Safety Of Abatacept Research Articles

Abatacept In Focus

There have been considerable advances in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, many patients are found to be refractory to traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the newer anti-cytokine therapies. Agents such as abatacept and rituximab now offer exciting new options for patients, including those who, until recently, had limited treatment options. Randomized, multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with active RA, who are methotrexate (MTX) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist inadequate responders. Results from these trials have shown that abatacept provides significant clinical and health-related quality of life benefits in both MTX and TNF antagonist inadequate responders. Abatacept also slowed the progression of structural damage compared with placebo/ MTX alone. In addition to these clinical benefits, a fixed dose of abatacept has demonstrated a consistent safety and tolerability profile. Longer-term data will be necessary to confirm the observations seen to date.

Safety of the selective costimulation modulator abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving background biologic and nonbiologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs: A one‐year randomized, placebo‐controlled study

To assess the safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had been receiving > or =1 traditional nonbiologic and/or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) approved for the treatment of RA for at least 3 months prior to entry into the study. This was a 1-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abatacept at a fixed dose approximating 10 mg/kg by weight range, or placebo. The abatacept and placebo groups exhibited similar frequencies of adverse events (90% and 87%, respectively), serious adverse events (13% and 12%, respectively), and discontinuations due to adverse events (5% and 4%, respectively). Five patients (0.5%) in the abatacept group and 4 patients (0.8%) in the placebo group died during the study. Serious infections were more frequent in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (2.9% versus 1.9%). Fewer than 4% of patients in either group experienced a severe or very severe infection. The incidence of neoplasms was 3.5% in both groups. When evaluated according to background therapy, serious adverse events occurred more frequently in the subgroup receiving abatacept plus a biologic agent (22.3%) than in the other subgroups (11.7-12.5%). Abatacept in combination with synthetic DMARDs was well tolerated and improved physical function and physician- and patient-reported disease outcomes. However, abatacept in combination with biologic background therapies was associated with an increase in the rate of serious adverse events. Therefore, abatacept is not recommended for use in combination with biologic therapy.

Abatacept for Rheumatoid Arthritis Refractory to Tumor Necrosis Factor α Inhibition

A substantial number of patients with rheumatoid arthritis have an inadequate or unsustained response to tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha) inhibitors. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to at least three months of anti-TNF-alpha therapy. Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive abatacept or placebo on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 days thereafter for 6 months, in addition to at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Patients discontinued anti-TNF-alpha therapy before randomization. The rates of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses (indicating a clinical improvement of 20 percent or greater) and improvement in functional disability, as reflected by scores for the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index, were assessed. After six months, the rates of ACR 20 responses were 50.4 percent in the abatacept group and 19.5 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the respective rates of ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were also significantly higher in the abatacept group than in the placebo group (20.3 percent vs. 3.8 percent, P<0.001; and 10.2 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P=0.003). At six months, significantly more patients in the abatacept group than in the placebo group had a clinically meaningful improvement in physical function, as reflected by an improvement from baseline of at least 0.3 in the HAQ disability index (47.3 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events and peri-infusional adverse events was 79.5 percent and 5.0 percent, respectively, in the abatacept group and 71.4 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively, in the placebo group. The incidence of serious infections was 2.3 percent in each group. Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.