.

Rheumatoid arthritis disease measurement: a new old idea

In many medical treatment areas, the use of treatment targets has led to improved outcomes, including a reduction in end-organ damage. In rheumatology, appropriate targets appear elusive, although preventing joint damage, minimizing disability and improving mortality are end results on which most clinicians would agree. Sophisticated measures of disease activity, particularly in early disease, have only recently been objectively evaluated. Swollen joint count, tender joint count, acute-phase reactants, citrullinated antibody titres (ACPAs), patient and physician assessment of disease activity, radiographs and other imaging modalities such as US and MRI may all be appropriate to measure. A number of composite measures have been proposed as possible or practical methods for defining RA disease activity. Some require testing of acute-phase reactants, but several do not. ACR20/50/70 scores are useful for measuring change from visit to visit, while others (DAS28, HAQ, Simplified Disease Activity Index, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data) assess disease activity at a single point. Disease measures have now been used in myriad clinical trials and studies. The FIN-RACo, TICORA, CAMERA and BeSt trials employed measures of disease activity at predetermined points to guide treatment decisions. These trials supported the consistent use of objective measures to derive significant benefits from treat-to-target strategies. The concept that objective measures can guide aggressive treatment to reach a defined optimal end point or target is a strategy that rheumatologists hopefully might now agree is critically important.

Incidence density of serious infection, opportunistic infection, and tuberculosis associated with biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis - a systematic evaluation of the literature

Summary data on the incidence density (ie, incidence per person-year [PY]) of serious infection, opportunistic infection, and tuberculosis associated with each of the nine biologic therapies currently indicated in rheumatoid arthritis patients are not available. To summarize these data, a systematic review was conducted with searches on PubMed and Embase of literature ranging from January 1998 to November 2011. Incidence density was extracted and reported using the definitions from the respective publications. If the incidence density was not reported, estimation was made using available information. A total of 72 published studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed, including 44 clinical trials, open-label extension studies, or meta-analyses, and 28 observational studies. Additional calculation of the incidence density was performed in 12 studies for serious infection and in 13 studies for opportunistic infection or tuberculosis. The incidence of serious infection was consistent across studies and biologic therapies, ranging from 0 to 11/100 PY but mainly clustered from 2 to 6/100 PY. Fewer incidence data were available for opportunistic infection and tuberculosis. The incidence of opportunistic infection and tuberculosis ranged widely, from 0.01 to 3.0/100 PY and 0.01 to 2.6/100 PY, respectively. The data on serious infection may be used to evaluate the public health risk and benefit of biologic treatment. They may also serve as a point of reference for future studies. The limited data on opportunistic infection and the lack of a consistent definition of opportunistic infection invite caution for a benchmark rate for opportunistic infection as a composite category.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of i.v. abatacept are well established in patients with active RA. A s.c. abatacept formulation is now available in some countries. Here, we review clinical data for s.c. abatacept. Six trials are presented (Phase II dose-finding study, ACQUIRE, ALLOW, ACCOMPANY, ATTUNE and AMPLE) and issues important to both patients and clinicians are addressed. The primary focus assesses whether the i.v. and s.c. abatacept formulations have similar efficacy, including whether the recommended fixed dose of s.c. abatacept is comparable to the weight-tiered i.v. dosing and whether efficacy is sustained with long-term treatment. Safety and immunogenicity are also discussed, including the short- and long-term safety of s.c. abatacept, and whether immunogenicity is increased following a switch from i.v. to s.c. abatacept, after withdrawal or reintroduction of s.c. abatacept or in the absence of MTX. Year 1 data from the AMPLE study, comparing s.c. abatacept with the TNF antagonist adalimumab, are discussed. Although fewer patient-years of exposure are available for s.c. compared with i.v. abatacept, observations suggest that s.c. abatacept has a similar long-term efficacy to the i.v. formulation, improving the signs, symptoms, disease activity and physical function in patients with RA. With continued treatment, these improvements are maintained over time with high retention rates, similar to i.v. abatacept. s.c. abatacept is associated with low immunogenicity and short- and long-term safety that is consistent with i.v. abatacept. In addition, s.c. abatacept demonstrates comparable efficacy, kinetics of response, safety and radiographic inhibition to adalimumab.

Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept: a phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept.

METHODS

In this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept-treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval -4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept-treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept-treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept-treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)-treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)-treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept-treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

SC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of using abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The objective is to provide an update on the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of the use of abatacept for treating rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review (up to June 2011) followed by meta-analyses was performed. Randomized controlled clinical trials comparing abatacept at a dose of 10 mg/kg with a placebo, both with concomitant methotrexate, were used. Only high- or moderate-quality studies were included. The efficacy was evaluated based on changes in the ACR, DAS and HAQ; safety was assessed based on serious adverse events, serious infections, malignancies and deaths; tolerability was evaluated based on the withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and lack of efficacy. All these parameters were evaluated within one year of treatment. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 4,219 patients. For all of the efficacy parameters, the abatacept group had better results than the placebo group, except in the case of HAQ improvement >0.3, which presented no statistically significant difference. None of the safety parameters presented a significant difference between the groups. The tolerability parameters were also similar between groups, with the exception of withdrawals due to lack of efficacy. For this criterion, the abatacept group presented favorably compared to the control group. Abatacept showed a higher efficacy compared to placebo without significant differences between the abatacept and control group in terms of safety.

A clinical exploratory study with itolizumab, an anti-CD6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

T cells are involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). CD6 is a co-stimulatory molecule, predominantly expressed on lymphocytes, that has been linked to autoreactive responses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity and preliminary efficacy of itolizumab, a humanized anti-CD6 monoclonal antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Fifteen patients were enrolled in a phase I, open-label, dose-finding study. Five cohorts of patients received a weekly antibody monotherapy with a dose-range from 0.1 to 0.8 mg/kg. Itolizumab showed a good safety profile, with no severe or serious adverse events reported so far. No signs or symptoms associated with immunosuppression were observed in the study. Objective clinical responses were achieved in more than 80% of patients after treatment completion, and these responses tend to be sustained afterwards. This clinical study constitutes the first evidence of the safety and positive clinical effect of a monotherapy using an anti-CD6 antibody in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Mixed treatment comparison of the treatment discontinuations of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in adults with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has considerably changed treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over the past decade. Very little information is available on comparative discontinuation rates of the biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment discontinuations for 9 biologic DMARDs in adults with RA.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases through May 2012 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with RA that compared biologic DMARDs with placebo or another biologic DMARD. The primary outcome was treatment discontinuation during the blinded phase of the trials, measured as overall withdrawals, withdrawals resulting from lack of efficacy, and withdrawals resulting from adverse events. Random-effects meta-analysis estimated the effect size for individual agents, and adjusted indirect comparisons were made between biologics using mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-four trials were included in the analysis. In comparison with placebo, biologics were less likely to be withdrawn because of lack of efficacy (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.27) and more likely to be withdrawn because of an adverse event (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70). Based on the MTC, certolizumab had the most favorable overall withdrawal profile, followed by etanercept and rituximab. Certolizumab had lower relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than adalimumab, anakinra, and infliximab. Anakinra had higher relative withdrawal rates resulting from lack of efficacy than most other biologics. Certolizumab and infliximab had more, while etanercept had fewer, withdrawals because of adverse events than most other drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on MTC using data from RCTs, differences in discontinuation rates were observed, generally favoring certolizumab, etanercept, and rituximab over other biologic DMARDs. These potential differences need to be further explored in head-to-head trials or well-conducted observational studies.

Treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis beyond TNF-α inhibitors

The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has changed over the last 15 years. Early and aggressive treatment, use of methotrexate as the anchor drug and combination treatment, with older disease-modifying drugs or biologics, have become the norm. TNF inhibitors were the first biologic agents available to rheumatologists and are still currently used as first-line biologics, in addition to other newer biologic agents. Abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab are available biologics that use a different mode of action to TNF inhibitors, and can be used after a TNF inhibitor is tried. Abatacept is also currently used as a first-line biologic and others can also be used once data are available.

Clinical efficacy of abatacept in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis patients

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine the treatment retention and efficacy of abatacept, the first member of a new class of biologic agents, in Japanese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients during clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter study was conducted with patients who underwent abatacept therapy for 24 weeks (n = 143).

RESULTS

Patients at baseline had a mean age of 63.5 years, a mean disease duration of 11.3 years, and a mean disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) of 4.5. Overall retention of abatacept treatment was 83.2 % at 24 weeks, when 46.2 % of patients achieved DAS28-defined low disease activity (LDA; DAS28 <3.2) and 26.6 % achieved DAS28-defined remission (DAS28 <2.6). LDA was achieved in a significantly higher proportion of patients without prior biologics therapy compared to those with prior biologics (60.9 vs. 34.2 %, p = 0.001). There was no significant difference between patients with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX) therapy (45.2 vs. 47.5 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept therapy appears to be highly effective and well tolerated during clinical treatment of RA. Abatacept was particularly effective in patients with no history of biologics use, and did not appear to be dependent on concomitant MTX therapy.

The efficacy and safety of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis

Despite important progress in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the last decade, even in the era of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) blockade there is a need for additional therapeutic options in many patients. In recent years three therapies with a distinct mode of action became available: rituximab, an anti-B cell therapy, tocilizumab, an anti IL-6 therapy, and abatacept, a costimulation blocker. Primary efficacy results of all three therapies are comparable at 6 months, nevertheless they have distinct efficacy and safety profiles. In the current review we focus on specific aspects of efficacy and safety of abatacept: increasing clinical and X-ray improvements over time, important and stable responses over several years, timing of response, improvements in patient-centered outcomes, and also long-term safety and easy administration with low rates of perfusion reactions. Currently, head to head comparisons between biologics are still lacking and registry data of drugs with a mode of action different to TNF blockade are still rare. In the meantime detailed analysis of all trials with a drug such as abatacept provides important information for the practicing rheumatologist.

Impact of intravenous abatacept on synovitis, osteitis and structural damage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: the ASSET randomised controlled trial

Objectives

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIIb study evaluated the impact of abatacept on MRI pathology as a primary outcome in methotrexate (MTX)-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Patients received intravenous abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) or placebo, on background MTX, for 4 months, followed by an 8-month open-label extension (OLE; all patients received abatacept plus MTX). Patients had 1.5T MRI with intravenous contrast at baseline, Months 4 and 12; wrist synovitis (three locations assessed), and wrist and hand (15 and eight locations assessed, respectively) osteitis and erosion were scored using OMERACT-RAMRIS.

Results

26/27 abatacept- and 23/23 placebo-randomised patients completed Month 4 and entered the OLE; 26 and 21 completed Month 12. The primary endpoint was not achieved; mean change (SD) from baseline in synovitis was −0.44 (1.47) for abatacept versus 0.52 (1.38) for placebo (p=0.103) at Month 4. For mean change in synovitis adjusted for baseline score (sensitivity analysis), the difference between groups was −0.69, p=0.078. Adjusted mean changes (SE) in osteitis and erosion were −1.94 (0.86) and 0.45 (0.43) for abatacept, and 1.54 (0.90) and 0.95 (0.45) for placebo. Further MRI improvements were observed up to Month 12 for abatacept and from Months 4 to 12 for placebo-treated patients switched to abatacept at Month 4. Clinical efficacy was shown with abatacept and sustained to Month 12.

Conclusions

Despite small patient numbers, MRI detected structural and synovial benefit, sustained to Month 12 in abatacept+MTX-treated patients, and improvements in structural and inflammatory outcomes for placebo+MTX-treated patients following addition of abatacept.

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00420199.

Drug adherence to biologic DMARDS with a special emphasis on the benefits of subcutaneous abatacept

Major advances in drug development have led to the introduction of biologic disease- modifying drugs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, which has resulted in unprecedented improvement in outcomes for many patients. These agents have been found to be effective in reducing clinical signs and symptoms, improving radiological damage, quality of life, and functionality, and have also been found to have an acceptable safety profile. Despite this, drug adherence is unknown, which has huge health care and health-economic implications. Local and national guidelines exist for the use of biologics; however, its varied use is widespread. Although this may in part reflect differences in prescribing behavior, patient preference plays a key role. In this review we will explore the factors that contribute to patient preference for, and adherence to, biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis with emphasis on the subcutaneous preparation of abatacept, a T-cell costimulatory molecule blocker. Overall, subcutaneous administration is preferred by patients and this may well improve drug adherence.

Longterm safety and efficacy of abatacept through 5 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate abatacept safety and efficacy over 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had inadequate response to anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy in the ATTAIN trial.

METHODS

Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind (DB) placebo-controlled period were eligible to enter the longterm extension (LTE), where all patients received abatacept every 4 weeks (∼10 mg/kg, according to weight range). Safety, efficacy, physical function, and health-related quality of life were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

In total, 317 patients (218 DB abatacept, 99 DB placebo) entered the LTE; 150 (47.3%) completed it. Overall incidences of serious adverse events, infections, serious infections, malignant neoplasms, and autoimmune events did not increase during the LTE versus the DB period. American College of Rheumatology responses with abatacept at Month 6 were maintained over 5 years. At Year 5, among patients who received abatacept for 5 years and had available data, 38/103 (36.9%) achieved low disease activity as defined by the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28)/C-reactive protein (CRP); 23/103 (22.3%) achieved DAS28/CRP-defined remission. Health Assessment Questionnaire response was achieved by 62.5% of patients remaining on treatment at Year 5; mean improvements from baseline in physical component summary and mental component summary scores were 7.34 and 6.42, respectively. High proportions of patients maintained efficacy and physical function benefits or improved their disease state at each timepoint throughout the LTE, if remaining on abatacept treatment.

CONCLUSION

Safety remained consistent, and abatacept efficacy was maintained from 6 months to 5 years, demonstrating the benefits of switching to abatacept in this difficult-to-treat population of patients with RA previously failing anti-TNF therapy.

Abatacept use in rheumatoid arthritis: evidence review and recommendations

OBJECTIVE

To review the clinical evidence on 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, practicalities, effectiveness and safety of abatacept, and formulated recommendations following a literature review. The level of evidence and degree of recommendation was established.

RESULTS

The document presents 21 statements focused on evidence or recommendations on abatacept (14 evidence summaries and 9 recommendations). The level of evidence was 2b or higher according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine scale on 14 occasions. The degree of the recommendation was A in two recommendations, C in one, and D in the rest. It was considered important to make recommendations on aspects with lower levels of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

This is a practical document to supplement the summary of product characteristics.

Effect of biologic therapy on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis: what does it add to methotrexate?

There have been substantial advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in recent years. Traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been shown to have small effects on the progression of radiographic damage. This quantitative overview summarizes the evidence for biologic DMARDs and radiographic damage either alone or in combination with methotrexate. Two outcomes were used (standardized mean difference and odds of progression). A total of 21 trials were identified of which 18 had useable data. For biologic monotherapy, tocilizumab, adalimumab, and etanercept were significantly better than methotrexate, with tocilizumab ranking first in both outcomes while golimumab was ineffective in both outcomes. For a biologic in combination with methotrexate compared with methotrexate alone, most therapies studied (etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, tocilizumab, and rituximab) were effective at slowing X-ray progression using either outcome, with infliximab ranking first in both outcomes. The exceptions to this were golimumab (no effect on standardized mean difference) and abatacept (no effect on odds of progression). This effect was additional to methotrexate; thus, the overall benefit is moderate to large in magnitude, which is clearly of major clinical significance for sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and supports the use of biologic DMARDs in those with a poor disease prognosis.

My treatment approach to rheumatoid arthritis

The past decade has brought important advances in the understanding of rheumatoid arthritis and its management and treatment. New classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, better definitions of treatment outcome and remission, and the introduction of biologic response-modifying drugs designed to inhibit the inflammatory process have greatly altered the approach to managing this disease. More aggressive management of rheumatoid arthritis early after diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease has resulted in improvement in patient functioning and quality of life, reduction in comorbid conditions, and enhanced survival.

Phase II dose-response study of abatacept in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to methotrexate

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the response to abatacept at doses of 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg compared to placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate clinical response to methotrexate (MTX).

METHODS

In this multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-response study, 195 Japanese patients with active RA with an inadequate response to MTX were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 10 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg abatacept plus MTX, or placebo plus MTX, for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Abatacept demonstrated a dose-response relationship when given at 2 and 10 mg/kg. Based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria (20, 50, and 70 %), the responses to 10 mg/kg abatacept were significantly greater than those to placebo at week 24 (p < 0.001). Smaller yet statistically significant responses were also seen in the 2 mg/kg abatacept group. Overall rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, and treatment discontinuations because of adverse events were comparable in all three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept (2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg) showed a dose-response relationship in Japanese patients with active RA with an inadequate clinical response to MTX. Administration of abatacept in combination with MTX for 24 weeks was well tolerated.

Evidence of the symptomatic and structural efficacy of methotrexate in daily practice as the first disease-modifying drug in rheumatoid arthritis despite its suboptimal use: results from the ESPOIR early synovitis cohort

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of MTX in early arthritis (EA) in daily clinical practice and to evaluate its 6-month symptomatic efficacy and 12-month structural efficacy.

METHODS

Patients included in the French observational ESPOIR cohort were assessed. Evaluation of the symptomatic and structural efficacy was performed by generalized linear regression after adjustment on propensity score (PS) in the group of patients receiving at least 3 months of MTX vs the ones receiving any other treatment except LEF, SSZ or TNF inhibitors.

RESULTS

Within the first 6 months of follow-up of 777 EA patients, 59% received a DMARD, which was MTX in 68% (N = 313) of patients. The mean dose of MTX was 12.7 ± 3.8 mg/week. Only 53.7% of the patients received folic acid supplementation. MTX was initiated in patients with more active and severe disease. At 6 months, in unadjusted analysis, patients starting MTX had a significantly higher DAS-28 (3.58 vs 3.23; P = 0.001) and a significantly higher HAQ (0.60 vs. 0.48; P = 0.01) compared with controls. After adjustment by PS, there were no significant differences. Adjustment for the PS also revealed a statistically significant decrease in the radiological progression at 12 months in the MTX group [total Sharp-van der Heijde score (SHS), 1.05 ± 0.29 vs 2.02 ± 0.29, P = 0.025].

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the symptomatic and structural efficacy of MTX in EA in daily practice despite the non-optimal use of MTX, including low doses and infrequent concomitant folic acid supplementation.

Biological therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: where are we now?

Since the introduction of targeted biological therapies, the implications of a new diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis have changed dramatically. There are now several therapeutic options available for these patients and the target of treatment - remission - is now a realistic goal.

Established rheumatoid arthritis: rationale for best practice: physicians' perspective of how to realise tight control in clinical practice

Developments in the understanding of the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the introduction of targeted biologic therapies have greatly advanced the management of RA in clinical practice. The management of RA is now aimed at achieving remission, to prevent joint damage and disability. In particular, a critical period early in disease is recognised, in which early aggressive treatment with disease-modifying therapy is advocated. Although a state of remission is the ideal, this chapter discusses the difficulties which may arise in achieving this goal in patients with established disease. The evidence for best management, aimed at achieving clinical remission in established disease, is reviewed. The consequences of incomplete control of chronic inflammation in established disease, including pain, disability and co-morbidities (such as cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis), also pose a significant clinical challenge. The rationale for a multidisciplinary team approach in reducing the associated morbidity and mortality of the disease are examined.

The pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis: new insights from old clinical data?

Despite their different targets, biologic agents used for blockade of TNF and IL-6, inhibition of T-cell co-stimulation and B-cell depletion all have similar beneficial effects on the outcome of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This observation raises questions as to whether the targets of these therapies might all be involved in a common pathogenetic pathway. However, blockade of TNF and IL-6 has a similar inhibitory effect on joint damage progression in patients with either early or late disease. In comparison, B-cell depletion and inhibition of T-cell co-stimulation seem to have a somewhat delayed effect on joint damage (compared with cytokine inhibition), which suggests that these approaches affect upstream pathogenetic events. This article discusses these disparities and presents hypotheses as to whether clinical trial data can be used to determine at which point a biologic agent might interfere with the pathogenetic cascade in RA.

Inflammatory bone loss: pathogenesis and therapeutic intervention

Bone is a tissue undergoing continuous building and degradation. This remodelling is a tightly regulated process that can be disturbed by many factors, particularly hormonal changes. Chronic inflammation can also perturb bone metabolism and promote increased bone loss. Inflammatory diseases can arise all over the body, including in the musculoskeletal system (for example, rheumatoid arthritis), the intestine (for example, inflammatory bowel disease), the oral cavity (for example, periodontitis) and the lung (for example, cystic fibrosis). Wherever inflammatory diseases occur, systemic effects on bone will ensue, as well as increased fracture risk. Here, we discuss the cellular and signalling pathways underlying, and strategies for therapeutically interfering with, the inflammatory loss of bone.

Tocilizumab inhibits progression of joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis irrespective of its anti-inflammatory effects: disassociation of the link between inflammation and destruction

Background

Treatment with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-i) plus methotrexate (MTX), but not MTX monotherapy alone, inhibits joint damage progression even at higher levels of disease activity. Such disassociation of disease activity and structural damage has not been shown for biological agents other than TNF-i.

Objectives

To evaluate whether interleukin 6 (IL-6) inhibition with tocilizumab (TCZ) interferes with joint destruction beyond its effects on disease activity.

Methods

A random 90% sample of data from the (The Tocilizumab Safety and the Prevention of Structural Joint Damage Study) LITHEtrial on active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite MTX was used, which compared addition of placebo (n=117) with addition of TCZ (n=414) every 4 weeks. Baseline and 1-year values of clinical and serological variables were correlated with changes to 1 year of the total Genant-modified Sharp score (TGSS) using a Spearman test, and the progression of TGSS, erosion and joint space narrowing (JSN) scores in groups with low and high disease activity were compared for placebo and TCZ (Kruskal–Wallis).

Results

Baseline variables were similar among the groups. Change of TGSS was lower in patients receiving TCZ than placebo (TCZ: 0.29±0.96; placebo: 0.90±1.92; p=0.0007). In patients receiving placebo, the correlation with TGSS change was significant for baseline scores of the simplified disease activity index (SDAI; r=0.18, p=0.047) and swollen joint count 28 (r=0.22, p=0.019), with similar trends for C-reactive protein. Similar correlations were seen for SDAI, clinical disease activity index, disease activity score 28 at 1 year with x-ray change during that year (r=0.26–0.28, p=0.002–0.006). In contrast, none of the baseline or 1-year variables showed significant correlation with x-ray changes in patients receiving TCZ+MTX, suggesting a disassociation of the link between disease activity and damage by TCZ. Finally, for patients in remission or with low disease activity, progression of TGSS, erosion and JSN was similar among treatment groups (TGSS: placebo, 0.4±1.1; TCZ, 0.2±0.7; p=NS), while for patients with moderate or high disease activity placebo-treated patients progression was significantly greater (TGSS: 1.2±2.2 vs 0.4±1.2; p=0.0009).

Conclusions

IL-6 inhibition with TCZ plus MTX retards joint damage progression independently of its impact on disease activity. Similar effects have hitherto been reported only for TNF-i. This indicates that the effects of IL-6 inhibition on progression of joint damage in RA are among the most profound currently attainable.

[Efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and no prior treatment with biologics]

Abatacept (ABA) is a recombinant human fusion protein that blocks co-stimulation signals on T lymphocytes, impeding their activation. Randomized and controlled trials examining efficacy and safety have been performed with ABA combined with methotrexate (MTX), vs MTX monotherapy and vs infliximab (IFB) combined with MTX in patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and who are naïve to biologic therapy. ABA has shown to be more effective than MTX and at least as effective as IFB+MTX, in terms of activity and clinical remission, physical function and reduction in radiological progression. Safety data at 7 years have shown that the drug is comparable to MTX in monotherapy and safer than the IFB+MTX combination, although infections still constitute the main risk when using ABA. This review summarizes the safety and efficacy data of the AIM, ATTEST, Phase IIb IM101-100 and AGREE trials.

The effect of CTLA-4Ig, a CD28/B7 antagonist, on the lung inflammation and T cell subset profile during murine hypersensitivity pneumonitis

Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is an inflammatory lung disease characterized by an influx of activated T cells to the lung, in which the CD28/B7 costimulatory signals are essential for the T cell activation and the outcome of the inflammatory response. In this study, we investigated the effect of the CD28/B7 antagonist, CTLA-4Ig, on the lung inflammation and the T cell subset profile in experimental Saccharopolyspora recivirgula (SR)-induced HP. C57BL/6 mice were treated with SR or saline during two and three weeks and in addition of CTLA-4Ig was administrated after either the second or third week and mice were sacrificed seven days later. The extent of the lung inflammation was quantified by histopathology and the lung T cell subsets (Treg, Th17, γδT and NKT) were analyzed by flow cytometry. Mice treated with CTLA-4Ig showed a significant decrease in the extent of lung damage (p<0.05), and exhibited a decreased number of inflammatory cells in the bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) with diminished CD4/CD8 T cell ratio. Also, a significant increase in the percentage of lung γδT (p<0.01) and NKT (p<0.05) cells was observed in two weeks SR-treated mice with the administration of CTLA-4Ig/SR. At 3 weeks, SR-treated mice showed an increased percentage of regulatory T cells but no significantly differences were found in the percentage of Th17 cells when compared with CTLA-4Ig/SR-treated mice. Our findings suggest that the treatment with CTLA-4Ig affects the HP progression and the lung T cell subset kinetics in mice.