Julie Teng

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.

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.

Abatacept in the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis: results of a six-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept, a selective T cell costimulation modulator, in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS In this 6-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study, 170 PsA patients with a psoriasis target lesion (TL) ≥2 cm who had previously taken disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents, were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive placebo or abatacept at doses of 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, or 30/10 mg/kg (2 initial doses of 30 mg/kg, followed by 10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and then once every 28 days thereafter. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% criteria for improvement (ACR20 response) on day 169. Other key end points were magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scores for joint erosion, osteitis, and synovitis, scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) health survey, the investigators global assessment of psoriasis, the TL score, and the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score. RESULTS Proportions of patients achieving an ACR20 response were 19%, 33%, 48%, and 42% in the placebo, the abatacept 3 mg/kg, the abatacept 10 mg/kg, and the abatacept 30/10 mg/kg groups, respectively. Compared with placebo, improvements were significantly higher for the abatacept 10 mg/kg (P = 0.006) and 30/10 mg/kg (P = 0.022) groups, but not for 3 mg/kg group (P = 0.121). All abatacept regimens resulted in improved MRI, HAQ, and SF-36 scores, with 10 mg/kg showing the greatest improvements. Improvements in the TL and PASI scores were observed in all abatacept arms; a response according to the investigators global assessment was seen only with 3 mg/kg of abatacept. The safety profiles were similar among the treatment arms. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that 10 mg/kg of abatacept, the approved dosage for rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis, may be an effective treatment option for PsA.

Results of a two-year followup study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received a combination of abatacept and methotrexate.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy, radiographic changes, and safety of abatacept and methotrexate therapy through 2 years in a long-term extension of a previously published 1-year study. METHODS Patients who received placebo during year 1 were switched to abatacept. Patients taking abatacept continued to take it. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 2 years. RESULTS Of 539 patients enrolled in the initial 1-year study, 488 completed 1 year of the long-term extension (2% discontinued for lack of efficacy). At 2 years, patients taking abatacept had maintained their responses on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28; using the C-reactive protein [CRP] level), as well as their physical function (according to the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] disability index [DI]) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL; assessed with the Short Form 36 [SF-36] health survey), that were observed at the end of the double-blind period (year 1 versus year 2 values were 81.9% versus 80.3% for ACR 20% improvement, 25.4% versus 30.9% for a DAS28 [CRP] of <2.6, 71.8% versus 66.8% for the HAQ DI, and 9.7 versus 10.6 and 7.3 versus 7.2, respectively, for the mean change in the physical and mental components summary scores of the SF-36). In the abatacept group, post hoc analysis demonstrated further inhibition of radiographic progression during year 2 (57% reduction in mean change of total score in year 2 versus year 1; P<0.0001), and minimal radiographic progression was observed (mean change in total score from baseline was 1.1 and 1.6 at year 1 and 2, respectively). Rates of adverse events (AEs) and severe AEs were consistent throughout the cumulative period. CONCLUSION The improvements in signs and symptoms, physical function, and HRQOL observed after 1 year of abatacept treatment were maintained through 2 years of treatment. This durability was accompanied by a safety profile consistent with that in the double-blind portion of the study. Radiographic progression was further inhibited in year 2 compared with year 1, suggesting an increasing effect of abatacept on the inhibition of structural damage in year 2.

Abatacept inhibits progression of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the long-term extension of the AIM trial

Objective: Assess the effect of abatacept on progression of structural damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methods: 539 patients entered an open-label extension of the AIM (Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate) trial and received abatacept. Radiographic assessment of the hands and feet was performed at baseline, year 1 and year 2. At year 2, each patient’s radiographs were scored for progression blinded to sequence and treatment allocation. Results: In patients treated with abatacept for 2 years, greater reduction in progression of structural damage was observed in year 2 than in year 1. The mean change in total Genant-modified Sharp scores was reduced from 1.07 units in year 1 to 0.46 units in year 2. Similar reductions were observed in erosion and joint space narrowing scores. Following 2 years of treatment with abatacept, 50% of patients had no progression of structural damage as defined by a change in the total score of ⩽0 compared with baseline. 56% of patients treated with abatacept had no progression during the first year compared with 45% of patients treated with placebo. In their second year of treatment with abatacept, more patients had no progression than in the first year (66% vs 56%). Conclusions: Abatacept has a sustained effect that inhibits progression of structural damage. Furthermore, the mean change in radiographic progression in patients treated with abatacept for 2 years was significantly lower in year 2 versus year 1, suggesting that abatacept may have an increasing disease-modifying effect on structural damage over time.

Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept : a phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept. Methods In this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. Results Of 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept–treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept–treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval –4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept–treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept–treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept–treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)–treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)–treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept–treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept–treated patients. Conclusion SC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: longterm data from the ACQUIRE trial.

Objective. Assess longterm tolerability, safety, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods. The phase III, multinational Abatacept Comparison of Sub[QU]cutaneous Versus Intravenous in Inadequate Responders to MethotrexatE (ACQUIRE) trial comprised a 6-month, randomized, double-blind (DB) period, in which patients received intravenous (IV) or SC ABA, plus MTX, followed by an open-label, longterm extension (LTE), in which patients received SC ABA, 125 mg/week. Safety and efficacy from the LTE (∼3.5 yrs of exposure) are reported. Results. Patients who completed the DB period (1372/1385, 99.1%) entered the LTE; 1134 patients (82.7%) kept taking the treatment at time of reporting. Mean (SD) was 31.9 months (6.8); median (range) exposure was 33.0 (8–44) months. Patients entering the LTE had longstanding, moderate-to-severe disease [mean 7.6 (7.9) yrs and DAS28 (C-reactive protein) 6.2 (0.9)]. Incidence rates (events/100 patient-yrs) were reported for serious adverse events (8.76, 95% CI 7.71, 9.95), infections (44.80, 95% CI 41.76, 48.01), serious infections (1.72, 95% CI 1.30, 2.27), malignancies (1.19, 95% CI 0.86, 1.66), and autoimmune events (1.31, 95% CI 0.95, 1.79). Twenty-seven patients (2%) experienced injection-site reactions; all except 1 were mild. American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70 responses achieved during the DB period were maintained through the LTE, and on Day 981 were 80.2% (95% CI 77.2, 83.2), 63.5% (95% CI 58.2, 68.9), and 39.5% (95% CI 34.0, 44.9) for patients who kept taking SC ABA, and 80.0% (95% CI 77.0, 83.0), 63.2% (95% CI 57.8, 68.7), and 39.2% (95% CI 33.7, 44.7) for those who switched from IV to SC ABA. Conclusion. These findings support SC ABA as a well-tolerated and efficacious longterm treatment for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00559585).