Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To report 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the head-to-head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial.

Methods

AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. Biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs (pain, fatigue, ability to perform work, and ability to perform daily activities) were compared up to year 2 for patients in each treatment group, as well as those who achieved low disease activity at both years 1 and 2 (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).

Results

A total of 646 patients were randomized and treated with SC abatacept (n = 318) or adalimumab (n = 328). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Comparable improvements in PROs were observed in the abatacept and adalimumab groups over 2 years, with both groups achieving clinically meaningful improvements in PROs from baseline. At year 2, fatigue improved by 23.4 mm and 21.5 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale with abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. Clinical responders achieved greater improvements in PROs than nonresponders.

Conclusion

In biologic-naive patients with active RA, despite prior MTX, treatment with SC abatacept or adalimumab with background MTX resulted in comparable improvements in PROs, which were highly correlated with physician-reported clinical response end points.

SUBMITTER: Fleischmann R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5094537 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Fleischmann Roy R Weinblatt Michael E ME Schiff Michael M Khanna Dinesh D Maldonado Michael A MA Nadkarni Anagha A Furst Daniel E DE

Arthritis care & research 20160701 7

<h4>Objective</h4>To report 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the head-to-head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial.<h4>Methods</h4>AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. Biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs ...[more]

PMID: 26473625

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThere 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.MethodsPatients 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionThe 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsPROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated.ResultsUpadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks.ConclusionIn MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

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: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:BackgroundThe phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).MethodsPatients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed.ResultsAt week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab.ConclusionsIn parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets