Dataset Information

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT: The efficacy, safety and tolerability of i.v. abatacept are well established in patients with active RA. A s.c. abatacept formulation is now available in some countries. Here, we review clinical data for s.c. abatacept. Six trials are presented (Phase II dose-finding study, ACQUIRE, ALLOW, ACCOMPANY, ATTUNE and AMPLE) and issues important to both patients and clinicians are addressed. The primary focus assesses whether the i.v. and s.c. abatacept formulations have similar efficacy, including whether the recommended fixed dose of s.c. abatacept is comparable to the weight-tiered i.v. dosing and whether efficacy is sustained with long-term treatment. Safety and immunogenicity are also discussed, including the short- and long-term safety of s.c. abatacept, and whether immunogenicity is increased following a switch from i.v. to s.c. abatacept, after withdrawal or reintroduction of s.c. abatacept or in the absence of MTX. Year 1 data from the AMPLE study, comparing s.c. abatacept with the TNF antagonist adalimumab, are discussed. Although fewer patient-years of exposure are available for s.c. compared with i.v. abatacept, observations suggest that s.c. abatacept has a similar long-term efficacy to the i.v. formulation, improving the signs, symptoms, disease activity and physical function in patients with RA. With continued treatment, these improvements are maintained over time with high retention rates, similar to i.v. abatacept. s.c. abatacept is associated with low immunogenicity and short- and long-term safety that is consistent with i.v. abatacept. In addition, s.c. abatacept demonstrates comparable efficacy, kinetics of response, safety and radiographic inhibition to adalimumab.

SUBMITTER: Schiff M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3651617 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Schiff Michael M

Rheumatology (Oxford, England) 20130305 6

The efficacy, safety and tolerability of i.v. abatacept are well established in patients with active RA. A s.c. abatacept formulation is now available in some countries. Here, we review clinical data for s.c. abatacept. Six trials are presented (Phase II dose-finding study, ACQUIRE, ALLOW, ACCOMPANY, ATTUNE and AMPLE) and issues important to both patients and clinicians are addressed. The primary focus assesses whether the i.v. and s.c. abatacept formulations have similar efficacy, including whe ...[more]

PMID: 23463804

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:To investigate the safety of long-term subcutaneous (SC) abatacept treatment using integrated clinical trial data obtained in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.Data from the double-blind and open-label phases of 5 clinical trials of SC abatacept were pooled. The overall and 6-month incidence rates were calculated as events per 100 patient-years of exposure.This analysis included 1,879 patients with 4,214.6 patient-years of exposure to SC abatacept. The mean ± SD length of exposure was 27.3 ± 9.1 months. The reported incidence rate of serious infections was 1.79 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.42-2.24); the most frequent infections were pneumonia (incidence rate 0.36 [95% CI 0.22-0.59]), urinary tract infection (incidence rate 0.14 [95% CI 0.06-0.32]), and gastroenteritis (incidence rate 0.10 [95% CI 0.04-0.25]). Tuberculosis occurred rarely (incidence rate 0.09 [95% CI 0.04-0.25]). The reported incidence rate of malignancies was 1.32 (95% CI 1.01-1.72), and the most common was solid organ malignancy (incidence rate 0.69 [95% CI 0.48-0.99]). The incidence rate of autoimmune events was 1.37 (95% CI 1.06-1.78), and the most frequent events were psoriasis (incidence rate 0.33 [95% CI 0.20-0.56]) and Sjögren's syndrome (incidence rate 0.24 [95% CI 0.13-0.44]). The reported incidence rate of local injection site reactions was 1.72 (95% CI 1.36-2.17); these events occurred primarily during the first 6 months of treatment, and almost all were of mild or moderate intensity. The incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, autoimmune events, and injection site reactions did not increase over time.Long-term treatment with SC abatacept was associated with low incidence rates of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events and was well tolerated, with infrequent injection site reactions. These findings are consistent with those related to treatment with intravenous abatacept. Long-term treatment with SC abatacept did not lead to new safety signals over time.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study.MethodsPatients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts.Primary endpointabatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc.ResultsOverall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced.ConclusionsIn the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe ASCORE study on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed better retention and clinical response rates for abatacept as first-line versus later-line therapy. This post hoc analysis of ASCORE assessed 2-year retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.MethodsAdults with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were assessed. Primary endpoint was abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportions of patients with low disease activity (LDA)/remission per Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≤ 3.2), Simplified Disease Activity Index (≤ 11), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (≤ 10). Outcomes were analyzed by treatment line and serostatus.ResultsFor the pooled cohort, the 2-year abatacept retention rate was 47.6%; retention was highest in biologic-naïve patients (50.5% [95% confidence interval 44.9, 55.9]). Patients seropositive for both anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF; + / +) at baseline had a higher 2-year abatacept retention rate than patients with single seropositivity for either APCA or RF or double-seronegativity (- / -), irrespective of treatment line. At 2 years, a higher proportion of patients who were biologic-naïve were in LDA/remission than patients with one or ≥ two prior biologics.ConclusionA higher proportion of patients with + / + RA (compared with - / - RA) had abatacept retention after 2 years. Early identification of patients with seropositive RA may facilitate a precision-medicine approach to RA treatment, leading to a higher proportion of patients in LDA/remission.Trial registration numberNCT02090556; date registered: March 18, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Key Points • This post hoc analysis of a German-speaking subset of European patients with RA from the global ASCORE study (NCT02090556) showed that retention of SC abatacept within this subset was 47.6%, with good clinical outcomes after 2 years. • Patients with double-seropositive RA (ACPA and RF positive) had higher retention of abatacept than patients with double-seronegative RA (ACPA and RF negative). Retention and clinical responses were highest for patients who were biologic-naïve compared with patients who had one or ≥ two prior biologic treatments. • These real-world data may be useful for clinicians in informing individualized treatment pathways for patients with RA, and fostering superior disease control and clinical outcomes.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Publications

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets