Intravenous Abatacept Research Articles

Diaphragmatic Myopathy Associated with Dual Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in a Patient with Renal Cell Carcinoma

ABSTRACT Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have become increasingly prevalent with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) cancer treatment. We present a 79-year-old man with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who developed shortness of breath and hypercapnic respiratory insufficiency after his first cycle of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Laboratory data showed elevated creatinine kinase, troponins, and transaminases. Computed tomography of the chest demonstrated bilateral lower lobe atelectasis. Heart catheterization and endomyocardial biopsy were unremarkable. Electromyogram (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCS) of the limb muscles revealed mild diffuse myopathy, normal sensory nerve conductions, and low-amplitude motor responses. Subsequent diaphragmatic EMG and NCS demonstrated severe myopathy. ICI-mediated myopathy predominantly affecting diaphragmatic muscles was diagnosed. Treatment included intravenous methylprednisolone, infliximab, abatacept, rituximab, and plasmapheresis. He underwent tracheostomy placement on hospital day 11 due to minimal improvement. He was discharged to a long-term acute care hospital, but unfortunately, he died less than 1 month later due to recurrent infections. irAEs can affect any organ system, but diaphragmatic dysfunction is uncommon. Use of diaphragmatic EMG, NCS, ultrasound study, or biopsy can support the diagnosis. Treatment includes systemic steroids, plasmapheresis, immunosuppressive medications, respiratory support, and cessation of causative medications. ICI-related diaphragmatic dysfunction should be suspected in those patients at risk with hypoxia, hypercapnia, or prolonged invasive or noninvasive ventilation without a distinct etiology. This case report exemplifies the importance of multidisciplinary workup and management of respiratory symptoms and insufficiency to identify and ameliorate irAEs. Diaphragmatic involvement can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality despite early aggressive multimodal therapy.

Two-year treatment persistence with subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the French cohort of the ASCORE study.

While multiple studies have investigated treatment persistence rates with intravenous abatacept, limited information is available about real-world treatment continuation with the subcutaneous form. The international ASCORE study described the characteristics and treatment persistence of real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving subcutaneous abatacept. This article presents the findings of the French cohort. This was an observational study in French RA patients who initiated subcutaneous abatacept between August 2014 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was treatment maintenance at 2 years, analysed according to the number of previous biologic therapies. Of 546 evaluable patients, 281 (51.5%) were biologic-naive, 265 (48.5%) had experienced failure with 1 (n=134; 24.5%) or ≥2 (n=131; 24.0%) biologic therapies. At enrolment, patients who had experienced failure with ≥1 biologic therapy had more erosions and a longer duration of RA compared with biologic-naive patients, but had comparable mean disease activity scores. Overall, 43.0% of patients (95% confidence interval 38.6-47.2) were still taking subcutaneous abatacept at 2 years, which was comparable with that in other countries participating in ASCORE. The abatacept persistence rate was higher in biologic-naive patients (48.8%) than in those with 1 (40.9%) or ≥2 (32.8%) biologic therapy failures. The main reason for discontinuing abatacept was lack of efficacy (46.6%). In current practice in France, the rate of subcutaneous abatacept persistence at 2 years was comparable with that of the intravenous form. Treatment persistence was higher when abatacept was used as first-line versus later-line biologic therapy.

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

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

54-Year-Old Man With Acute Dyspnea on Exertion

54-Year-Old Man With Acute Dyspnea on Exertion

Incidence of Disease Flare After BNT162b2 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Remission.

As vaccination programs against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progress worldwide, the first data about COVID-19 vaccines’ safety and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) have estimated an incidence of between 5% and 17% for RMD flares after COVID-19 vaccination (1, 2). However, we feel that more details are needed to help inform vaccine decision-making for patients with an RMD. We prospectively assessed flare rates in 77 consecutive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical remission (28 joints disease activity score based on C reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <2.6) in the 3 months before vaccination (Table 1.). All patients underwent vaccination with BNT162b2 (BioNTech-Pfizer) between March and April 2021 following the Italian government regulations. All patients discontinued antirheumatic therapies according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) COVID-19 recommendations (3). We evaluated disease activity after 3 months using DAS28-CRP and defined flares as concordance between patient and rheumatologist assessment and DAS28-CRP elevation of more than 1.2. Six patients (7.8%; 95% confidence interval: 6.9-8.7%) had one disease flare each. Most flares (5/6) occurred after the second dose (mean: 2.6 days) and all flares resolved within 2 weeks (mean: 6.4 days). One flare was classified as “severe,” and the mean number of involved joints was 2.7. All patients were treated with glucocorticoids (6/6) and anti-inflammatory drugs (3/6). The patients with flares were undergoing treatment with Janus kinase inhibitors (3/6), methotrexate (2/6), intravenous abatacept (1/6), subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (1/6), and rituximab (1/6). We did not record any change in antirheumatic therapy during follow-up or after flares. Our data show a very low flare rate after the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine in patients with RA in remission and are consistent with previous findings about Varicella-zoster virus (6.7%) (4) and Hepatitis B virus (2.2%) (5) vaccinations. Because remission is not commonly obtained in the real world, we are aware that our findings may not be generalizable to all patients with RA receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Five out of six patients with flares withdrew or delayed antirheumatic therapies in the proximity of vaccination according to ACR guidelines. Even if there is no direct evidence that holding therapies could occur in a higher proportion of disease flares, we suggest that clinicians consider this possibility when counseling patients about COVID-19 vaccination. All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the final version to be published. Dr. Bixio affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained. Bixio. Bertelle, Masia, Pistillo. Bixio, Carletto, Rossini.

POS0671 CLINICAL RESPONSES TO UPADACITINIB OR ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS BY TYPE OF PRIOR BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTIRHEUMATIC DRUG: DATA FROM THE PHASE 3 SELECT-CHOICE STUDY

Background:In the phase 3 double-blind SELECT-CHOICE study of patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), upadacitinib (UPA) showed superiority to abatacept (ABA) in change from baseline in 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) and in the proportion of pts achieving DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6 at Week 12.Objectives:To describe clinical responses in pts receiving UPA or ABA by number and mechanism of action of prior bDMARDs.Methods:612 pts were randomized to once-daily UPA 15 mg or monthly intravenous ABA (&lt;60 kg, 500 mg; 60–100 kg, 750 mg; &gt;100 kg, 1000 mg). All pts continued background therapy with stable conventional synthetic DMARDs. From Week 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts vs baseline at 2 consecutive visits had background medication(s) adjusted or added. In this post hoc analysis, pts were grouped by the number and/or type of bDMARD received prior to enrollment: 1) lack of efficacy (LoE) to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor; 2) LoE to ≥1 interleukin-6 (IL-6) inhibitor; 3) intolerance to prior bDMARDs; 4) number of prior bDMARDs (1, 2, or ≥3). Mean change from baseline in DAS28(CRP) and DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6 and other clinical endpoints were evaluated at Weeks 12/24.Results:Most pts had LoE to ≥1 TNF inhibitor (536, 87.6%); 96 (15.7%) had LoE to an IL-6 inhibitor; 79 (12.9%) had intolerance to prior bDMARDs; 408 (66.7%), 134 (21.9%), and 64 (10.5%) had received 1, 2, or ≥3 prior bDMARDs, respectively. Mean change from baseline in DAS28(CRP) was generally greater with UPA vs ABA across the different pt subgroups at Weeks 12/24 (Figure 1). Across endpoints, regardless of prior bDMARD therapy (except in those who failed ≥3 prior bDMARDs), UPA and ABA demonstrated similar responses at Week 12 compared with those observed for the overall treatment groups, even with more stringent criteria such as ACR70 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤2.8 (Table 1. below) Responses at Week 24 followed a similar trend to those at Week 12 for DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6 and other endpoints (Table 1). The safety profile across subgroups was consistent with each respective treatment in the overall study population (data not shown).Table 1.Efficacy endpoints by prior bDMARD subgroup (Week 12 [top] and Week 24 [bottom])aACR20ACR50ACR70DAS28(CRP)≤3.2DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6CDAI ≤10CDAI ≤2.8HAQ-DIMCIDbLoE to ≥1 TNF inhibitorUPA 15 mg n=26375.377.944.959.722.838.849.061.230.446.840.758.69.122.875.574.3ABAn=27364.572.933.748.413.224.927.546.512.529.733.749.82.212.565.266.3LoE to ≥1 IL-6 inhibitorUPA 15 mg n=4870.885.437.566.720.829.245.866.725.041.741.758.36.316.778.378.3ABAn=4877.179.241.756.322.927.125.043.814.629.227.152.12.110.475.075.0Intolerance to prior bDMARDsUPA 15 mgn=4783.076.653.257.417.027.753.257.431.929.844.744.78.514.980.073.3ABAn=3262.571.928.150.00.031.321.956.36.331.321.956.33.19.461.367.71 priorbDMARDUPA 15 mgn=20677.281.151.963.121.838.852.466.032.547.641.761.29.220.979.676.6ABAn=20267.377.735.153.515.833.729.251.512.435.636.155.93.016.366.771.72 priorbDMARDsUPA 15 mgn=6478.176.634.456.323.439.151.662.526.650.045.354.74.723.473.870.5ABAn=7064.364.328.642.94.311.427.141.411.424.328.644.31.48.655.755.7≥3 prior bDMARDsUPA 15 mg n=2955.265.524.144.817.224.127.641.420.727.627.648.310.317.258.672.4ABAn=3565.771.440.040.020.017.128.637.120.020.037.140.02.98.677.174.3aMissing information was imputed using NRI. bHAQ-DI MCID=reduction from baseline of ≥0.22ACR20/50/70, 20/50/70% improvement in ACR criteria; HAQ-DI, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability IndexConclusion:Although sample sizes were small for some subgroups, treatment with UPA led to greater clinical responses vs ABA at Week 12, including in pts with LoE to TNF or IL-6 inhibitors, and those with IR or intolerance to 1, 2, or ≥3 prior bDMARDs.Acknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Grant Kirkpatrick, MSc of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of Interests:Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi, Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Boulos Haraoui Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Gilead, MSD, Pfizer, Sandoz, and UCB, Herbert S.B. Baraf Consultant of: Gilead, Janssen, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Gilead, and Janssen, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and UCB, Naomi Martin Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, John Cush Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Novartis.

P147 Safety of AbatacePt in Rheumatoid arthritis associated Interstitial Lung disease (APRIL)

Background/Aims Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is the commonest extra-articular complication of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is associated with a median survival of 3-8 years. Although biologic therapies are effective for synovitis, they can exacerbate the ILD. RA patients with significant ILD but minimal synovitis have limited therapeutic options. Case reports and retrospective analyses suggest that Abatacept may have efficacy in RA-ILD. However, use of potent immunosuppression in patients with chronic lung disease may increase the incidence of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI). The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the safety of Abatacept in patients with progressive RA-ILD. Methods This was a prospective, open-label, study of 19 RA patients (2010 ACR/EULAR criteria) with ILD. Patients were included if either serial thoracic computed tomography (CT) or pulmonary function tests (PFT) indicated progressive ILD over the preceding 14 months. Intravenous Abatacept was administered at baseline, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks. PFTs, thoracic CT scan and questionnaires were performed at baseline and week 20. The number of LRTI was recorded. Primary outcome: change in Forced Vital Capacity (FVC). Secondary outcomes: Transfer Factor (TLCOc), King’s Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (K-BILD) Questionnaire, the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ) and radiological scores (percentage involvement of lung fields scored separately for ground-glass opacification, fibrosis, honeycombing and consolidation). Results Preliminary data from the study are reported. Ten patients completed the study: 6 male, 6 ex-smokers, mean age 68±8.21 years, mean RA duration 6±5.4 years. The APRIL study was terminated due to safety concerns in the context of COVID-19 pandemic; nine patients were withdrawn for this reason. LRTI occurred in 4 patients (one patient had 2 LRTI). There were no serious adverse reactions. The mean FVC remained stable during the course of the study. There was a trend towards improvement in the LCQ and improvement in the K-BILD score. ILD-related changes on thoracic CT were stable in 9 of the patients. Conclusion Our data indicates that abatacept has an acceptable safety profile in progressive pulmonary fibrosis associated with RA-ILD. This small dataset also suggests that ILD has not progressed during the period of treatment. P147 Table 1:Summary of outcomes after 20 weeks’ treatment with Abatacept in RA patients with progressive interstitial lung diseaseN = 10Baseline20 WeekFVC (L)2.78 ± 0.903.0 ± 0.89TLCOc (mmol/min/kPa)3.75 ± 1.033.72 ± 1.00K-BILD49.10 ± 5.5054.40 ± 6.0LCQ4.78 ± 1.514.82 ± 1.32 Disclosure T. Gudu: None. C. Stober: None. M. Fifield: None. J. Babar: None. A. Ostor: None. H. Parfrey: None. F. Hall: Grants/research support; FH has received a grant of £168k from Bristol Myers Squibb for the APRIL study.

A retrospective analysis of the relationship between anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody and the effectiveness of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis patients

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of abatacept (ABA) by anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (ACPA) status on disease activity as well as radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in clinical settings. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a multicenter registry. Data from a total of 553 consecutive RA patients treated with intravenous ABA were included. We primarily compared the status of disease activity (SDAI) and radiographic progression (van der Heijde modified total Sharp score: mTSS) between the ACPA-negative (N = 107) and ACPA-positive (N = 446) groups. ‘ACPA positive’ was defined as ≥ 13.5 U/mL of anti-CCP antibody. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The proportion of patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA; SDAI ≤ 11) at 52 weeks was significantly higher in the ACPA-positive group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified ACPA positivity as an independent predictor for achievement of LDA at 52 weeks. Drug retention rate at 52 weeks estimated by the Kaplan–Meier curve was significantly higher in the ACPA-positive group. Achievement rate of structural remission (ΔmTSS ≤ 0.5) at 52 weeks was similar between groups. ABA treatment demonstrated a significantly higher clinical response and higher drug retention rate in ACPA-positive patients. Progression of joint destruction was similar between the ACPA-negative and ACPA-positive groups. Close attention should be paid to joint destruction even in patients showing a favorable response to ABA, especially when the ACPA status is positive.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BackgroundUpadacitinib 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.)

Abatacept: A Review of the Treatment of Polyarticular-Course Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) encompasses several forms of chronic inflammatory arthritis of unknown etiology presenting in children < 16years of age, with a minimum symptom duration of 6weeks. Approximately half of affected children have polyarticular-course JIA (pJIA), a functional concept related to several clinically and genetically heterogeneous JIA categories (systemic, extended oligoarthritis, polyarticular rheumatoid factor-positive or rheumatoid factor-negative, enthesitis-related arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis), which has as its defining feature the involvement of five or more joints during the disease course. Chronic inflammation and joint damage lead to the manifestations of JIA such as pain, limitation of motion, and loss of physical function, all of which negatively impact patients' quality of life. The American College of Rheumatology recommends initial treatment with a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), such as methotrexate (MTX) and, in patients with pJIA who have an inadequate response or intolerance to MTX, the use of a biologic DMARD (bDMARD) such as a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor, abatacept, or tocilizumab. Abatacept selectively modulates the CD80/CD86:CD28 co-stimulatory signal required for full T cell activation, and thus has a distinct mechanism of action upstream of that of other currently available bDMARD treatments for rheumatic diseases. To enable physicians to make informed treatment decisions, it is important to review available data for the existing therapeutic agents. Here, we summarize the current evidence from phase III pivotal trials of intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and from an ongoing registry of patients with JIA treated with abatacept. In the pivotal trials for IV and SC abatacept, either with or without MTX, both formulations demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a high proportion of patients achieving stringent clinical responses, as well as improvements in patient-reported outcomes and a favorable safety profile, particularly with regard to infections.

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.

SAT0151 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-CHOICE): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, selective JAK 1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy/safety of UPA has been demonstrated in phase 3 studies, including superiority to adalimumab in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.1-4Objectives:To assess the efficacy/safety of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) in pts with prior IR or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).Methods:Pts were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg or intravenous ABA (at Day 1, Weeks [Wks] 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 [&lt; 60 kg: 500 mg; 60-100 kg: 750 mg; &gt;100 kg: 1,000 mg]), with all pts continuing background stable csDMARDs. The study was double-blind for 24 wks. Starting at Wk 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement from baseline (BL) in both tender and swollen joint counts at two consecutive visits, had background medication(s) adjusted or initiated. The primary endpoint was change from BL in DAS28(CRP) at Wk 12 (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority of UPA vs ABA was tested using the 95% CI of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6. The two key secondary endpoints at Wk 12 were change from BL in DAS28(CRP) and the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission (CR) based on DAS28(CRP), defined as DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6. Both endpoints were to demonstrate the superiority of UPA vs. ABA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to Wk 24 for all pts who received at least one dose of study drug.Results:Of 612 pts treated; 67% of pts had received 1 prior bDMARD, 22% received 2 prior bDMARDs, and 10% received ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs. 549 (90%) completed 24 wks of treatment. Common reasons for study drug discontinuation were AEs (UPA, 3.6%; ABA, 2.6%) and withdrawal of consent (UPA, 1.7%; ABA, 2.6%).Non-inferiority and superiority were met for UPA vs ABA at Wk 12 for change from BL in DAS28(CRP) (-2.52 vs -2.00; -0.52 [-0.69, -0.35]; p &lt;0.001 for UPA vs ABA). UPA also demonstrated superiority to ABA in achieving DAS28(CRP) &lt;2.6 (30.0% vs 13.3%; p &lt;0.001 for UPA vs ABA; Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity and remission rates were maintained through Wk 24. The proportions of pts achieving low disease activity (defined as DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses were greater with UPA compared with ABA at Wk 12 (nominal p &lt;0.05). More stringent outcome measures – CR, ACR50, and ACR70 responses - remained higher with UPA than ABA through Wk 24 (nominal p &lt;0.05). Incidence of serious TEAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, hepatic disorders, and CPK elevations were numerically higher with UPA versus ABA (Figure 2). Eight cases of herpes zoster were reported (4 in each treatment arm). No malignancies were reported. One case of adjudicated MACE, two adjudicated cases of VTE (1 pt with DVT and 1 pt with PE; both pts had at least one risk factor for VTE), and one treatment-emergent death were reported with UPA.Conclusion:In RA pts with a prior IR or intolerance to bDMARDs, UPA demonstrated superior improvement in signs and symptoms vs ABA based on change in DAS28(CRP) and in achieving CR at Wk 12. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the phase 3 RA studies with no new risks identified.

Effectiveness and safety of abatacept for the treatment of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome.

Sjögren's syndrome is an autoimmune disease characterized by inflammation of the exocrine glands. The disease can be primary or secondary (if it is associated with another autoimmune disease). In Barring symptom management, there is no established treatment. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of abatacept as a treatment of primary Sjögren's syndrome over the course of 24months. Eleven patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome from the Rheumatology Department of Universidade Santo Amaro, Sao Paulo, Brazil were enrolled for a prospective observational study. Eligible participants were diagnosed according to the 2002 American-European consensus criteria and had a score greater than 3 on the EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI). Participants received intravenous abatacept for 24months at a weight-adjusted dose of 500mg for patients weighing < 60kg and 750mg for those weighing > 60kg. The outcomes were ESSDAI activity index, non-stimulated salivary flow rate, ocular dryness (Schirmer test, tear film break-up time, and ocular staining score), SF-36 questionnaire, and Fatigue domain of the FACIT (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy) index. There was a statistically significant reduction in ESSDAI index and improvement of salivary flow. One subscale of the SF-36 index-emotional role functioning-showed improvement. There was no change in ocular parameters or in the FACIT index. In this sample of 11 patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome, abatacept therapy improved xerostomia and systemic disease activity.Key Points• Abatacept is safe and effective for the treatment of primary Sjögren's syndrome.• Abatacept can improve salivary flow and ESSDAI index in this patient population.

Two-year abatacept retention rate in clinical practice in the French ACTION cohort.

Abatacept retention rates were evaluated in the French cohort in the prospective ACTION study (2010-2013), which included patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis managed in everyday clinical practice and started on intravenous abatacept therapy. Two-year abatacept retention rates were evaluated in 455 patients classified according to treatment line, body mass index (BMI), and status for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA). After 2 years, the overall abatacept retention rate was 44%. The retention rate was non-significantly higher in the patients with vs. without a history of unresponsiveness to at least one biologic (48.1% vs. 41.8%, respectively). No significant retention rate differences were found across BMI categories (444 patients; <25, 45.5%; ≥25 to <30, 48.9%; and ≥30, 36.6%). Neither were any significant differences demonstrated according to RF and ACPA status (RF+ and ACPA+, 45.7%; RF+ or ACPA+, 43.8%; and FR- and ACPA-, 39.1%). The 44% 2-year retention rate in the French ACTION cohort supports the usefulness of abatacept therapy. In this study, retention was not associated with treatment line, BMI, or antibody status.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries

IntroductionAbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries.MethodBaseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries.ResultsIn the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163).ConclusionsIn the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort.Key Points• Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns.• In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients.• Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries.• Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Timing of Abatacept Before Elective Arthroplasty and Risk of Postoperative Outcomes.

Guidelines recommend withholding biologic therapies before hip and knee arthroplasty, yet evidence to inform optimal timing is limited. The aim of this study was to determine whether withholding abatacept infusions is associated with lower risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. This retrospective cohort study, which used US Medicare and Truven MarketScan administrative data from January 2006 to September 2015, evaluated adults with rheumatoid arthritis who received intravenous abatacept (precisely dated in claims data) within 6 months of elective primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty. Propensity weighted analyses using inverse probability weights compared the risk of 30-day hospitalized infection and 1-year prosthetic joint infection (PJI) between patients with different abatacept stop timing (time between last infusion and surgery). Secondary analyses evaluated nonurinary hospitalized infections and 30-day readmissions. After 1,939 surgeries among 1,780 patients, there were 175 hospitalized infections (9.0%), 115 nonurinary hospitalized infections (5.9%), 39 PJIs (2.4/100 person-years), and 114/1,815 30-day readmissions (6.3%). There were no significant differences in outcomes with abatacept stop timing <4 weeks (1 dosing interval) versus 4-8 weeks (hospitalized infection odds ratio [OR] 0.93 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.65-1.34]; nonurinary hospitalized infection OR 0.93 [95% CI 0.60-1.44]; PJI hazard ratio 1.29 [95% CI 0.62-2.69]; 30-day readmission OR 1.00 [95% CI 0.65-1.54]). Similarly, there were no significant differences in outcomes with abatacept stop timing <4 weeks versus ≥8 weeks. Glucocorticoid use >7.5 mg/day was associated with greater risk of hospitalized infection (OR 2.19 [95% CI 1.28-3.77]) and nonurinary hospitalized infection (OR 2.38 [95% CI 1.22-4.64]). Compared to continuing intravenous abatacept, withholding abatacept for ≥4 weeks (one dosing interval) before surgery was not associated with a lower risk of hospitalized infection, nonurinary hospitalized infection, PJI, or 30-day readmission.

Intravenous abatacept in Japanese patients with polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from a phase III open-label study

BackgroundTo investigate efficacy and safety of intravenous abatacept in Japanese patients with active polyarticular-course juvenile idiopathic arthritis (pJIA).MethodsIn this phase III, open-label, multicenter, single-arm study, patients with pJIA aged 4–17 years who failed ≥1 biologic or methotrexate received weight-tiered (< 75 kg: 10 mg/kg; 75–100 kg: 750 mg; > 100 kg: 1000 mg) intravenous abatacept at Weeks 0, 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter. The study comprised a short-term period (16 weeks) and ongoing long-term period. Primary endpoint: Week 16 JIA-American College of Rheumatology criteria 30 (JIA-ACR30) response rate. Secondary endpoints/outcomes included Week 16 JIA-ACR50/70/90 response and inactive disease rates, Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (CHAQ-DI), pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity. Proportions of patients achieving Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score in 27 joints using C-reactive protein (JADAS27-CRP) remission (score < 1) and minimal disease activity (MDA; score < 3.8), were among exploratory endpoints.ResultsAll 20 patients who received study medication completed the short-term period. During the long-term period, two patients discontinued due to insufficient efficacy or patient decision. Median age and disease duration at baseline were 10.5 and 0.75 years, respectively. Week 16 JIA-ACR30 response rate (primary endpoint) was 90.0% (18/20). JIA-ACR50/70/90 response and inactive disease rates at Week 16 were 75.0% (15/20), 70.0% (14/20), 35.0% (7/20), and 25.0% (5/20), respectively. At Week 52, JIA-ACR30/50/70/90 response and inactive disease rates were observed by 88.9% (16/18), 88.9% (16/18), 83.3% (15/18), 66.7% (12/18) and 44.4% (8/18), respectively. CHAQ-DI improved after Week 12. JADAS27-CRP remission and MDA were achieved by 15.0% (3/20) and 45.0% (9/20) of patients at Week 16, and by 50.0% (9/18) and 78.0% (14/18) of patients at Week 52, respectively. The mean abatacept pre-dose serum concentration was above the target therapeutic exposure (10 μg/ml) from Week 8 through Week 16. All adverse events were of mild/moderate intensity, except for one case of severe gastroenteritis. No deaths, malignancies, or autoimmune disorders were observed. No antidrug antibodies were detected through Week 16; one patient had a positive immunogenic response during the cumulative period.ConclusionIntravenous abatacept was efficacious and well tolerated in Japanese patients with active pJIA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01835470. Date of registration: April 19, 2013.

Efficacy and safety profile of intravenous tocilizumab versus intravenous abatacept in treating female Saudi Arabian patients with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

To compare the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab with those of abatacept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis not responding to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. A prospective, open-label study was carried out on adult females with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous tocilizumab or abatacept treatment. History taking, clinical examination, and laboratory evaluation were done at baseline and during a 24-week period of follow-up. Disease activity was calculated using the DAS28-ESR score. The incidence of accompanying adverse events was evaluated and all statistical analyses were performed by InStat. One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled and classified randomly into the tocilizumab (n = 68) and abatacept (n = 64) groups. By week 24, the mean DAS28-ESR was significantly reduced in both groups (P < 0.0001) in association with significant reductions in CRP, ESR, and HAQ scores. No significant difference in the incidence rate of adverse effects appeared between both study groups. However, there were marked declines in the hemoglobin levels (P = 0.003) and neutrophil count (P = 0.002) together with significant elevations in systolic blood pressure (P = 0.002), liver enzymes (P = 0.001), total cholesterol (P = 0.001), and high-density lipoproteins (P = 0.002) in the tocilizumab group compared with the abatacept group. Both intravenous abatacept and tocilizumab significantly decreased the disease activity and improved the physical function in rheumatoid arthritis patients who failed to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Although the efficacy of both drugs was similar, abatacept showed a more promising short-term safety profile since it was associated with less adverse effects and better laboratory outcomes.

Predictors of abatacept retention over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the real-world ACTION study

ObjectivesEvaluate abatacept retention over 2 years in the AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study.MethodACTION was an international, observational study of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated intravenous abatacept. Crude abatacept retention rates over 2 years were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analyses in biologic-naive and -failure patients. Clinically relevant risk factors and significant prognostic factors for retention were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards multivariable model.ResultsOverall, 2350/2364 enrolled patients were evaluable; 673 (28.6%) were biologic naive and 1677 (71.4%) had prior biologic failure (1 biologic, 728/1677 [43.4%]; ≥ 2 biologics, 949/1677 [56.6%]). Abatacept retention rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) at 2 years was 47.9% (45.7, 50.0): 54.5% (50.4, 58.3) for biologic-naive vs 45.2% (42.7, 47.7) for biologic-failure patients (log-rank P < 0.001). For patients with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures, respectively, retention rates (95% CI) were 50.2% (46.3, 53.9) vs 41.3% (38.0, 44.6; log-rank P < 0.001). Main reasons for discontinuation (biologic-naive vs biologic-failure, respectively) were lack of efficacy (61.4 vs 67.7%) and safety (21.3 vs 21.2%). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) double positivity versus negativity were predictive of higher retention in both biologic-naive (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] 0.71 [0.53, 0.96]; P = 0.019) and biologic-failure patients (HR [95% CI] 0.76 [0.62, 0.94]; P = 0.035).ConclusionsAbatacept initiation as earlier vs later line of therapy in RA may achieve higher 2-year retention rates. RF and anti-CCP seropositivity could predict increased abatacept retention, irrespective of treatment line.Trial registrationNCT02109666

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

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.DesignPopulation based prospective study.Setting53 university and 54...