FRI0193 SC vs IV abatacept in RA: post-hoc efficacy analysis of long-term acquire (SC) data with aim (IV) data:

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.