Allison Covucci

Abatacept in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial

BACKGROUND Some children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis either do not respond, or are intolerant to, treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had failed previous treatments. METHODS We did a double-blind, randomised controlled withdrawal trial between February, 2004, and June, 2006. We enrolled 190 patients aged 6-17 years, from 45 centres, who had a history of active juvenile idiopathic arthritis; at least five active joints; and an inadequate response to, or intolerance to, at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. All 190 patients were given 10 mg/kg of abatacept intravenously in the open-label period of 4 months. Of the 170 patients who completed this lead-in course, 47 did not respond to the treatment according to predefined American College of Rheumatology (ACR) paediatric criteria and were excluded. Of the patients who did respond to abatacept, 60 were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg of abatacept at 28-day intervals for 6 months, or until a flare of the arthritis, and 62 were randomly assigned to receive placebo at the same dose and timing. The primary endpoint was time to flare of arthritis. Flare was defined as worsening of 30% or more in at least three of six core variables, with at least 30% improvement in no more than one variable. We analysed all patients who were treated as per protocol. This trial is registered, number NCT00095173. FINDINGS Flares of arthritis occurred in 33 of 62 (53%) patients who were given placebo and 12 of 60 (20%) abatacept patients during the double-blind treatment (p=0.0003). Median time to flare of arthritis was 6 months for patients given placebo (insufficient events to calculate IQR); insufficient events had occurred in the abatacept group for median time to flare to be assessed (p=0.0002). The risk of flare in patients who continued abatacept was less than a third of that for controls during that double-blind period (hazard ratio 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.95). During the double-blind period, the frequency of adverse events did not differ in the two treatment groups. Adverse events were recorded in 37 abatacept recipients (62%) and 34 (55%) placebo recipients (p=0.47); only two serious adverse events were reported, both in controls (p=0.50). INTERPRETATION Selective modulation of T-cell costimulation with abatacept is a rational alternative treatment for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and poor prognostic factors. Methods: In this double-blind, phase IIIb study, patients with RA for 2 years or less were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were methotrexate-naive and seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) type 2 or both and had radiographic evidence of joint erosions. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (C-reactive protein) and joint damage progression (Genant-modified Sharp total score; TS) at year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. Results: At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.3, a mean TS of 7.1 and mean disease duration of 6.5 months; 96.5% and 89.0% of patients were RF or anti-CCP2 seropositive, respectively. At year 1, a significantly greater proportion of abatacept plus methotrexate-treated patients achieved remission (41.4% vs 23.3%; p<0.001) and there was significantly less radiographic progression (mean change in TS 0.63 vs 1.06; p = 0.040) versus methotrexate alone. Over 1 year, the frequency of adverse events (84.8% vs 83.4%), serious adverse events (7.8% vs 7.9%), serious infections (2.0% vs 2.0%), autoimmune disorders (2.3% vs 2.0%) and malignancies (0.4% vs 0%) was comparable for abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone. Conclusions: In a methotrexate-naive population with early RA and poor prognostic factors, the combination of abatacept and methotrexate provided significantly better clinical and radiographic efficacy compared with methotrexate alone and had a comparable, favourable safety profile.

Sustained disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors treated with abatacept: 2-year outcomes

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone in early erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods The AGREE was a 2-year phase IIIb multinational study in early (≤2 years) RA. During the double-blind period (year 1), patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive abatacept+methotrexate or methotrexate alone; all patients received open-label abatacept+methotrexate during year 2. Clinical outcomes assessed included 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) defined remission, low disease activity score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses and physical function. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the Genant-modified Sharp total score (TS). Safety was monitored throughout. Results Of the 459 patients completing year 1, 433 patients (94.3%) completed year 2. DAS28-defined remission, LDAS, ACR and physical function were sustained through year 2 in the original abatacept+methotrexate group, with 55.2% in remission at 2 years. Upon introduction of abatacept in the methotrexate-alone group, additional patients achieved DAS28-defined remission (44.5% vs 26.9%), LDAS (60.4% vs 43.2%) and improved ACR 70 (49.8% vs 31.7%) for year 2 versus year 1. Less radiographic progression was observed at 2 years in the original abatacept+methotrexate group than the methotrexate-alone group (change in TS 0.84 vs 1.75, p<0.001). No new safety issues were seen. Similar rates of serious adverse events, serious infections and autoimmune events were observed in years 1 and 2. Conclusions The AGREE trial was the first to examine the impact of T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with early erosive RA. Early treatment with abatacept+methotrexate resulted in greater sustainable clinical, functional and radiographic benefits than methotrexate alone, with acceptable safety and tolerability. Trial Registration: NCT00122382

Abatacept improves health‐related quality of life, pain, sleep quality, and daily participation in subjects with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

To assess health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in abatacept‐treated children/adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Abatacept Plus Methotrexate Provides Incremental Clinical Benefits Versus Methotrexate Alone in Methotrexate-naive Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Achieve Radiographic Nonprogression

Objective. This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) who achieved radiographic nonprogression at the end of the double-blind phase. Methods. Patients who achieved radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline in total Sharp score ≤ 0 at 12 months) with abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) or MTX alone were eligible for this analysis. Clinical outcomes were remission, defined by 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP), low Disease Activity Score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and tender and swollen joint counts. Safety was assessed at each visit. Results. Patients in the abatacept plus MTX and MTX monotherapy groups had similar baseline characteristics and were similar to the overall study population. The proportion of patients who achieved DAS28 (CRP) remission or LDAS was greater with abatacept plus MTX vs MTX alone [43.2% vs 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 57.4% vs 40.6% (p = 0.008), respectively]. More patients receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved key ACR responses, including major clinical response (27.3% vs 11.9%; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar in both treatment groups. Conclusion. More MTX-naive patients with early RA who achieved radiographic nonprogression taking abatacept plus MTX also achieved DAS28 (CRP)-defined remission and LDAS compared with patients who received MTX alone, supporting the use of abatacept as a first-line biologic in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Abatacept treatment improves health-related quality of life, pain, and sleep quality in juvenile idiopathic arthritis patients

Methods 190 JIA patients were treated with abatacept for 4 months in an open-label lead-in period (Period A). ACR Pedi 30 responders (n = 123) were then randomized 1:1 to receive abatacept or placebo for up to 6 months in a double-blind withdrawal period (Period B). HRQOL was assessed by the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ), sleep quality was measured by the Childrens Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ), and pain by a 0–100 mm VAS. Mean change from baseline in each period was calculated and compared between the treatment groups (in Period B), and the change over time was examined.

Reduction in missed school days and improvement in parent activity participation in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with abatacept

Methods 190 JIA patients were treated with abatacept for 4 months in an open-label lead-in period (Period A). ACR Pedi 30 responders (n = 123) were then randomized 1:1 to receive abatacept or placebo for 6 months in a double-blind withdrawal period (Period B). Activity participation for the child and the parents were assessed, along with clinical and quality of life (QOL) parameters. Mean change from baseline in each period was analyzed, and the two treatment groups were compared.