Dataset Information

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study.

ABSTRACT: There is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.Patients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2-year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.Of the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval -5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept-treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab-treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P=0.006).The results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.

SUBMITTER: Weinblatt ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3572583 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study.

Weinblatt Michael E ME Schiff Michael M Valente Robert R van der Heijde Désirée D Citera Gustavo G Zhao Cathy C Maldonado Michael M Fleischmann Roy R

Arthritis and rheumatism 20130101 1

<h4>Objective</h4>There is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randoml ...[more]

PMID: 23169319

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept.MethodsIn 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionSC 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.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of the present study was to determine whether the abatacept autoinjector can be used by the intended population without patterns of preventable use errors, and is acceptable when assessed against key user needs.MethodsTwo independently conducted simulated-use studies, with no active drug administered, quantified use errors and evaluated the abatacept autoinjector and competitor devices on key attributes (comfort, control, ease of use, confidence of dose) and overall acceptability. Autoinjector preference was also assessed. Participants were patients with rheumatoid arthritis, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants were informed that a new rheumatoid arthritis autoinjector was being tested but were blinded to the intended drug and sponsor identity.ResultsIn the formative (pre-validation) study (n = 54), two high-priority use errors occurred, both of which resulted from protocol non-compliance rather than mental confusion or physical limitations. In the summative (validation) study (n = 99), one high-priority use error occurred; this was deemed a simulated-use study artifact as participant behavior was guided by actual experience associated with the feel of drug delivery into the skin rather than by protocol, so no mitigation steps were considered necessary. Across user groups, average scores were consistently high for the pre-defined key attributes. Overall acceptability scores (7-point scale) were significantly higher for the abatacept versus competitor autoinjectors-formative study: patients 6.7 vs 5.2 (P = 0.0001), caregivers 7.0 vs 4.6 (P = 0.0093), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0020); summative study: patients 6.5 vs 5.9 (P = 0.0404), caregivers 6.8 vs 5.8 (P = 0.0047), HCPs 6.8 vs 5.1 (P = 0.0002). The abatacept autoinjector was preferred to competitor devices: patients 85.7% vs 14.3% (P = 0.00002), caregivers 84.2% vs 15.8% (P = 0.00443), HCPs 95.0% vs 5.0% (P = 0.00004). Positive experiences with the abatacept autoinjector were attributed to the rubberized grip, device size, visualization of dose progression, button ergonomics, and ease of use.ConclusionThe abatacept autoinjector demonstrated usability without patterns of preventable use errors, and with high acceptability ratings across all key attributes assessed. Preference over competitor autoinjectors was due to device ergonomics, visualization of dose progression, confidence of dose delivery, and overall ease of use.FundingBristol-Myers Squibb.

Project description:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting synovial joints. Patients with persistent, active disease have traditionally been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (eg, methotrexate) or biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists). However, patients may discontinue these treatments due to toxicity, infection, or lack of efficacy. Two additional biologic therapies-rituximab and abatacept-are currently available for TNF-antagonist inadequate responders. Abatacept is also indicated for inadequate responders to traditional DMARDs.The aims of this review was to provide an overview of the issues surrounding the treatment of RA patients experiencing inadequate responses to current treatment and to discuss the current and future impact of abatacept on the RA treatment armamentarium.The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases were searched (search dates: January 1, 2000-September 19, 2007) using the terms abatacept or CTLA-4 or Orencia with rheumatoid arthritis. Full text articles in English were selected for relevance, and only articles presenting primary clinical trial data from randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials of abatacept were included. This review focused on the Phase III trials of abatacept in methotrexate and/or TNF-antagonist inadequate responders, as these trials had the largest number of patients and the longest study durations.The literature search initially yielded 848 papers. A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Abatacept is a novel agent that has been reported to reduce the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with active RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs and/or TNF-antagonist treatment. In both of these patient populations, treatment with abatacept was found to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality-of-life benefits, such as improvements in physical function, activity limitation, sleep, and fatigue. Abatacept was reported to have a consistent safety and tolerability profile, with a low rate (3.5%-4.2%) of discontinuation due to adverse events.The efficacy and tolerability data from Phase III clinical trials suggest that abatacept is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate and/or TNF antagonists.

Dataset Information

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study.

Publications

Head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis: findings of a phase IIIb, multinational, prospective, randomized study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets