Long-term effects of abatacept on atherosclerosis and arthritis in older vs. younger patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 3-year results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to reveal the effect of abatacept (ABT) on atherosclerosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, 3-year efficacy for arthritis, and safety in a population of older vs. younger patients.

METHODS

In this open-label, prospective, observational study, patients were stratified into four groups: younger (20-64 years old) and older (≥ 65 years) patients taking ABT (AY and AO) and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (CY and CO). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in mean intima-media thickness (IMT) of the common carotid artery, IMT max (bulbus, bifurcation, and internal and common carotid artery), and plaque score at Week 156. Disease activity, retention rate, and adverse effects were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The ABT group (AY + AO) tended to have smaller increases in mean IMT, max IMT, and plaque score than the csDMARD group (CY + CO) at Week 156, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis showed significantly lower increases in plaque score with ABT than with csDMARDs, only when considering disease activity at 156 weeks (p = 0.0303). Proportions of patients with good or good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism response were higher in the ABT group, without significant difference between older and younger patients. No significant differences were observed in ABT retention rates between older and younger patients. Serious adverse effects, especially infection, tended to be more frequent with ABT than with csDMARDs, although no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSIONS

ABT may decelerate atherosclerosis progression and may be useful for patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease, such as older patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000014913.

Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study.

INTERPRETATION

6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase.

FUNDING

Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept.

METHODS

The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18).

FINDINGS

Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers Squibb.

Oral glucocorticoid use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNF-inhibitors, tocilizumab or abatacept: Results from the international TOCERRA and PANABA observational collaborative studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the use of oral glucocorticoids with three classes of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We included patients from 13 observational registries treated with a TNF-inhibitor, abatacept or tocilizumab and with available information on the use of oral glucocorticoids. The main outcome was oral glucocorticoid withdrawal. A McNemar test was used to analyse the change in the use of glucocorticoids after 1 year. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regressions, adjusted for patient, treatment, and disease characteristics, were used to evaluate glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with glucocorticoids at baseline. Because of heterogeneity, analyses were done by registers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 12,334 participants treated with TNF-inhibitors, 2100 with tocilizumab and 3229 with abatacept were included. At one-year, oral glucocorticoid use decreased in all treatment groups (odds ratio for stopping vs. starting of 2.19 [95% CI 1.58; 3.04] for TNF-inhibitors, 2.46 [1.39; 4.35] for tocilizumab; 1.73 [1.25; 2.21] for abatacept). Median time to glucocorticoid withdrawal was ≈2 years or more in most countries, with a gradual decrease over time. Compared to TNF-inhibitors, crude hazard ratios of glucocorticoid discontinuation were 0.65[0.48-0.87] for abatacept, and 1.04 [0.76-1.43] for tocilizumab, and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.1 [0.83-1.47] for abatacept, and 1.30 [0.96-1.78] for tocilizumab.

CONCLUSION

After initiation of a bDMARD, glucocorticoid use decreased similarly in all treatment groups. However, glucocorticoid withdrawal was much slower than advocated by current international guidelines. More effort should be devoted to glucocorticoid tapering when low disease activity is achieved.

Infection outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs.

METHODS

Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM).

RESULTS

The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice.

METHODS

Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept for interstitial lung disease associated with antisynthetase syndrome: a case series

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with antisynthetase syndrome (ASS).

METHODS

Eight patients were identified through retrospective analysis of the medical records of our centre. All patients fulfilled the Solomon criteria and had a disease complicated with ILD. Lung function, imaging, serum markers, clinical evaluation indicators of ILD, peripheral blood cell classification, cytokines, and prednisone doses were analysed.

RESULTS

Seven of the eight patients were female. The mean age was 54.4 (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) years. Antibodies against Jo-1, PL-12, and PL-7 were present in three, three, and two patients respectively. At baseline, the mean diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was 53.8% (SD 9.2%), the mean score of King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) was 40.6 (SD 13.8), the median Krebs Von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) was 1612.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1180.5-2431.5) U/ml. All patients experienced symptom alleviation after ABA therapy. The mean and median changes in DLCO percentage, KBILD, and KL-6 were 12.3% (p<0.05), 21.4 (p<0.01), and 174.5U/ml (p<0.01), respectively. No obvious adverse events related to ABA were observed during the treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study offers preliminary, but encouraging, clinical evidence in favour of ABA as a therapy for ASS-ILD. ABA demonstrated favourable effects on ILD and was well-tolerated. Well-designed randomised controlled studies are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of this strategy.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept to treat active birdshot uveitis: a prospective open label interventional proof-of-concept trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Birdshot uveitis (BU) is a chronic autoimmune posterior uveitis, mostly affecting middle-aged Caucasians. There is a strong association with HLA-A29 and T-cell activation. Safety and efficacy of abatacept, an inhibitor of T-cell costimulation, is tested in active BU.

METHODS

Fifteen patients with active BU were treated with monotherapy of weekly subcutaneous injections of abatacept 125 mg/mL. Time-to-treatment failure was evaluated as a primary outcome. The secondary objective was to evaluate the utility of different outcome measures to monitor disease activity. Safety was evaluated by adverse event reporting and serial blood analyses.

RESULTS

At the year-1 endpoint, there was significant improvement in vitreous haze grade (p=0.0014), central choroidal thickness (CCT) (p=0.0011), Fluorescein Angiography (FA) Score (p=0.0014), Indocyanine Green Angiography (ICGA) Score (p<0.001) and total dual FA-ICGA Score (p<0.001). Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (p=0.8354) and central retinal thickness (CRT) (p=0.3549) did not change significantly. There were no serious adverse events reported. In total, 4 out of 15 patients left the trial during year 1 of whom 2 experienced treatment failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept is very efficacious to treat both retinal vasculitis and choroiditis in patients with BU and is well tolerated. BCVA and CRT are inadequate to monitor disease activity. On the other hand, CCT is a promising non-invasive tool to detect treatment response in early active BU and dual FA-ICGA Score is very helpful to evaluate retinal vasculitis and choroiditis quantitatively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03871361.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs).

RESULTS

~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Abatacept in early polymyalgia rheumatica (ALORS): a proof-of-concept, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND

Medium-dose glucocorticoids can improve symptoms in nearly all patients with polymyalgia rheumatica. According to its good safety profile, abatacept could be used instead of glucocorticoids in early polymyalgia rheumatica. We aimed to determine whether the efficacy of abatacept is sufficient to justify larger studies in early polymyalgia rheumatica.

METHODS

To evaluate whether abatacept allows low disease activity without glucocorticoids in early polymyalgia rheumatica, we conducted a proof-of-concept, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Participants were recruited from five centres in France (in Brest, Le Mans, Morlaix, Dinan and Saint Malo, and Strasbourg) and were included if they had recent-onset (<6 months) polymyalgia rheumatica with a C-reactive protein (CRP) polymyalgia rheumatica activity score (PMR-AS) of more than 17 without any signs or symptoms of giant cell arteritis (clinical and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT evaluation). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly subcutaneous abatacept (125 mg) or matching placebo, with glucocorticoid rescue therapy allowed in cases of high disease activity, for 12 weeks, and then glucocorticoid treatment based on disease activity, until week 36. Investigators, patients, outcome assessors, and sponsor personnel were masked to group assignments. The primary endpoint was low disease activity (CRP PMR-AS ≤10) at week 12 without glucocorticoids and without rescue treatment. The study was powered to demonstrate a 60% difference in response rates between groups. Open-ended adverse events were collected at each visit by clinicians and were categorised following system organ class classification after study completion. The ALORS trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03632187.

FINDINGS

34 patients (22 women and 12 men) were randomly assigned between Dec 13, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021. All patients who had been randomly assigned were included in the analysis. The primary endpoint was reached by eight (50%) of 16 patients in the abatacept group and four (22%) of 18 patients in the placebo group (relative risk 2·2 [0·9-5·5]); crude p=0·15; adjusted p=0·070). Eight (50%) patients in the abatacept and 15 (83%) in the placebo group had adverse events. Four patients (one [6%] in the abatacept group and three [17%] in the placebo group) had serious adverse events. There were no deaths or new safety concerns.

INTERPRETATION

This study suggests that the effect of abatacept alone is not strong enough to justify larger studies in early polymyalgia rheumatica. This is only a first step in deciding whether a larger study should be conducted in early polymyalgia rheumatica and does not exclude a potential effect of abatacept in glucocorticoid-dependent polymyalgia rheumatica.

FUNDING

BMS Pharma France.

Long-Term Maintenance of Clinical Responses by Individual Patients With Polyarticular-Course Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Treated With Abatacept

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the frequency and trajectories of individual patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) achieving novel composite end points on abatacept.

METHODS

Data from a clinical trial of subcutaneous abatacept (NCT01844518) and a post hoc analysis of intravenous abatacept (NCT00095173) in patients with polyarticular-course JIA were included. Three end points were defined and evaluated: combined occurrence of low disease activity (LDA) measured by the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score; 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria for JIA (ACR50); and patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes included visual analog scale score of minimal pain (pain-min) and Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score of 0 (C-HAQ DI0). In this post hoc analysis, maintenance of month 13 and 21 end points (LDA+pain-min, LDA+C-HAQ DI0, and ACR50+pain-min) in those who achieved them at month 4 was determined.

RESULTS

Composite end points (LDA+pain-min, LDA+C-HAQ DI0, and ACR50+pain-min) were achieved at month 4 (44.7%, 19.6%, and 58.9% of the 219 patients treated with subcutaneous abatacept, respectively). Of those who achieved LDA+pain-min at month 4, 84.7% (83 of 98) and 65.3% (64 of 98) maintained LDA+pain-min at months 13 and 21, respectively. The proportions of patients meeting LDA+pain-min outcomes increased from 44.7% (98 of 219) at month 4 to 54.8% (120 of 219) at month 21. The frequency of patients who met an LDA+C-HAQ DI score of 0 increased from 19.6% (43 of 219) at month 4 to 28.8% (63 of 219) at month 21.

CONCLUSION

Among individual patients with polyarticular-course JIA treated with abatacept who achieved 1 of the combined clinical and patient-reported outcomes composite end points, many maintained them over 21 months of abatacept treatment.

Infection in Patients on Belatacept Regimen After Kidney Transplant

OBJECTIVES

A common complication after transplant is an opportunistic infection, in part due to the necessary immunosuppression regimens that patients are placed on. This study aimed to assess the outcomes and rates of infection in kidney transplant recipients on belatacept compared with kidney transplant recipients on standard immunosuppression therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a matched-pair case-control retrospective analysis of a prospectively recollected database of all adult kidney transplant patients at the SUNY Upstate Medical Hospital from January 1, 2016, to July 31, 2022.

RESULTS

Among study patients, 60.5% of patients in the belatacept group and 47.9% of patients in the standard immunosuppression regimen group were diagnosed with an infectious disease during follow-up, although no significant difference was shown between the 2 groups (P = .21). The most common infection in both groups was urinary tract infection, which was comparable between the groups (41.8% vs 50%; P = .42). No significant difference was shown between patients with early and late conversion to belatacept in terms of infection incident and type.

CONCLUSIONS

Kidney transplant recipients who were converted to belatacept because of poor renal function had a similar infection rate compared with patients on standard immunosuppression treatment. Neither conversion to belatacept nor timing of conversion changed the risk of infection after kidney transplant. Our findings suggest that physicians may convert a kidney transplant recipient with poor renal function to belatacept without changing the patient's risk of opportunistic infection.

Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Abatacept (Orencia) is a drug used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The agent improves patients' pain and joint inflammation through modulation of a co-stimulatory signal necessary for T cell activation. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of abatacept in the management of rheumatoid arthritis using the Cochrane systematic review.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search among PubMed, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Web of Science, and Embase databases from the establishment of these databases to April 2022. The effectiveness and safety of abatacept in treating rheumatoid arthritis were assessed in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70/90 responses, Disease Activity Score-28 for Rheumatoid Arthritis with C-reactive protein (DAS-28-CRP), and adverse events. The Relative Risks (RRs) of relative safety and efficacy and their corresponding 95 confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the pooled assessments of the outcomes. We used the review manager software version 5.4 to analyse our data, and the PRISMA checklist 2020 was used to ensure that our work conforms with the specification of meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our study included 13 randomised control trials with a total of 5978 adult patients from different geographic regions and races. Following the combined analysis of these enrolled studies, the RRs for ACR 20/50/70/90 responses were 1.57 [95%CI 1.27, 1.93], 1.84 [95%CI 1.38, 2.44], 2.36 [95%CI 1.60, 3.47], and 2.95 [95%CI 1.88, 4.63], respectively. Such findings suggest that abatacept-treated patients were 1.57, 1.84, 2.36, and 2.95 times more likely to achieve ACR 20/50/70/90 responses, respectively, than those treated with placebo, conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and or other biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. An exclusive comparison of abatacept and other biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) indicated that participants who were treated with abatacept could achieve better ACR responses than those treated with other b/tsDMARDs. Adverse events were less seen in abatacept-treated patients than in those who were given other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis concludes that in adult with rheumatoid arthritis, abatacept can achieve better health outcomes than other biologic drugs.

Outcomes With Belatacept Exposure During Pregnancy in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Case Series

BACKGROUND

Posttransplant fertility returns quickly, and female recipients of child-bearing age may conceive while on immunosuppression. However, pregnancy after transplantation confers risks to the recipient, transplant, and fetus, including gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, transplant dysfunction, preterm labor, and low birthweight infants. Additionally, mycophenolic acid (MPA) products are teratogenic. Literature evidence regarding belatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation blocker, during pregnancy and while breastfeeding is extremely limited. When female transplant recipients on a belatacept-based regimen are desirous of pregnancy or at the time of conception, transplant providers manage the immunosuppression regimen in 1 of 2 ways: (1) switch both belatacept and MPA to a calcineurin inhibitor-based regimen with or without azathioprine, which is the more common practice but requires several modifications, having potential negative outcomes; or (2) only switch MPA to azathioprine while continuing belatacept.

METHODS

This case series includes 16 pregnancies in 12 recipients with exposure to belatacept throughout pregnancy and while breastfeeding. Patient information was obtained from several sources, including Transplant Pregnancy Registry International, providers at Emory University, and Columbia University, as well as literature review.

RESULTS

Pregnancy outcomes included 13 live births and 3 miscarriages. No birth defects or fetal deaths were reported in any of the live births. Seven infants were breastfed while their mothers continued belatacept. Outcomes appear comparable to those documented with the administration of calcineurin inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series provides data supporting the continued administration of belatacept during pregnancy. Additional research will assist in developing better guidelines to counsel female transplant recipients on belatacept desiring to pursue pregnancy.

Higher abatacept exposure after transplant decreases acute GVHD risk without increasing adverse events

In the ABA2 study, the T-cell costimulation blockade agent, abatacept, was safe and effective in preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) after unrelated-donor hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval. Here, we performed a determination of abatacept pharmacokinetics (PK), which enabled an examination of how abatacept exposure-response relationships affected clinical outcomes. We performed a population PK analysis of IV abatacept using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling and assessed the association between abatacept exposure and key transplant outcomes. We tested the association between the trough after dose 1 (Ctrough_1) and grade (GR) 2 or 4 aGVHD (GR2-4 aGVHD) through day +100. An optimal Ctrough_1 threshold was identified via recursive partitioning and classification tree analysis. This demonstrated that abatacept PK was characterized by a 2-compartment model with first-order elimination. The ABA2 dosing regimen was based on previous work targeting a steady-state abatacept trough of 10 μg/mL. However, a higher Ctrough_1 (≥39 μg/mL, attained in ∼60% of patients on ABA2) was associated with a favorable GR2-4 aGVHD risk (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.65; P < .001), with a Ctrough_1 <39 μg/mL associated with GR2-4 aGVHD risk indistinguishable from placebo (P = .37). Importantly, no significant association was found between Ctrough_1 and key safety indicators, including relapse, and cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus viremia. These data demonstrate that a higher abatacept Ctrough_1 (≥39 μg/mL) was associated with a favorable GR2-4 aGVHD risk, without any observed exposure-toxicity relationships. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01743131.

Drug retention of biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the ANSWER cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This multicentre retrospective study in Japan aimed to assess the retention of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), and to clarify the factors affecting their retention in a real-world cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

The study included 6666 treatment courses (bDMARD-naïve or JAKi-naïve cases, 55.4%; tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) = 3577; anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibodies (aIL-6R) = 1497; cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-Ig (CTLA4-Ig) = 1139; JAKi=453 cases). The reasons for discontinuation were divided into four categories (ineffectiveness, toxic adverse events, non-toxic reasons and remission); multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling by potential confounders was used to analyse the HRs of treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

TNFi (HR=1.93, 95% CI: 1.69 to 2.19), CTLA4-Ig (HR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.67) and JAKi (HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.63) showed a higher discontinuation rate due to ineffectiveness than aIL-6R. TNFi (HR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.56) and aIL-6R (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.57) showed a higher discontinuation rate due to toxic adverse events than CTLA4-Ig. Concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) at baseline was associated with higher discontinuation rate due to ineffectiveness in TNFi (HR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41), as well as toxic adverse events in JAKi (HR=2.30, 95% CI: 1.23 to 4.28) and TNFi (HR=1.29, 95%CI: 1.07 to 1.55).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFi (HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.68) and CTLA4-Ig (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.30) showed a higher overall drug discontinuation rate, excluding non-toxicity and remission, than aIL-6R.

Use of belatacept in kidney transplantation: what's new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The advent of calcineurin inhibitors have led to a significant improvement in short term outcomes after kidney transplantation. However, long term outcomes are hindered by the cardiovascular, metabolic and chronic renal toxicity associated with these agents. Belatacept is a selective T cell costimulation blocker that is approved for prevention of rejection in kidney transplantation, and has been associated with favorable cardiovascular, metabolic and renal outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. This review provides an overview of recent updates in the use of belatacept in kidney transplant recipients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Belatacept may be a safe alternative to calcineurin inhibitors for select kidney transplant populations. Patients converted to belatacept from a calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppression generally experience improvement in renal function, and may be less likely to develop de novo donor specific antibodies or new onset diabetes after transplantation. Although, belatacept based immunosuppression may increase the risk of early acute cellular rejection, it may however be beneficial in stabilization of long-term renal function and improvement in inflammation in patients with chronic active antibody mediated rejection. These benefits need to be counterweighed with risks of lack of response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination and other adverse infectious outcomes.

SUMMARY

Belatacept may be an alternative to calcineurin inhibitors and may contribute to improved long term metabolic and allograft outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. Careful selection of patients for belatacept-based immunosuppression is needed, to obviate the risk of acute rejection shown in clinical studies.

Belatacept as a Treatment Option in Patients with Severe BK Polyomavirus Infection and High Immunological Risk—Walking a Tightrope between Viral Control and Prevention of Rejection

Balancing the immune system with immunosuppressive treatment is essential in kidney transplant recipients to avoid allograft rejection on the one hand and infectious complications on the other. BK polyomavirus nephropathy (BKPyVAN) is a viral complication that seriously threatens kidney allograft survival. Therefore, the main treatment strategy is to reduce immunosuppression, but this is associated with an increased rejection risk. Belatacept is an immunosuppressant that acts by blocking the CD80/86-CD28 co-stimulatory pathway of effector T-cells with marked effects on the humoral response. However, when compared with calcineurin-inhibitors (CNI), the cellular rejection rate is higher. With this in mind, we hypothesized that belatacept could be used as rescue therapy in severely BKPyV-affected patients with high immunological risk. We present three cases of patients with BKPyVAN-associated complications and donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and one patient who developed T-cell-mediated rejection after a reduction in immunosuppression in response to BKPyVAN. Patients were switched to a belatacept-based immunosuppressive regimen and showed significantly improved viral control and stabilized graft function. The cases presented here suggest that belatacept is a potential treatment option in the complicated situation of refractory BKPyV infection in patients with high immunological risk.

Life-threatening immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced myocarditis and myasthenia gravis overlap syndrome treated with abatacept: a case report

We present here the second documented case of severe immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced myocarditis successfully treated with abatacept. The patient was started on pembrolizumab for stage IIIA malignant melanoma, and after the first dose was admitted for worsening shortness of breath and weakness. Her symptoms were refractory to high-dose steroids and she decompensated rapidly necessitating cardiopulmonary resuscitation and subsequent intubation and mechanical ventilation. Intravenous immunoglobulin and plasmapheresis did not invoke significant improvement, so abatacept was then initiated. She began to show improvement and was eventually discharged to a skilled nursing facility. This case highlights a severe adverse reaction to an immunomodulator class steadily growing in its application. Providers of all specialties should be aware of the side effects and treatment options. Our case demonstrates that continued investigation into the utilisation of CTLA-4 agonists in the treatment of severe adverse reactions like myocarditis caused by pembrolizumab is required.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept in interstitial lung disease of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a serious complication that represents the second leading cause of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Treatment of RA-ILD remains controversial. The absence of randomized clinical trials and specific ACR or EULAR therapeutic guidelines makes it difficult to establish solid therapeutic recommendations on this issue. In this scenario, real-world data is especially valuable.

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature evidence on the efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with associated interstitial lung disease (ILD), given its clinical relevance and the lack of consensus on its therapeutic management.

METHODS

PUBMED and EMBASE were searched from the date of approval of ABA to the end of 2020 using a combination of RA, ILD and ABA terms following PRISMA guidelines. Identified studies were evaluated by two independent investigators.

RESULTS

Nine original studies (1 case series and 8 observational studies) were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. No randomized trial or meta-analysis were identified. The mean age of patients ranged from 61.2 to 75 years and the mean RA duration varied from 7.4 to 18 years. Subcutaneous ABA (74.5%-91%) predominated in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) (58%-75%), and it was used as first-line biologic agent in 22.8%-64.9% of the patients. The mean course of ILD ranged from 1 to 6.7 years, being usual and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia the most frequent patterns. Improvement or stabilization of ILD imaging (76.6%-92.7%) and FVC or DLCO (>85%) was described after a mean follow-up of 17.4-47.8 months, regardless of the pattern of lung involvement, being more remarkable in patients with shorter evolution of ILD. ABA led to significantly lower ILD worsening rates than TNF inhibitors (TNFi) and was associated with a 90% reduction in the relative risk of deterioration of ILD at 24 months of follow-up compared to TNFi and csDMARDs. Combination with methotrexate may have a corticoid-sparing effect. No unexpected adverse events were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that ABA may be a plausible alternative to treat RA patients with ILD. It would be highly desirable to develop prospective randomized controlled studies to confirm these findings.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear.

METHODS

In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6.

RESULTS

A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

Comparison of infection-related hospitalization risk and costs in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept or other targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs)

Background: Evidence on the cost and risk of infection-related hospitalizations associated with targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) in patients with RA previously treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is limited. This study compared the risk and cost of infection-related hospitalizations in commercially insured TNFi-experienced RA patients receiving abatacept, TNFi, or another non-TNFi.Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using 2 large insurance claims databases (1 January 2009-30 June 2017). Adult TNFi-experienced RA patients initiating a subsequent tDMARD (initiation date of tDMARD = index date) with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre-index date, and who had ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical RA claims on 2 different dates were included. Abatacept was compared to TNFis (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab) and other non-TNFis (tocilizumab, rituximab, and tofacitinib). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the adjusted risk for infection-related hospitalization; costs were calculated on a per-member-per-month (PMPM) and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) basis using generalized linear models.Results: More patients in the abatacept cohort had an infection-related hospitalization at baseline (4.5%) vs TNFis (2.0%, p < .0001) and other non-TNFis (3.6%, p = .2619). However, during follow-up abatacept patients had fewer infection-related hospitalizations (abatacept: 2.8%, TNFi: 3.7% and other non-TNFis: 5.2%; p < .05). Regression results indicated that compared to patients on abatacept, patients receiving a TNFi [HR: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1, 2.2)] and other non-TNFis [HR: 1.9 (95% CI: 1.3, 2.8)] had a significantly higher risk of infection-related hospitalization. Abatacept PMPM costs were lowest ($0.25 vs $0.39 and $0.43 for TNFi and other non-TNFi respectively). Mean PPPM (95% CI) cost in the follow-up was lower for abatacept compared to TNFi ($73 vs. $115; p = .042), and other non-TNFi ($73 vs. $125; p = .039).Conclusions: There were significantly lower infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs in TNF-experienced RA patients treated with abatacept than TNFis and other non-TNFis.

Comparative efficacy and safety of current therapies for early rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was aimed at comparing the relative efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) with other currently recommended therapies for patients with early RA.

METHODS

An SLR (January 1998 to June 2018) was conducted including MEDLINE®, Embase, and CENTRAL databases, and grey literature. Population was adults with active RA for ≤2 years treated with biologic DMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with conventional DMARDs. A Bayesian NMA was performed using randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparisons for ACR50, DAS28 remission, withdrawal due to adverse events and total withdrawal where reported.

RESULTS

Ninety publications pertaining to 69 studies (43 RCTs and 26 observational studies) were identified. Twenty-eight RCTs were eligible to be included in the NMA. ABA as monotherapy was similar to the combination of ABA+methotrexate (MTX) for ACR50 (RR: 0.82 [95% CI 0.51-1.35]), and DAS28 remission (RR: 0.69 [95% CI 0.37-1.3]), as well as for withdrawal due to AEs (RR: 2.35 [95% CI 0.69-7.38]) and all-cause withdrawal (RR: 1.73 [95% CI 0.905-3.35]). ABA as monotherapy and ABA+MTX were both comparable to all other therapies for the main efficacy and safety outcomes. Observational study data reported was congruous with the RCT analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this NMA show similar efficacy and safety between ABA (as monotherapy or in combination with MTX) and other biologics in early RA. Further comparison of different treatment options for early RA is warranted as growing research provides evidence for the application of new novel therapies for RA.

Up to 5-year retention of abatacept in Belgian patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a sub-analysis of the international, observational ACTION study

Favorable efficacy and safety profiles have been demonstrated for abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in randomized controlled trials, but these data require validation during long-term follow-ups in routine clinical practice. This study explored long-term safety and retention rates in RA patients treated with intravenous abatacept in the Belgian cohort of the international AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study (NCT02109666). This non-interventional, observational, longitudinal study included Belgian patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderate-to-severe RA who started intravenous abatacept treatment as first- or second/further-line biologic therapy in routine clinical practice. Between October 2010 and December 2012, 141 patients were enrolled in this cohort, of whom 135 evaluable patients (6 biologic-naïve; 129 previously exposed to ≥ 1 prior biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) were eligible for the descriptive analysis; 131/135 were included in the effectiveness analysis. Mean disease duration was 10.5 years (standard deviation 9.7) before abatacept initiation. RA patients presented with high disease activity and comorbidity rate, having failed multiple previous treatment options. In this cohort, the 5-year abatacept retention rate was 34% (95% confidence interval, 23-45%) per protocol, and 51% (95% confidence interval, 40-61%) when temporary discontinuations of abatacept > 84 days (n = 24) were not considered as treatment discontinuations. After 5 years of abatacept treatment, clinical outcomes were favorable [good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses in 91.7% patients]. No new safety signals were detected for abatacept in routine clinical practice. In this difficult-to-treat Belgian RA population, high retention rates, good clinical outcomes and favorable safety profile were observed with abatacept.

Real-world outcomes among patients with early rapidly progressive rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To characterize treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and disease activity among patients with early rapidly progressive rheumatoid arthritis (eRPRA) in the United States when treated with a first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF) inhibitor or first-line abatacept.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational, multicenter, retrospective, longitudinal, medical records-based, cohort study.

METHODS

Patients with eRPRA were identified by anti-citrullinated protein antibody positivity, 28-joint Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein of 3.2 or greater, symptomatic synovitis in 2 or more joints for at least 8 weeks prior to the index date, and onset of symptoms within 2 years or less of the index date. Patients received abatacept or a TNF inhibitor as first-line treatment. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, HRU, and disease activity following bDMARD initiation were compared across the 2 groups. Odds ratios (ORs) of HRU in the first 6 months of bDMARD treatment were estimated using multivariable logistic regression to adjust for patient mix.

RESULTS

There were 60 patients treated with abatacept and 192 treated with a TNF inhibitor in the first line. Those treated with first-line abatacept had lower adjusted odds of hospitalization (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-0.95), emergency department (ED) visits (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.93), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.97) than those treated with a first-line TNF inhibitor (all P <.05). Adjusted odds of achieving low disease activity as measured by clinical disease activity index within 100 days of bDMARD initiation favored first-line abatacept versus a first-line TNF inhibitor (OR, 4.37; 95% CI, 1.34-13.94; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusting for disease severity, patients with eRPRA who were treated with first-line abatacept were less likely to have hospitalizations, ED visits, and MRI use during the first 6 months of bDMARD treatment and more likely to achieve low disease activity within 100 days of bDMARD start compared with those who received a first-line TNF inhibitor.

Arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of RA with abatacept (the APIPPRA study): a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial protocol

TRIAL DESIGN

We present a study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial that seeks to test the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 52-week period of treatment with the first-in-class co-stimulatory blocker abatacept for preventing or delaying the onset of inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

The study aimed to recruit 206 male or female subjects from the secondary care hospital setting across the UK and the Netherlands. Participants who were at least 18 years old, who reported inflammatory sounding joint pain (clinically suspicious arthralgia) and who were found to be positive for serum autoantibodies associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were eligible for enrolment. All study subjects were randomly assigned to receive weekly injections of investigational medicinal product, either abatacept or placebo treatment over the course of a 52-week period. Participants were followed up for a further 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to development of at least three swollen joints or to the fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for RA using swollen but not tender joints, whichever endpoint was met first. In either case, swollen joints were confirmed by ultrasonography. Participants, care givers, and those assessing the outcomes were all blinded to group assignment. Clinical assessors and ultrasonographers were also blinded to each other's assessments for the duration of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited experience of the design and implementation of trials for the prevention of inflammatory joint diseases. We discuss the rationale behind choice and duration of treatment and the challenges associated with defining the "at risk" state and offer pragmatic solutions in the protocol to enrolling subjects at risk of RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN46017566 . Registered on 4 July 2014.

Abatacept induced granulomatous hepatitis with a sarcoidosis- like reaction: a blinded trial in mice

BACKGROUND

Abatacept is increasingly used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and juvenile idiophathic arthritis (JIA) treatment. However little is known about the risk of hepatotoxicity. The aim of this study was to determine whether the inhibition of the T cell CD28 receptor by abatacept results in acute hepatitis in BALB/c mice.

METHODS

Twenty BALB/c mice were studied. Ten mice received subcutaneous (SC) injection of abatacept (0.25mg per 25g body weight per 0.03 ml normal saline) at 0, 2, 4 and 8 weeks. For the control group, 10 mice received a SC injection of normal saline (NS) (0.03 ml). At the 10th week post injection, the mice were sacrificed, and histopathological studies were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the abatacept-treated group, 3/10 mice died. Liver histology for the abatacept-treated group showed that 6/7 displayed histopathological changes in the lobular cellular infiltrates of eosinophils, lymphocytes and histiocytes, in addition to granuloma formation. In contrast, only minimal inflammation was observed in 3/10 mice in the control group (p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Abatacept may play a role in inducing granulomatous hepatitis with a sarcoidosis-like reaction. Additional data including transaminases, antinuclear antibodies (ANA), Antimitochondrial antibodies (AMA) and other auto antibodies should be tested.

Fatal Chronic Active Epstein-Barr Virus Infection in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient Treated with Abatacept

Chronic active Epstein-Barr virus (CAEBV) T-cell type infection, systemic form, is characterized by persistent infectious mononucleosis-like symptoms, high Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA levels in the peripheral blood, organ damage, and a poor prognosis. The association between CAEBV and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is unclear. We report a case of fatal CAEBV T-cell type infection in an RA patient undergoing treatment with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 immunoglobulin fusion protein (abatacept, ABT). CAEBV can rapidly worsen in RA patients receiving ABT. Thus, we should try to establish an early diagnosis in patients with CAEBV infection.

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

DESIGN

Population based prospective study.

SETTING

53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France.

PARTICIPANTS

3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months.

INTERVENTION

Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LED_wf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure.

RESULTS

Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LED_wf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSION

Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.

On-drug and drug-free remission by baseline symptom duration: abatacept with methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis

Clinical outcomes in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed by baseline symptom duration in the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment trial (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01142726). Patients with early, active RA were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept 125 mg/week plus methotrexate (MTX), SC abatacept alone, or MTX monotherapy for 12 months. All RA treatments were withdrawn after 12 months in patients with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C-reactive protein; DAS28-CRP) < 3.2. In this post hoc analysis, the proportion of patients achieving protocol-defined remission (DAS28-CRP < 2.6) or improvement in physical function at 12 and at both 12 and 18 months was assessed according to symptom duration (≤ 3 months, > 3 to ≤ 6 months, or > 6 months) and treatment group. No clinically significant differences were seen in baseline demographics or characteristics across symptom duration groups. Irrespective of baseline symptom duration, a numerically higher proportion of abatacept plus MTX-treated patients achieved DAS-defined remission at month 12 and sustained remission at month 18 compared with MTX monotherapy. A numerically higher proportion of abatacept plus MTX-treated patients with symptom duration ≤ 3 months maintained DAS-defined remission after complete treatment withdrawal from 12 to 18 months compared with longer symptom duration groups. This subgroup also had the fastest onset of clinical response (DAS28-CRP < 2.6) after initiation of treatment. Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response was similar regardless of baseline symptom duration. Overall, symptom duration of ≤ 3 months was associated with a faster onset of clinical response and higher rates of drug-free remission following treatment with abatacept plus MTX.

Comparative Cardiovascular Risk of Abatacept and Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis With and Without Diabetes Mellitus: A Multidatabase Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We examined the cardiovascular risk of abatacept compared with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a cohort study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who newly started abatacept or TNF inhibitors using claims data from Medicare and MarketScan. The primary outcome was a composite cardiovascular end point of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/transient ischemic attack, and coronary revascularization. To account for >60 baseline characteristics, abatacept initiators were 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched to TNF initiators in each database. Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in the PS-matched cohort per database. A fixed-effects meta-analysis pooled database-specific HRs. We included a total of 13 039 PS-matched pairs of abatacept and TNF inhibitor initiators (6103 pairs in Medicare and 6936 pairs in MarketScan). A total of 34.7% in Medicare and 19.8% in MarketScan had baseline DM. The HR (95% CI) for the primary outcome associated with abatacept use versus TNF inhibitor was 0.81 (0.66-0.99) in Medicare and 0.95 (0.74-1.23) in MarketScan, with a pooled HR of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73-1.01; P=0.3 for heterogeneity). The risk of the primary outcome was lower in abatacept initiators versus TNF inhibitors in the DM subgroup, with a pooled HR of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.57-0.96; P=0.7 for heterogeneity), but not in the non-DM subgroup, with a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P=0.4 for heterogeneity).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large population-based cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, abatacept use appeared to be associated with a modestly reduced cardiovascular risk when compared with TNF inhibitor use, particularly in patients with DM.

Stricturing Crohn’s disease-like colitis in a patient treated with belatacept

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) modifying agents have been involved in the development of intestinal inflammation, especially therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against CTLA-4. Here we report the appearance of a severe stricturing Crohn’s disease-like colitis in a patient with a kidney allograft who was treated with belatacept, a recombinant CTLA-4-Ig fusion protein.

Using a modified Delphi process to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis, risk assessment and abatacept treatment in patients with aggressive rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to formulate consensus statements for the identification of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who may benefit most from abatacept treatment, in order to clear up points related to its use in rheumatology.

METHODS

Two rounds of a modified Delphi process were conducted. In the first round, a board of experts defined a list of consensus statements based on data derived from a non-systematic review on the use of abatacept in adult RA patients. In the second round, clinicians with extensive experience in the treatment of RA were invited to express individually agreement on the statements, using a dedicated online platform. A face-to-face meeting of the board was held after round two. Consensus was defined as 75% agreement.

RESULTS

In Delphi process round one, a board of 10 experts defined a list of 20 consensus statements on abatacept treatment. Then, a panel of 37 rheumatologists participated in round two. The majority of clinicians (75.7%) had 10 or more years of experience in the treatment of RA patients. Fifteen of the 20 statements reached the defined level of consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Identified consensus statements may help clinicians to apply to routine-care settings results from clinical studies and clinical recommendations, providing a guide for the initiation of abatacept treatment in RA patients.

Abatacept: A Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis

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.

Body mass does not impact the clinical response to intravenous abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Analysis from the "pan-European registry collaboration for abatacept (PANABA)

Some evidences suggest that obesity impairs the effectiveness of TNF inhibitors. We examined the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the clinical effectiveness of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. This is a pooled analysis of 10 prospective cohorts of RA patients. All patients with available BMI were included in this study. The primary endpoint was drug retention of abatacept in the different BMI categories. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for drug discontinuation. A secondary endpoint was EULAR/LUNDEX response rates at 6/12 months. Of the 2015 RA patients initiating therapy with IV abatacept, 380 (18.9%) were classified as obese. Obese patients had more functional disability, and were less often RF positive. The median abatacept retention time was 1.91 years for obese RA patients compared to 2.12 years for non-obese patients (p = 0.15). The risk of abatacept discontinuation was not significantly different for overweight (HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.89-1.19)), or for obese (HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.89-1.30)) compared to normal-weight patients. Rheumatoid factor positivity reduced the risk of abatacept discontinuation (HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.72-0.95)), while previous biologic therapy was positively associated with drug interruption (HRs increasing from 1.68 to 2.16 with the line of treatments). Obese and non-obese patients attained similar rates of EULAR/LUNDEX clinical response at 6/12 months. Drug retention and clinical response rates to abatacept do not seem to be decreased by obesity in RA patients.

Clinical, radiographic and functional efficacy of abatacept in routine care for rheumatoid arthritis patients: Abatacept Leading Trial for RA on Imaging Remission (ALTAIR) study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of abatacept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice and to determine the prognostic factors affecting clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 194 RA patients treated with abatacept. Clinical outcomes at 1 year after the treatment were assessed. Joint damage was assessed by the van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (mTSS).

RESULTS

Of the 194 patients, abatacept was discontinued in 51 patients, resulting in a retention rate at week 52 of 73.7%. At week 52, 23.7% of patients achieved clinical remission (SDAI ≤3.3). Lower SDAI and higher RF titre at baseline were the prognostic factor for SDAI at 52 weeks. Structural remission (ΔmTSS ≤0.5) was achieved in 73.4% of patients. However, clinical relevant radiographic progression which was defined as an increase in ΔmTSS >3 in a year, occurred in 7.6% of patients. Likewise, rapid radiological progression, which was defined as an increase in ΔmTSS >5 in a year, was observed in 6.4% of patients. 16.5% of patients achieved comprehensive disease remission, which was defined as SDAI ≤3.3, HAQ-DI ≤0.5, ΔmTSS ≤0.5, while 22.4% of patients achieved comprehensive disease control (CDC), which was defined as SDAI ≤11.0, HAQ-DI ≤0.5, ΔmTSS ≤0.5.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results confirm that abatacept is effective and safe in routine clinical practice. It is possible that abatacept is more effective in seropositive RA patients with significant immunological abnormality.

[Prevention of surgical site infection for orthopaedic surgery in rheumatoid arthritis]

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered to be a risk factor of surgical site infection(SSI). RA patients have higher rates of nasal and oral carriage, which can cause endogenous infections. The decolonization strategy and good oral care may decrease the rate of SSI in RA patients. In the perioperative management of medications, methotrexate can be used continuously during the perioperative period. Biological agents should be withheld for an appropriate period considering the half-lives of each agent. If possible, withholding them for at least a week prior to and after surgery is preferred. Whether biological agents increase the rate of SSI in orthopaedic surgery is unclear. Several reports have indicated that biological agents can increase the risk of SSI in total joint replacements. This warrants attention.

[Abatacept]

Abatacept (ABT) is a recombinant fusion protein comprising the extracellular domain of human CTLA4, which inhibits the activation of T cells. Several clinical trials have provided evidence of efficacy and safety of ABT in the patients with rheumatoid athritis (RA) with various clinical characteristics such as MTX inadequate responders (IR), TNF inhibitor-IR. Moreover, indirect comparison of ABT to other biologics reported in Cochrane review revealed that ABT has better safety profile in serious adverse events and serious infection Thus the features of ABT in the treatment of RA have gradually become apparent and knowledge of these features is helpful for better use of biologics. In this review we will discuss the efficacy and safety of ABT in the management of RA.