Switching from Intravenous to Subcutaneous Formulation of Abatacept: Different Results in a Series of 21 Patients

Patient-reported preferences for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of parenteral drug treatments in adults with immune disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim: Several studies have found subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration of similar drugs for long-lasting immunological and autoimmune diseases to have similar clinical effectiveness, meaning that what patients report they prefer is, or should be, a major factor in treatment choices. Therefore, it is important to systematically compile evidence regarding patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQL) using SC or IV administration of the same drug. Materials & methods: PubMed database searches were run on 15 October 2021. Studies involving patients with experience of both home-based SC and hospital-based IV administration of immunoglobulins or biological therapies for the treatment of any autoimmune disease or primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) were included. The outcomes assessed were patient preferences, treatment satisfaction and HRQL. Preference data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Results: In total, 3504 citations were screened, and 46 publications describing 37 studies were included in the review. There was a strong overall preference for SC over IV administration, with similar results seen for PIDs and autoimmune diseases: PID, 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64-94%) preferred SC; autoimmune diseases, 83% (95% CI: 73-92%); overall, 82% (95% CI: 75-89%). The meta-analysis also found that 84% (95% CI: 75-92%) of patients preferred administration at home to treatment in hospital. Analysis of treatment satisfaction using the life quality index found consistently better treatment interference and treatment setting scores with SC administration than with IV administration. Conclusion: Compared with IV infusions in hospital, patients tend to prefer, to be more satisfied with and to report better HRQL with SC administration of the same drug at home, primarily due to the greater convenience. This study contributes to evidence-based care of patients with autoimmune diseases or PIDs.

Subcutaneous Sarilumab in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis who Previously Received Subcutaneous Sarilumab or Intravenous Tocilizumab: An Open-Label Extension of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

This post hoc analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of open‐label sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who completed the phase III double‐blind ASCERTAIN study (NCT01768572) and switched from intravenous (IV) tocilizumab to subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab, or who continued SC sarilumab in the open‐label extension (OLE) study EXTEND (NCT01146652).

Methods

Patients who completed ASCERTAIN were eligible to enroll in EXTEND to receive sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks (Q2W). Safety and efficacy were reported through 96 weeks in the OLE in patients who switched from tocilizumab IV to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, who switched from sarilumab 150 mg SC Q2W to sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W, or who continued sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W.

Results

Of 175 patients who completed ASCERTAIN, 168 (96%) enrolled in EXTEND, and 38 of these patients (23%) discontinued the OLE. Cumulative sarilumab exposure during follow‐up was 273.7 patient‐years. No new safety signals were identified, infections occurred at a rate of 59.9/100 patient‐years, and there were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia. Efficacy—as assessed by Disease Activity Score (28 joints) based on C‐reactive protein, Clinical Disease Activity Index, and Health Assessment Questionnaire‐Disability Index scores—was sustained over 96 weeks of follow‐up when switching to, or continuing, sarilumab 200 mg SC Q2W.

Conclusion

Switching from IV to SC interleukin‐6 receptor inhibitor therapy produced no new safety concerns, and clinical efficacy was sustained over 96 weeks of follow‐up. These findings alleviate potential concerns over switching route of administration with interleukin‐6 receptor inhibitor therapy for RA.

Subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: A real-life experience

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness, safety, and drug survival of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients in a real-world setting.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2018 in which patients with RA (1987 ACR criteria) were included. Patients were evaluated at a single rheumatology outpatient center in Bogotá, Colombia. The patients were classified according to their treatment background: biological-naïve (n = 65), switched from IV to SC ABA administration (125 mg-wk) (n = 32), and inadequate response to biological DMARD (n = 62). The primary endpoint was a change in DAS28-CRP and RAPID3 from baseline to 12 months. A linear mixed effect model was used to correlate repeated measures. Adverse events were assessed and recorded during each visit to the rheumatology center. Several Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to test if there were any differences in drug survival curves based on seropositivity for rheumatoid factor (RF), and anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies (anti-CCP). Statistical analysis was done using software R version 3.4.4.

Results

A total of 159 patients were included. Baseline characteristics of patients were as follows: female gender 84%, median age of 54 years (IQR 16), median disease duration 10 years (11), RF positive 96%, anti-CCP positive 89%, erosive disease 55%, median DAS28-CRP 5.0 (2), and median RAPID3 17 (10). Concomitant use of methotrexate and SC ABA monotherapy were reported at 52% and 30% respectively. Demographics and disease characteristics were similar for all groups, except for baseline DAS28-CRP, and RAPID3 in the group that switched route of administration. The interaction between time and group was significant (p = 0.0073) for RAPID3. Infections, constitutional symptoms, and headaches were the most frequent AEs. Retention rate corresponded to 60% at 48 months. The most frequent reason for drug suspension was loss of efficacy. Median time of treatment for SC ABA was 31 months (IQR 30). The only association that reached statistical significance was anti-CCP concentration [Q1–Q4] (p = 0.005). According to the Cox proportional hazard regression model, there were significant differences between survival curves for Q1 (HR 0.15; 0.03–0.64 95% CI; p = 0.0096), and Q2 (HR 0.28; 0.08–0.92 95% CI; p = 0.0363) compared to the seronegative group.

Conclusions

The results showed an improvement in RA disease activity and physical function in patients under SC ABA treatment. Patients switching from IV to SC administration of ABA had lower activity and functional impairment at baseline. SC ABA demonstrated a good safety profile consistent with previously published data. Patients with baseline levels of anti-CCP antibody concentrations had better drug survival than seronegative patients.

•

Only a few studies have evaluated the effectiveness and safety of ABA in patients with RA in routine clinical practice.

•

RAPID3 appears to be an attractive option for evaluating disease activity in RA patients in a real-life setting.

•

SC administration of ABA demonstrates a safety profile consistent with previously published data.

•

Prognostic factors for drug retention have not been explored thoroughly despite data for ABA being available from national registries.

•

SC ABA survival tends to be better in a subset of anti-CCP seropositive patients with RA.

Change from subcutaneous to intravenous abatacept and back in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as simulation of a vacation: a prospective phase IV, open-label trial (A-BREAK)

Background

Vacation can present a major problem to patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with weekly subcutaneous biologics, including subcutaneous (SC) abatacept. Therefore, the replacement of four SC doses of abatacept by a single dose of intravenous (IV) abatacept may present an acceptable alternative to cover a 4-week interval needed for vacations. In the study presented, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of this intervention followed by a switch back to SC abatacept after 4 weeks.

Method

This open-label, prospective, single-arm, 24-week trial recruited patients with established RA in low disease activity (LDA) or in remission on treatment with SC abatacept for at least 3 months to receive a single dose of IV abatacept (baseline) followed by a break of 4 weeks and then continuation of weekly SC abatacept from day 28 on. Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD)-inadequate or biologic-inadequate responders (or both) were included.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the 49 patients (per protocol) were typical for a cohort of RA patients with established disease (mean disease duration of 8.31 years) in LDA under treatment with synthetic DMARDs and a biologic. Two patients (one flare and one patient decision) dropped out of the study. The proportions of patients with disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS-28) of not more than 3.2 at day 28 were 93.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 83.5–97.9) and 93.6 % (95 % CI 82.8–97.8) at the end of the study (day 168). The average DAS-28 values were 1.74 (standard deviation (SD) ± 0.72) at baseline, 2.03 (SD ± 1.03) at day 28, and 1.96 (SD ± 0.92) at the end of the study (day 168). Pre-exposure to IV abatacept and having failed methotrexate or anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) did not influence the average DAS-28 or the proportion of patients maintaining LDA over time. The average health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) was stable throughout the study. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 75 % of subjects. Four serious AEs were described during the study. None of them was related to the investigational product, and all serious AEs could be resolved during hospitalization.

Conclusion

This prospective, open-label study of abatacept shows for the first time that switching from weekly SC to IV abatacept and back after 4 weeks is an effective and safe way to bridge vacations in RA patients in LDA or remission. (NCT1846975, registered April 19, 2013.)