J.-C. Becker

Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: a phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate.

Objectives: This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score (based on erythrocyte sedimentation rates; DAS28 (ESR)) for the abatacept vs placebo groups at day 197. Methods: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 3:3:2 to abatacept (∼10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, n = 156), infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, n = 165), or placebo (every 4 weeks, n = 110) and background MTX. Safety and efficacy were assessed throughout the study. Results: Similar patient demographics and clinical characteristics were present at baseline between groups, with mean scores of ∼1.7 for HAQ-DI and 6.8 for DAS28 (ESR). At 6 months, mean changes in DAS28 (ESR) were significantly greater for abatacept vs placebo (–2.53 vs –1.48, p<0.001) and infliximab vs placebo (–2.25 vs –1.48, p<0.001). For abatacept vs infliximab treatment at day 365, reductions in the DAS28 (ESR) were –2.88 vs –2.25. At day 365, the following response rates were observed for abatacept and infliximab, respectively: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 72.4 and 55.8%; ACR 50, 45.5 and 36.4%; ACR 70, 26.3 and 20.6%; low disease activity score (LDAS), 35.3 and 22.4%; DAS28-defined remission, 18.7 and 12.2%; good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses, 32.0 and 18.5%; and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 57.7 and 52.7%. Mean changes in physical component summary (PCS) were 9.5 and 7.6, and mental component summary (MCS) were 6.0 and 4.0, for abatacept and infliximab, respectively. Over 1 year, adverse events (AEs) (89.1 vs 93.3%), serious AEs (SAEs) (9.6 vs 18.2%), serious infections (1.9 vs 8.5%) and discontinuations due to AEs (3.2 vs 7.3%) and SAEs (2.6 vs 3.6%) were lower with abatacept than infliximab. Conclusions: In this study, abatacept and infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy. Overall, abatacept had a relatively more acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with fewer SAEs, serious infections, acute infusional events and discontinuations due to AEs than the infliximab group. Trial registration number: NCT00095147.

Validation of the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and European League Against Rheumatism response criteria based on C-reactive protein against disease progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and comparison with the DAS28 based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate

Objective: To validate and compare the definition of the Disease Activity Score 28 based on C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) to the definition based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Methods: Data were analysed from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of abatacept of 6-month and 12-month duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the proportion of patients in remission (DAS28 <2.6) based on the two DAS28 definitions were examined. Trends in radiographic progression (erosion score, joint space narrowing score and total score) and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) across the EULAR responder states (none, moderate and good) were analysed. Results: There was general agreement in determining the EULAR responder state using both DAS28 definitions (κ = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Overall, there was 82.4% agreement on the EULAR response criteria; when disagreements occurred, the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often then DAS28 (ESR) (12.6% vs 4.9%, respectively). There was also agreement in determining remission: κ = 0.69 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). Radiographic progression decreased in patients treated with abatacept across EULAR states (from none to moderate to good) based on both definitions. For patients treated with placebo, the trend was not as pronounced, with radiographic scores higher for moderate vs non-responders. For physical function, similar trends were observed across the EULAR states for both DAS28 definitions. Conclusions: The DAS28 (CRP) has been validated against radiographic progression and physical function. While the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often than the DAS28 (ESR), the validation profile was similar to the DAS28 (ESR), indicating that both measures are useful for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with non–life‐threatening manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a twelve‐month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate abatacept therapy in patients with non-life-threatening systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis. METHODS In a 12-month, multicenter, exploratory, phase IIb randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, SLE patients with polyarthritis, discoid lesions, or pleuritis and/or pericarditis were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive abatacept (∼10 mg/kg of body weight) or placebo. Prednisone (30 mg/day or equivalent) was given for 1 month, and then the dosage was tapered. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with new flare (adjudicated) according to a score of A/B on the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) index after the start of the steroid taper. RESULTS A total of 118 patients were randomized to receive abatacept and 57 to receive placebo. The baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The proportion of new BILAG A/B flares over 12 months was 79.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 72.4, 86.9) in the abatacept group and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3) in the placebo group (treatment difference -3.5 [95% CI -15.3, 8.3]). Other prespecified flare end points were not met. In post hoc analyses, the proportions of abatacept-treated and placebo-treated patients with a BILAG A flare were 40.7% (95% CI 31.8, 49.5) versus 54.4% (95% CI 41.5, 67.3), and the proportions with physician-assessed flare were 63.6% (95% CI 54.9, 72.2) and 82.5% (95% CI 72.6, 92.3), respectively; treatment differences were greatest in the polyarthritis group. Prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcomes (Short Form 36 health survey, sleep problems, fatigue) demonstrated a treatment effect with abatacept. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was comparable in the abatacept and placebo groups (90.9% versus 91.5%), but serious AEs (SAEs) were higher in the abatacept group (19.8 versus 6.8%). Most SAEs were single, disease-related events occurring during the first 6 months of the study (including the steroid taper period). CONCLUSION Although the primary/secondary end points were not met in this study, improvements in certain exploratory measures suggest some abatacept efficacy in patients with non-life-threatening manifestations of SLE. The increased rate of SAEs requires further assessment.

Efficacy and safety of the selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept following 2 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept during 2 years of the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate responders) trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind period were eligible to enter the long-term extension; patients received abatacept ∼10 mg/kg, plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Safety and efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses, DAS28 (C-reactive protein), HAQ-DI, SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index, fatigue VAS) were assessed through 2 years. Results: 317 patients (218 from the abatacept and 99 from the placebo group) entered and 222 (70%) completed 18 months of long-term extension treatment. The incidence and type of adverse events were consistent between the double-blind and cumulative (double-blind plus long-term extension) periods. Rates of serious adverse events were 25.6 and 23.4 per 100 patient-years in the double-blind versus cumulative period. At 6 months and 2 years, using non-responder analyses, ACR responses in abatacept-treated patients were: ACR 20, 59.4% and 56.2%; ACR 50, 23.5% and 33.2%; ACR 70, 11.5% and 16.1%; HAQ-DI responses were 54.4% and 47.9%. At 6 months and 2 years, using post-hoc as-observed analyses, the percentage of patients (95% confidence interval) achieving DAS28 (C-reactive protein) low disease activity score (⩽3.2) and DAS28 (C-reactive protein)-defined remission (<2.6) increased from 18.3% (13.0, 23.5) to 32.0% (24.6, 39.4) and 11.1% (6.8, 15.3) to 20.3% (13.9, 26.6). Clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36, pain, fatigue and sleep problems were also maintained throughout the 2 years of abatacept treatment. Conclusion: No unique safety observations were reported during open-label exposure. Improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, physical function and health-related quality of life observed after 6 months, were maintained throughout the 2 years in this population with difficult-to-treat disease. Trial registration number: NCT00124982.

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