Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate and compare benefits and harms of three biological treatments with different modes of action versus active conventional treatment in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis.DesignInvestigator initiated, randomised, open label, blinded assessor, multiarm, phase IV study.SettingTwenty nine rheumatology departments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland between 2012 and 2018.ParticipantsPatients aged 18 years and older with treatment naive rheumatoid arthritis, symptom duration less than 24 months, moderate to severe disease activity, and rheumatoid factor or anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, or increased C reactive protein.InterventionsRandomised 1:1:1:1, stratified by country, sex, and anti-citrullinated protein antibody status. All participants started methotrexate combined with (a) active conventional treatment (either prednisolone tapered to 5 mg/day, or sulfasalazine combined with hydroxychloroquine and intra-articular corticosteroids), (b) certolizumab pegol, (c) abatacept, or (d) tocilizumab.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was adjusted clinical disease activity index remission (CDAI≤2.8) at 24 weeks with active conventional treatment as the reference. Key secondary outcomes and analyses included CDAI remission at 12 weeks and over time, other remission criteria, a non-inferiority analysis, and harms.Results812 patients underwent randomisation. The mean age was 54.3 years (standard deviation 14.7) and 68.8% were women. Baseline disease activity score of 28 joints was 5.0 (standard deviation 1.1). Adjusted 24 week CDAI remission rates were 42.7% (95% confidence interval 36.1% to 49.3%) for active conventional treatment, 46.5% (39.9% to 53.1%) for certolizumab pegol, 52.0% (45.5% to 58.6%) for abatacept, and 42.1% (35.3% to 48.8%) for tocilizumab. Corresponding absolute differences were 3.9% (95% confidence interval −5.5% to 13.2%) for certolizumab pegol, 9.4% (0.1% to 18.7%) for abatacept, and −0.6% (−10.1% to 8.9%) for tocilizumab. Key secondary outcomes showed no major differences among the four treatments. Differences in CDAI remission rates for active conventional treatment versus certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, remained within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15% (per protocol population). The total number of serious adverse events was 13 (percentage of patients who experienced at least one event 5.6%) for active conventional treatment, 20 (8.4%) for certolizumab pegol, 10 (4.9%) for abatacept, and 10 (4.9%) for tocilizumab. Eleven patients treated with abatacept stopped treatment early compared with 20-23 patients in the other arms.ConclusionsAll four treatments achieved high remission rates. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for abatacept versus active conventional treatment, but not for certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment. Other remission rates were similar across treatments. Non-inferiority analysis indicated that active conventional treatment was non-inferior to certolizumab pegol and tocilizumab, but not to abatacept. The results highlight the efficacy and safety of active conventional treatment based on methotrexate combined with corticosteroids, with nominally better results for abatacept, in treatment naive early rheumatoid arthritis.Trial registrationEudraCT2011-004720-35, NCT01491815.

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.

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in a phase III study in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsThis study randomised patients (1:1) with active PsA (~60% with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) to blinded weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg (n=213) or placebo (n=211) for 24 weeks, followed by open-label subcutaneous abatacept. Patients without ≥20% improvement in joint counts at week 16 were switched to open-label abatacept. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24.ResultsAbatacept significantly increased ACR20 response versus placebo at week 24 (39.4% vs 22.3%; p<0.001). Although abatacept numerically increased Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index response rates (reduction from baseline ≥0.35) at week 24, this was not statistically significant (31.0% vs 23.7%; p=0.097). The benefits of abatacept were seen in ACR20 responses regardless of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure and in other musculoskeletal manifestations, but significance could not be attributed due to ranking below Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index response in hierarchical testing. However, the benefit on psoriasis lesions was modest. Efficacy was maintained or improved up to week 52. Abatacept was well tolerated with no new safety signals.ConclusionsAbatacept treatment of PsA in this phase III study achieved its primary end point, ACR20 response, showed beneficial trends overall in musculoskeletal manifestations and was well tolerated. There was only a modest impact on psoriasis lesions.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01860976 (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb).

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.

Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of developing certain cancers and infections compared with the general population. Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are effective treatment options for RA, but limited evidence is available on the comparative risks among b/tsDMARDs. We assessed the risk of malignancies and infections in patients with RA who initiated abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs in a real-world setting. Methods This retrospective, observational study used administrative data from three large US healthcare databases (MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum) to identify patients treated with abatacept or other b/tsDMARDs. In both groups, age-stratified incidence rates (IRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for total malignancy and hospitalized infections; propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for total malignancy, lung cancer, lymphoma, breast cancer, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), hospitalized infections, opportunistic infections, and tuberculosis (TB), both within individual databases and in meta-analyses across the three databases. Results A rounded total of 19.2, 13.6, and 4.2 thousand patients initiating abatacept and 55.3, 40.8, and 13.8 thousand initiating other b/tsDMARDs were identified in the MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum databases, respectively. The IRs for total malignancy and hospitalized infections were similar between the two groups in each age stratum. In meta-analyses, total malignancy risk (HR [95% CI] 1.09 [1.02–1.16]) of abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs was slightly but statistically significantly increased; small, but not statistically significant, increases were seen for lung cancer (1.10 [0.62–1.96]), lymphoma (1.27 [0.94–1.72]), breast cancer (1.15 [0.92–1.45]), and NMSC (1.10 [0.93–1.30]). No significant increase in hospitalized infections (0.96 [0.84–1.09]) or opportunistic infections (1.06 [0.96–1.17]) was seen. For TB, low event counts precluded meta-analysis. Conclusions In this real-world multi-database study, the risks for specific cancers and infections did not differ significantly between patients in the abatacept and other b/tsDMARDs groups. The slight increase in total malignancy risk associated with abatacept needs further investigation. These results are consistent with the established safety profile of abatacept.

ObjectivesTo investigate whether rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and shared epitope (SE) allele-related genetic markers associate with treatment response to abatacept, certolizumab pegol or tocilizumab versus active conventional treatment (ACT).MethodsPatients with treatment-naïve early rheumatoid arthritis were randomised in the NORD-STAR trial to ACT, certolizumab pegol, abatacept or tocilizumab, all with methotrexate. Centralised laboratory analyses for ACPA, RF and SE were performed. Clinical Disease Activity Index remission was analysed longitudinally with logistic generalised estimating equations. Differences in treatment effect across RF, ACPA and SE subgroups were assessed with interaction terms at 24 and 48 weeks, adjusted for sex, country, age, body mass index, Disease Activity Score of 28 joints based on C-reactive protein and smoking.ResultsIn total, 778 patients were included. At 24 weeks, abatacept treatment showed a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroups, but this effect was not significantly different from the negative subgroups. By 48 weeks, abatacept treatment showed better response regardless of RF/ACPA status. No differences were found across RF, ACPA, SE allele, valine at amino acid position 11 or valine-arginine-alanine haplotype subgroups for any biological treatment at 48 weeks.ConclusionsBased on this randomised controlled trial, abatacept treatment was associated with a better response than ACT in the RF and/or ACPA-positive subgroup at 24 weeks, but this was no longer seen at 48 weeks; adding SE allele-related genetic markers did not strengthen the association. Moreover, ACPA, RF and SE allele-related genotypes were not, alone or in combination, associated with clinical responses of importance sufficiently strongly to warrant implementation in clinical practice.Trial registration numberEudraCT 2011-004720-35; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01491815.

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.

Background AVERT-2 (a phase IIIb, two-stage study) evaluated abatacept + methotrexate versus methotrexate alone, in methotrexate-naive, anti-citrullinated protein antibody-positive patients with early (≤ 6 months), active RA. This subanalysis investigated whether individual patients who achieved the week 24 Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission primary endpoint could sustain remission to 1 year and then maintain it following changes in therapy. Methods During the 56-week induction period (IP), patients were randomized to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg + methotrexate or abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Patients completing the IP who achieved SDAI remission (≤ 3.3) at weeks 40 and 52 entered a 48-week de-escalation (DE) period. Patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate were re-randomized to continue weekly abatacept + methotrexate, or de-escalate and then withdraw abatacept (after 24 weeks), or receive abatacept monotherapy. Proportions of patients achieving sustained SDAI and Boolean remission, and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28 [CRP]) < 2.6, were assessed. For patients achieving early sustained SDAI remission at weeks 24/40/52, flow between disease activity categories and individual trajectories was evaluated; flow was also evaluated for later remitters (weeks 40/52 but not week 24). Results Among patients treated with abatacept + methotrexate ( n / N  = 451/752) at IP week 24, 22% achieved SDAI remission, 17% achieved Boolean remission, and 42% achieved DAS28 (CRP) < 2.6; of these, 56%, 58%, and 74%, respectively, sustained a response throughout IP weeks 40/52. Among patients with a sustained response at IP weeks 24/40/52, 82% (14/17) on weekly abatacept + methotrexate, 81% (13/16) on abatacept monotherapy, 63% (12/19) who de-escalated/withdrew abatacept, and 65% (11/17) on abatacept placebo + methotrexate were in SDAI remission at end of the DE period; rates were higher than for later remitters in all arms except abatacept placebo + methotrexate. Conclusions A high proportion of individual patients achieving clinical endpoints at IP week 24 with abatacept + methotrexate sustained their responses through week 52. Of patients achieving early and sustained SDAI remission through 52 weeks, numerically more maintained remission during the DE period if weekly abatacept treatment continued. Trial registration NCT02504268 (ClinicalTrials.gov), registered July 21, 2015.