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

Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study.

METHODS

Patients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc.

RESULTS

Overall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.

Safety of Abatacept Versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Integrated Data Analysis of Nine Clinical Trials

Objective

To assess the safety of abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using integrated data from multiple clinical trials.

Methods

Data from nine double‐blind, placebo‐controlled studies of abatacept treatment (seven intravenous, two subcutaneous) in patients with RA were pooled, focusing on safety events in the double‐blind treatment period of each study. Incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) per 100 patient‐years of exposure were calculated for abatacept‐ and placebo‐treated patients. AEs in abatacept‐treated patients were combined regardless of dose and formulation.

Results

In total, 2653 patients received abatacept and 1485 received placebo, with 2357 and 1254 patient‐years of exposure, respectively. The mean (SD) durations of exposure in the abatacept and placebo groups were 10.8 (3.3) and 10.3 (3.5) months, respectively. The IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for serious AEs were 14.8 (13.3, 16.5) and 14.6 (12.5, 17.0) in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Death occurred in 12 (0.5%) and 12 (0.8%) patients in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively, and was most commonly caused by cardiac disorders. Malignancies were observed in 31 patients (1.2%) treated with abatacept (IR: 1.32 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.87]) versus 14 (0.9%; IR: 1.12 [0.61, 1.88]) who received placebo. Solid organ tumor was the most frequent malignancy reported in both groups (abatacept: 1.0%; IR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.62]; placebo: 0.8%; 0.96 [0.50, 1.67]).

Conclusion

In this integrated analysis, the IRs of safety events in the abatacept and placebo groups were similar with no new safety concerns identified.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective

To report 2‐year patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) from the head‐to‐head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic‐Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial.

Methods

AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator‐blinded trial. Biologic‐naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs (pain, fatigue, ability to perform work, and ability to perform daily activities) were compared up to year 2 for patients in each treatment group, as well as those who achieved low disease activity at both years 1 and 2 (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).

Results

A total of 646 patients were randomized and treated with SC abatacept (n = 318) or adalimumab (n = 328). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Comparable improvements in PROs were observed in the abatacept and adalimumab groups over 2 years, with both groups achieving clinically meaningful improvements in PROs from baseline. At year 2, fatigue improved by 23.4 mm and 21.5 mm on a 100‐mm visual analog scale with abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. Clinical responders achieved greater improvements in PROs than nonresponders.

Conclusion

In biologic‐naive patients with active RA, despite prior MTX, treatment with SC abatacept or adalimumab with background MTX resulted in comparable improvements in PROs, which were highly correlated with physician‐reported clinical response end points.

Unintended Immunological Consequences of Biologic Therapy

Recent advances in the understanding of immune dysregulation in autoimmune diseases have enabled the development of new monoclonal antibody-based drugs called biologics. Biologics have been used to target aberrant immune responses in many diseases, but patients with rheumatologic and other autoimmune diseases have benefited the most and improvements in outcomes have been significant. The use of biologics is not without hazard, however, as these agents block immune pathways adapted to protect the host. This has been borne out by increased rates of infections as well as induction of new autoimmune and hematologic adverse effects. As new drugs for the treatment of autoimmune conditions are entering the pipeline, it is incumbent on the practicing immunologist to understand the mechanism of these biologics and the implications of clinical use.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, and TNFi treatment after previous failure with TNFi treatment in rheumatoid arthritis: a pragmatic multi-centre randomised trial

Introduction

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose treatment with a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is failing, several biological treatment options are available. Often, another TNFi or a biological with another mode of action is prescribed. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three biologic treatments with different modes of action in patients with RA whose TNFi therapy is failing.

Methods

We conducted a pragmatic, 1-year randomised trial in a multicentre setting. Patients with active RA despite previous TNFi treatment were randomised to receive abatacept, rituximab or a different TNFi. The primary outcome (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints) and the secondary outcomes (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and 36-item Short Form Health Survey scores) were analysed using linear mixed models. Cost-effectiveness was analysed on the basis of incremental net monetary benefit, which was based on quality-adjusted life-years (calculated using EQ-5D scores), and all medication expenditures consumed in 1 year. All analyses were also corrected for possible confounders.

Results

Of 144 randomised patients, 5 were excluded and 139 started taking abatacept (43 patients), rituximab (46 patients) or a different TNFi (50 patients). There were no significant differences between the three groups with respect to multiple measures of RA outcomes. However, our analysis revealed that rituximab therapy is significantly more cost-effective than both abatacept and TNFi over a willingness-to-pay range of 0 to 80,000 euros.

Conclusions

All three treatment options were similarly effective; however, when costs were factored into the treatment decision, rituximab was the best option available to patients whose first TNFi treatment failed. However, generalization of these costs to other countries should be undertaken carefully.

Trial registration

Netherlands Trial Register number NTR1605. Registered 24 December 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0630-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.