Explore the vast range of titles available.

Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are a cornerstone of post-transplant immunosuppressive regimens. However, their use is associated with adverse effects, most notably chronic nephrotoxicity, which remains a leading cause of long-term allograft dysfunction. Belatacept, a selective costimulation blocker, offers a promising alternative to CNIs by aiming to reduce nephrotoxicity while maintaining efficacy in preventing acute rejection. While its use in de novo transplantation has been associated with improved graft and patient survival, it has also been linked to a higher incidence of acute rejection. Early post-transplantation conversion to belatacept has demonstrated significant improvements in renal function (eGFR gains ranging from +8.8 to +38.2 mL/min/1.73 m 2 at 1 year post-conversion) but carries a higher risk of opportunistic infections. Late conversion protocols, typically initiated beyond 6 months post-transplantation, have shown sustained—although less pronounced—eGFR improvements and better long-term graft survival compared to CNI-based regimens. Additionally, belatacept appears to reduce the incidence of donor-specific antibodies. Future directions for the use of belatacept need further exploration, including its role in rescuing poor renal function, its combination with low-dose CNIs, mTOR inhibitors, or tocilizumab, and its application in desensitization protocols. By potentially striking a balance between efficacy and safety, belatacept may redefine the future landscape of transplant immunosuppression.

In a 24-week trial involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis that was refractory to biologic agents, the JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib was superior to the T-cell costimulation modulator abatacept in reducing disease activity as assessed by a composite measure of joint changes and C-reactive protein level.

ObjectiveTo investigate the rate of serious bacterial, viral or opportunistic infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) starting tocilizumab (TCZ) versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept.MethodsUsing claims data from US Medicare from 2010 to 2015, and IMS and MarketScan from 2011 to 2015, we identified adults with RA who initiated TCZ or TNFi (primary comparator)/abatacept (secondary comparator) with prior use of ≥1 different biologic drug or tofacitinib. The primary outcome was hospitalised serious infection (SI), including bacterial, viral or opportunistic infection. To control for >70 confounders, TCZ initiators were propensity score (PS)-matched to TNFi or abatacept initiators. Database-specific HRs were combined by a meta-analysis.ResultsThe primary cohort included 16 074 TCZ PS-matched to 33 109 TNFi initiators. The risk of composite SI was not different between TCZ and TNFi initiators (combined HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16). However, TCZ was associated with an increased risk of serious bacterial infection (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.33), skin and soft tissue infections (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.86), and diverticulitis (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.64 to 3.34) versus TNFi. An increased risk of composite SI, serious bacterial infection, diverticulitis, pneumonia/upper respiratory tract infection and septicaemia/bacteraemia was observed in TCZ versus abatacept users.ConclusionsThis large multidatabase cohort study found no difference in composite SI risk in patients with RA initiating TCZ versus TNFi after failing ≥1 biologic drug or tofacitinib. However, the risk of serious bacterial infection, skin and soft tissue infections, and diverticulitis was higher in TCZ versus TNFi initiators. The risk of composite SI was higher in TCZ initiators versus abatacept.

BackgroundJAK-inhibitors (JAKi), recently approved in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), have changed the landscape of treatment choices. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of four current second-line therapies of RA with different modes of action, since JAKi approval, in an international collaboration of 19 registers.MethodsIn this observational cohort study, patients initiating tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), interleukin-6 inhibitors (IL-6i), abatacept (ABA) or JAKi were included. We compared the effectiveness of these treatments in terms of drug discontinuation and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) response rates at 1 year. Analyses were adjusted for patient, disease and treatment characteristics, including lines of therapy and accounted for competing risk.ResultsWe included 31 846 treatment courses: 17 522 TNFi, 2775 ABA, 3863 IL-6i and 7686 JAKi. Adjusted analyses of overall discontinuation were similar across all treatments. The main single reason of stopping treatment was ineffectiveness. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were less often discontinued for ineffectiveness (adjusted HR (aHR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.83), as was IL-6i (aHR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) and more often for adverse events (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.33). Adjusted CDAI response rates at 1 year were similar between TNFi, JAKi and IL-6i and slightly lower for ABA.ConclusionThe adjusted overall drug discontinuation and 1 year response rates of JAKi and IL-6i were similar to those observed with TNFi. Compared with TNFi, JAKi were more often discontinued for adverse events and less for ineffectiveness, as were IL-6i.

Objectives A systematic review was conducted to explore the immunogenicity of biologic agents across inflammatory diseases and its potential impact on efficacy/safety. Methods Literature searches were conducted through November 2016 to identify controlled and observational studies of biologics/biosimilars administered for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), psoriasis (Ps), Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. Results Of >21,000 screened publications, 443 were included. Anti-drug antibody (ADAb) rates varied widely among biologics across diseases (and are not directly comparable because of immunoassay heterogeneity); the highest overall rates were reported with infliximab (0–83%), adalimumab (0–54%), and infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 (21–52%), and the lowest with secukinumab (0–1%), ustekinumab (1–11%), etanercept (0–13%), and golimumab (0–19%). Most ADAbs were neutralizing, except those to abatacept and etanercept. ADAb+ versus ADAb− patients had lower rates of clinical response to adalimumab (RA, PsA, JIA, AS, Ps), golimumab (RA), infliximab (RA, PsA, AS, Ps), rituximab (RA), ustekinumab (Ps), and CT-P13 (RA, AS). Higher rates of infusion-related reactions were reported in infliximab- and CT-P13-treated ADAb+ patients. Background immunosuppressives/anti-proliferatives reduced biologic immunogenicity across diseases. Conclusions Based on reviewed reports, biologic/biosimilar immunogenicity differs among agents, with the highest rates observed with infliximab and adalimumab. As ADAb formation in biologic-/biosimilar-treated patients may increase the risk of lost response, the immunogenicity of these agents is an important (albeit not the only) consideration in the treatment decision-making process.

The biological DMARD (bDMARD) abatacept (Orencia ® ), a recombinant fusion protein, selectively modulates a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T-cell activation. In the EU, abatacept is approved for use in patients with highly active and progressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not previously treated with methotrexate. Abatacept is also approved for the treatment of moderate to severe active RA in patients with an inadequate response to previous therapy with at least one conventional DMARD (cDMARD), including methotrexate or a TNF inhibitor. In phase III trials, beneficial effects on RA signs and symptoms, disease activity, structural damage progression and physical function were seen with intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) abatacept regimens, including abatacept plus methotrexate in methotrexate-naive patients with early RA and poor prognostic factors, and abatacept plus methotrexate or other cDMARDs in patients with inadequate response to methotrexate or TNF inhibitors. Benefits were generally maintained during longer-term follow-up. Absolute drug-free remission rates following withdrawal of all RA treatments were significantly higher with abatacept plus methotrexate than with methotrexate alone. Both IV and SC abatacept were generally well tolerated, with low rates of immunogenicity. Current evidence therefore suggests that abatacept is a useful treatment option for patients with RA.

Background In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), macrophages play an important role in modulating the immunoinflammatory response through their polarisation into “classically” (M1) or “alternatively activated” (M2) phenotypes. In RA, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept) reduces the inflammatory activity of macrophages by interacting with the costimulatory molecule CD86. The study aimed to investigate the efficacy of CTLA4-Ig treatment to induce an M2 phenotype both in M1-polarised monocyte-derived macrophages (MDMs) obtained from healthy subjects (HS) and in cultured MDMs obtained from active RA patients. Methods Cultured MDMs were obtained from peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 7 active RA patients and from 10 HS after stimulation with phorbol myristate acetate (5 ng/mL) for 24 h. HS-MDMs were then stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS, 1 mg/mL) for 4 h to induce M1-MDMs. M1-MDMs and RA-MDMs were treated with CTLA4-Ig (100 μM and 500 μM) for 3, 12, 24, and 48 h. The gene expression of CD80, CD86, and TLR4 (M1 markers); CD163, CD204, and CD206 (surface M2 markers); and MerTK (functional M2 marker) was evaluated by qRT-PCR. The protein synthesis of surface M2 markers was investigated by Western blotting. The statistical analysis was performed by the Wilcoxon t -test. Results In LPS-induced HS-M1-MDMs, CTLA4-Ig 100 μM and 500 μM significantly downregulated the gene expression of M1 markers (3 h p <0.01 for all molecules; 12 h p <0.05 for TLR4 and CD86) and significantly upregulated that of M2 markers, primarily after 12 h of treatment (CD163: p < 0.01 and p < 0.05; CD206: p < 0.05 and p < 0.01; CD204: p < 0.05 by 100 mg/mL). Moreover, in these cells, CTLA4-Ig 500 μM increased the protein synthesis of surface M2 markers ( p < 0.05). Similarly, in RA-MDMs, the CTLA4-Ig treatment significantly downregulated the gene expression of M1 markers at both concentrations primarily after 12 h ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, both concentrations of CTLA4-Ig significantly upregulated the gene expression of CD206 (after 3 h of treatment; p < 0.05), CD163, and MerTK (after 12 h of treatment, p < 0.05), whereas CD204 gene expression was significantly upregulated by the high concentration of CTLA4-Ig ( p < 0.05). The protein synthesis of all surface markers was increased primarily by CTLA4-Ig 500 μM, significantly for CD204 and CD206 after 24 h of treatment ( p < 0.05). Conclusions CTLA4-Ig treatment seems to induce the in vitro shift from M1 to M2 macrophages, of both HS-M1-MDMs and RA-MDMs, as observed by the significant downregulation exerted on selected M1 markers and the upregulation of selected M2 markers suggesting an additional mechanism for its modulation of the RA inflammatory process.

ObjectivesTo evaluate efficacy and safety of abatacept in adults with active primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.MethodsEligible patients (moderate-to-severe pSS [2016 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria], EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index [ESSDAI] ≥5, anti-SS-related antigen A/anti-Ro antibody positive) received weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 169 days followed by an open-label extension to day 365. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in ESSDAI at day 169. Key secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline in EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and stimulated whole salivary flow (SWSF) at day 169. Other secondary clinical endpoints included glandular functions and patient-reported outcomes. Selected biomarkers and immune cell phenotypes were examined. Safety was monitored.ResultsOf 187 patients randomised, 168 completed double-blind period and 165 continued into open-label period. Mean (SD) baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI total scores were 9.4 (4.3) and 6.5 (2.0), respectively. Statistical significance was not reached for primary (ESSDAI −3.2 abatacept vs −3.7 placebo, p=0.442) or key secondary endpoints (ESSPRI, p=0.337; SWSF, p=0.584). No clinical benefit of abatacept over placebo at day 169 was seen with other clinical and PRO endpoints. Relative to baseline, abatacept was associated with significant differences vs placebo in some disease-relevant biomarkers (including IgG, IgA, IgM-rheumatoid factor) and pathogenic cell subpopulations (post hoc analyses). No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionsAbatacept treatment did not result in significant clinical efficacy compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pSS, despite evidence of biological activity.

The optimal first-line treatment in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is debated. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of active conventional therapy with each of three biological treatments with different modes of action. Investigator-initiated, randomised, blinded-assessor study. Patients with treatment-naïve early RA with moderate-severe disease activity were randomised 1:1:1:1 to methotrexate combined with (1) active conventional therapy: oral prednisolone (tapered quickly, discontinued at week 36) sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in swollen joints; (2) certolizumab pegol; (3) abatacept or (4) tocilizumab. Coprimary endpoints were week 48 Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission (CDAI ≤2.8) and change in radiographic van der Heijde-modified Sharp Score, estimated using logistic regression and analysis of covariance, adjusted for sex, anticitrullinated protein antibody status and country. Bonferroni's and Dunnet's procedures adjusted for multiple testing (significance level: 0.025). Eight hundred and twelve patients were randomised. Adjusted CDAI remission rates at week 48 were: 59.3% (abatacept), 52.3% (certolizumab), 51.9% (tocilizumab) and 39.2% (active conventional therapy). Compared with active conventional therapy, CDAI remission rates were significantly higher for abatacept (adjusted difference +20.1%, p<0.001) and certolizumab (+13.1%, p=0.021), but not for tocilizumab (+12.7%, p=0.030). Key secondary clinical outcomes were consistently better in biological groups. Radiographic progression was low, without group differences.The proportions of patients with serious adverse events were abatacept, 8.3%; certolizumab, 12.4%; tocilizumab, 9.2%; and active conventional therapy, 10.7%. Compared with active conventional therapy, clinical remission rates were superior for abatacept and certolizumab pegol, but not for tocilizumab. Radiographic progression was low and similar between treatments. NCT01491815.

ObjectivesTo examine whether baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (CCP2) antibody status and concentration correlated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with abatacept or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) in the 2-year AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE rheumatoid arthritis subjects with background MTX) study.MethodsIn this exploratory analysis, anti-CCP2 antibody concentration was measured at baseline, and antibody-positive patients were divided into equal quartiles, Q1–Q4, representing increasing antibody concentrations. Clinical outcomes analysed by baseline anti-CCP2 status and quartile included change from baseline in disease activity and disability and remission rates.ResultsBaseline characteristics were generally comparable across quartiles and treatment groups. In both treatment groups, anti-CCP2 antibody-negative patients responded less well than antibody-positive patients. At year 2, improvements in disease activity and disability and remission rates were similar across Q1–Q3, but were numerically higher in Q4 in the abatacept group; in contrast, treatment effects were similar across all quartiles in the adalimumab group.ConclusionsIn AMPLE, baseline anti-CCP2 positivity was associated with a better response for abatacept and adalimumab. Patients with the highest baseline anti-CCP2 antibody concentrations had better clinical response with abatacept than patients with lower concentrations, an association that was not observed with adalimumab.Trial registration numberNCT00929864.