Rheumatoid Arthritis: Becker JC

Westhovens R, Kremer JM, Moreland LW, Emery P, Russell AS, Li T, Aranda R, Becker JC, Qi K, Dougados M. · Department of Rheumatology, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B 3000 Leuven, Belgium. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #19273451 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) over 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients were randomized to abatacept 10 or 2 mg/kg or placebo, plus MTX. Patients completing the 1-year, double-blind period entered the longterm extension, where all patients received a fixed dose of abatacept ~10 mg/kg. We describe safety analyses for all patients who received at least 1 dose of abatacept and efficacy analyses for the original ~10 mg/kg abatacept-treated group, over 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 235 abatacept- or placebo-treated patients completing the double-blind period, 219 entered the longterm extension; 130 (59.4%) were continuing at Year 5. No unexpected safety events were observed during the longterm extension compared with the double-blind period. Incidence rates of adverse events (AE) and serious AE were 489.7 and 20.0/100 patient-years in Year 1 versus 374.9 and 18.9/100 patient-years in the cumulative period, respectively. Using exploratory analyses, improvements observed at Year 1 in the 10 mg/kg group were maintained at Year 5, as assessed by ACR responses (ACR20=77.1% vs 82.7%; ACR50=53.0% vs 65.4%; ACR70=28.9% vs 40.4% at Years 1 and 5, respectively) and disease activity (Low Disease Activity State=48.2% vs 58.5%; Disease Activity Score-28-defined remission=25.3% vs 45.3% at Years 1 and 5, respectively). CONCLUSION: Abatacept maintained the efficacy observed at Year 1 over 5 years of treatment, and demonstrated consistent safety and tolerability. These data, along with relatively high retention rates, support the longterm clinical benefit provided by selective T cell costimulation modulation. Clinical trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; clinical trial registration number: NCT00254293.

Kremer JM, Genant HK, Moreland LW, Russell AS, Emery P, Abud-Mendoza C, Szechiński J, Li T, Teng J, Becker JC, Westhovens R. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany Medical College, Albany, New York 12206, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #18383390 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, radiographic changes, and safety of abatacept and methotrexate therapy through 2 years in a long-term extension of a previously published 1-year study. METHODS: Patients who received placebo during year 1 were switched to abatacept. Patients taking abatacept continued to take it. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 2 years. RESULTS: Of 539 patients enrolled in the initial 1-year study, 488 completed 1 year of the long-term extension (2% discontinued for lack of efficacy). At 2 years, patients taking abatacept had maintained their responses on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) improvement criteria and the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28; using the C-reactive protein [CRP] level), as well as their physical function (according to the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] disability index [DI]) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL; assessed with the Short Form 36 [SF-36] health survey), that were observed at the end of the double-blind period (year 1 versus year 2 values were 81.9% versus 80.3% for ACR 20% improvement, 25.4% versus 30.9% for a DAS28 [CRP] of <2.6, 71.8% versus 66.8% for the HAQ DI, and 9.7 versus 10.6 and 7.3 versus 7.2, respectively, for the mean change in the physical and mental components summary scores of the SF-36). In the abatacept group, post hoc analysis demonstrated further inhibition of radiographic progression during year 2 (57% reduction in mean change of total score in year 2 versus year 1; P<0.0001), and minimal radiographic progression was observed (mean change in total score from baseline was 1.1 and 1.6 at year 1 and 2, respectively). Rates of adverse events (AEs) and severe AEs were consistent throughout the cumulative period. CONCLUSION: The improvements in signs and symptoms, physical function, and HRQOL observed after 1 year of abatacept treatment were maintained through 2 years of treatment. This durability was accompanied by a safety profile consistent with that in the double-blind portion of the study. Radiographic progression was further inhibited in year 2 compared with year 1, suggesting an increasing effect of abatacept on the inhibition of structural damage in year 2.

Schiff M, Keiserman M, Codding C, Songcharoen S, Berman A, Nayiager S, Saldate C, Li T, Aranda R, Becker JC, Lin C, Cornet PL, Dougados M. · Denver Arthritis Clinic, 200 Spruce Street #100, Denver, CO 80230, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18055472 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: This double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score (based on erythrocyte sedimentation rates; DAS28 (ESR)) for the abatacept vs placebo groups at day 197. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 3:3:2 to abatacept ( approximately 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, n = 156), infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, n = 165), or placebo (every 4 weeks, n = 110) and background MTX. Safety and efficacy were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Similar patient demographics and clinical characteristics were present at baseline between groups, with mean scores of approximately 1.7 for HAQ-DI and 6.8 for DAS28 (ESR). At 6 months, mean changes in DAS28 (ESR) were significantly greater for abatacept vs placebo (-2.53 vs -1.48, p<0.001) and infliximab vs placebo (-2.25 vs -1.48, p<0.001). For abatacept vs infliximab treatment at day 365, reductions in the DAS28 (ESR) were -2.88 vs -2.25. At day 365, the following response rates were observed for abatacept and infliximab, respectively: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 72.4 and 55.8%; ACR 50, 45.5 and 36.4%; ACR 70, 26.3 and 20.6%; low disease activity score (LDAS), 35.3 and 22.4%; DAS28-defined remission, 18.7 and 12.2%; good European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses, 32.0 and 18.5%; and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 57.7 and 52.7%. Mean changes in physical component summary (PCS) were 9.5 and 7.6, and mental component summary (MCS) were 6.0 and 4.0, for abatacept and infliximab, respectively. Over 1 year, adverse events (AEs) (89.1 vs 93.3%), serious AEs (SAEs) (9.6 vs 18.2%), serious infections (1.9 vs 8.5%) and discontinuations due to AEs (3.2 vs 7.3%) and SAEs (2.6 vs 3.6%) were lower with abatacept than infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, abatacept and infliximab (3 mg/kg every 8 weeks) demonstrated similar efficacy. Overall, abatacept had a relatively more acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with fewer SAEs, serious infections, acute infusional events and discontinuations due to AEs than the infliximab group. Trial registration number: NCT00095147.

Weisman MH, Durez P, Hallegua D, Aranda R, Becker JC, Nuamah I, Vratsanos G, Zhou Y, Moreland LW. · Division of Rheumatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd., B-131, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #17014006 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Abatacept, a soluble selective costimulation modulator, selectively modulates T cell activation via the CD80/CD86:CD28 costimulation pathway. Data from a Phase II trial showed efficacy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate when treated with abatacept (10 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg). To determine the mechanism of action of abatacept, we analyzed changes in the serum levels of inflammatory biomarkers in the patients enrolled in this trial. RESULTS: Following 12 months' treatment, serum levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), soluble IL-2 receptor, C-reactive protein, soluble E-selectin, and soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 were significantly lower in patients receiving abatacept 10 mg/kg versus placebo. Smaller reductions in tumor necrosis factor-a and rheumatoid factor were also observed in the abatacept 10 mg/kg group compared with the placebo group. Although there was no evidence for efficacy of the 2 mg/kg dose, small reductions in inflammatory biomarkers at this dosage support the biologic effect of this therapy. CONCLUSION: These findings reveal the antiinflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of abatacept in patients with RA, and are consistent with the concept that modulating T cell activation improves clinical signs and symptoms and inhibits the progression of structural damage. These data suggest that selective modulation of the CD80/CD86:CD28 pathway with abatacept may affect several inflammatory cell types and cytokines that are involved in the proinflammatory cascade.

Weinblatt M, Schiff M, Goldman A, Kremer J, Luggen M, Li T, Chen D, Becker JC. · Rheumatology and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16935912 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of abatacept in combination with etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis during a 1-year, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase, followed by an open-label, long-term extension (LTE). METHODS: Patients continued etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) and were randomised to receive abatacept 2 mg/kg (n = 85) or placebo (n = 36). As the effective dose of abatacept was established as 10 mg/kg in a separate trial, all patients received abatacept 10 mg/kg and etanercept during the LTE. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomised; 80 completed double-blind treatment and entered the LTE. During double-blind treatment, the difference in the percentage of patients achieving the primary end point (modified American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at 6 months) was not significant between groups (48.2% v 30.6%; p = 0.072). At 1 year, no notable changes in modified ACR responses were observed. Subsequent to the dosing change, similar modified ACR responses were seen during the LTE. Significant improvements in quality of life were observed with abatacept and etanercept versus placebo and etanercept in five of the eight short-form 36 subscales at 1 year. More abatacept and etanercept-treated patients experienced serious adverse events (SAEs) at 1 year than patients receiving placebo and etanercept (16.5% v 2.8%), with 3.5% v 0% experiencing serious infections. CONCLUSION: The combination of abatacept (at a dose of 2 mg/kg during the double-blind phase and 10 mg/kg during the LTE) and etanercept was associated with an increase in SAEs, including serious infections, with limited clinical effect. On the basis of the limited efficacy findings and safety concerns, abatacept in combination with etanercept should not be used for rheumatoid arthritis treatment.

Kremer JM, Genant HK, Moreland LW, Russell AS, Emery P, Abud-Mendoza C, Szechinski J, Li T, Ge Z, Becker JC, Westhovens R. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany, New York, USA. · Ann Intern Med. · Pubmed #16785475 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept demonstrated efficacy for treating rheumatoid arthritis in early clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of abatacept in patients with persistent, active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. DESIGN: One-year, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (November 2002 to October 2004). SETTING: 116 centers worldwide. PATIENTS: 652 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment. INTERVENTION: Once-monthly infusion of a fixed dose of abatacept, approximately 10 mg/kg of body weight, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Co-primary end points were a 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria (ACR 20) at 6 months, clinically meaningful improvements in physical function, and change from baseline in joint erosion score at 1 year. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-three and 219 patients were randomly assigned to abatacept or placebo, respectively, and 385 (89%) and 162 (74%), respectively, completed 1 year of treatment. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, 6-month ACR 20, ACR 50, and ACR 70 responses were 67.9% for abatacept versus 39.7% for placebo (difference, 28.2 percentage points [95% CI, 19.8 to 36.7 percentage points]), 39.9% for abatacept versus 16.8% for placebo (difference, 23.0 percentage points [CI, 15.0 to 31.1 percentage points]), and 19.8% for abatacept versus 6.5% for placebo (difference, 13.3 percentage points [CI, 7.0 to 19.5 percentage points]), respectively. At 1 year, the responses increased to 73.1% for abatacept versus 39.7% for placebo (difference, 33.4 percentage points [CI, 25.1 to 41.7 percentage points]), 48.3% for abatacept versus 18.2% for placebo (difference, 30.1 percentage points [CI, 21.8 to 38.5 percentage points]), and 28.8% for abatacept versus 6.1% for placebo (difference, 22.7 percentage points [CI, 15.6 to 29.8 percentage points]), respectively (P < 0.001 for all). Physical function significantly improved in 63.7% versus 39.3% of patients (P < 0.001). At 1 year, abatacept statistically significantly slowed the progression of structural joint damage compared with placebo. Abatacept-treated patients had a similar incidence of adverse events (87.3% vs. 84.0%; difference, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -2.5 to 9.1 percentage points]) and a higher incidence of prespecified serious infections (2.5% vs. 0.9%; difference, 1.6 percentage points [CI, -0.3 to 3.6 percentage points]) and infusion reactions (acute, 8.8% vs. 4.1%; difference, 4.7 percentage points [CI, 0.9 to 8.4 percentage points]; peri-infusional, 24.5% vs. 16.9%; difference, 7.6 percentage points [CI, 1.2 to 14.0 percentage points]) compared with placebo recipients. LIMITATIONS: The study involved only 1 group of patients over 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept statistically significantly reduced disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Longer treatment in different patient populations is needed to establish its appropriate role in rheumatoid arthritis.

Genovese MC, Becker JC, Schiff M, Luggen M, Sherrer Y, Kremer J, Birbara C, Box J, Natarajan K, Nuamah I, Li T, Aranda R, Hagerty DT, Dougados M. · Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #16162882 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

Kremer JM, Dougados M, Emery P, Durez P, Sibilia J, Shergy W, Steinfeld S, Tindall E, Becker JC, Li T, Nuamah IF, Aranda R, Moreland LW. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany, NY 12206, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16052582 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of abatacept (CTLA-4Ig), a selective costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that has remained active despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy. METHODS: This was a 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. A total of 339 patients with active RA despite MTX therapy were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg abatacept (n = 115), 2 mg/kg abatacept (n = 105), or placebo (n = 119). This report focuses on the results observed at month 12 of a phase IIb trial. RESULTS: A significantly greater percentage of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept met the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieved an ACR20 response) at 1 year compared with patients who received placebo (62.6% versus 36.1%; P < 0.001). Greater percentages of patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept also achieved ACR50 responses (41.7% versus 20.2%; P < 0.001) and ACR70 responses (20.9% versus 7.6%; P = 0.003) compared with patients who received placebo. For patients treated with 10 mg/kg abatacept, there were also statistically significant and clinically important improvements in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores compared with patients who received placebo (49.6% versus 27.7%; P < 0.001). Abatacept at a dosage of 10 mg/kg elicited an increase in rates of remission (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints of <2.6) compared with placebo at 1 year (34.8% versus 10.1%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups, and no significant formation of neutralizing antibodies was noted. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was associated with significant reductions in disease activity and improvements in physical function that were maintained over the course of 12 months in patients with RA that had remained active despite MTX treatment. Abatacept was found to be well tolerated and safe over the course of 1 year. Abatacept in combination with MTX has the potential to play an important role in future RA therapy.

Kremer JM, Westhovens R, Leon M, Di Giorgio E, Alten R, Steinfeld S, Russell A, Dougados M, Emery P, Nuamah IF, Williams GR, Becker JC, Hagerty DT, Moreland LW. · Center for Rheumatology, Albany, NY 12206, USA. · N Engl J Med. · Pubmed #14614165 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Effective new therapies are needed for rheumatoid arthritis. Current therapies target the products of activated macrophages; however, T cells also have an important role in rheumatoid arthritis. A fusion protein--cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4-IgG1 (CTLA4Ig)--is the first in a new class of drugs known as costimulation blockers being evaluated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. CTLA4Ig binds to CD80 and CD86 on antigen-presenting cells, blocking the engagement of CD28 on T cells and preventing T-cell activation. A preliminary study showed that CTLA4Ig may be effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy to receive 2 mg of CTLA4Ig per kilogram of body weight (105 patients), 10 mg of CTLA4Ig per kilogram (115 patients), or placebo (119 patients) for six months. All patients also received methotrexate therapy during the study. The clinical response was assessed at six months with use of the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), which define the response according to its extent: 20 percent (ACR 20), 50 percent (ACR 50), or 70 percent (ACR 70). Additional end points included measures of the health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Patients treated with 10 mg of CTLA4Ig per kilogram were more likely to have an ACR 20 than were patients who received placebo (60 percent vs. 35 percent, P<0.001). Significantly higher rates of ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were seen in both CTLA4Ig groups than in the placebo group. The group given 10 mg of CTLA4Ig per kilogram had clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in all eight subscales of the Medical Outcomes 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey. CTLA4Ig was well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to that of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving methotrexate, treatment with CTLA4Ig significantly improved the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and the health-related quality of life. CTLA4Ig is a promising new therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.

Moreland LW, Alten R, Van den Bosch F, Appelboom T, Leon M, Emery P, Cohen S, Luggen M, Shergy W, Nuamah I, Becker JC. · Spain Rehabilitation Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1717 6th Avenue South, Room 068, Birmingham, AL 35294-7201, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #12115176 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: T cells are involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In animal models of autoimmune diseases, blockade of costimulatory molecules on antigen-presenting cells has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing or treating this disease by preventing T cell activation. To date, the effect of costimulatory blockade in patients with RA is unknown. The goal of this multicenter, multinational study was to determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of costimulatory blockade using CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y in RA patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with at least 1 disease-modifying agent. METHODS: CTLA-4Ig, LEA29Y (0.5, 2, or 10 mg/kg), or placebo was administered intravenously to 214 patients with RA. Patients received 4 infusions of study medication, on days 1, 15, 29, and 57, and were evaluated on day 85. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20). All patients were monitored for treatment safety and tolerability. RESULTS: CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y infusions were well tolerated at all dose levels. Peri-infusional adverse events were carefully monitored, and showed similar incidence across all dose groups with the exception of headaches, which were slightly more frequent in the 2 treatment groups. The incidence of discontinuations due to worsening of RA was 19%, 12%, and 9% at 0.5, 2, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, in the CTLA-4Ig-treated patients and 3%, 3%, and 6% at 0.5, 2, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, in the LEA29Y-treated patients (versus 31% in the placebo group). ACR20 responses on day 85 had increased in a dose-dependent manner (23%, 44%, and 53% of CTLA-4Ig-treated patients and 34%, 45%, and 61% of LEA29Y-treated patients at 0.5, 2.0, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, versus 31% of placebo-treated patients). CONCLUSION: Both of the costimulatory blocking molecules studied were generally safe and well tolerated. As compared with placebo, both CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA.

Wells G, Becker JC, Teng J, Dougados M, Schiff M, Smolen J, Aletaha D, van Riel PL. · Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18490431 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To validate and compare the definition of the Disease Activity Score 28 based on C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) to the definition based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). METHODS: Data were analysed from two randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of abatacept of 6-month and 12-month duration in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria and the proportion of patients in remission (DAS28 <2.6) based on the two DAS28 definitions were examined. Trends in radiographic progression (erosion score, joint space narrowing score and total score) and physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI)) across the EULAR responder states (none, moderate and good) were analysed. RESULTS: There was general agreement in determining the EULAR responder state using both DAS28 definitions (kappa = 0.80, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.83). Overall, there was 82.4% agreement on the EULAR response criteria; when disagreements occurred, the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often then DAS28 (ESR) (12.6% vs 4.9%, respectively). There was also agreement in determining remission: kappa = 0.69 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.78). Radiographic progression decreased in patients treated with abatacept across EULAR states (from none to moderate to good) based on both definitions. For patients treated with placebo, the trend was not as pronounced, with radiographic scores higher for moderate vs non-responders. For physical function, similar trends were observed across the EULAR states for both DAS28 definitions. CONCLUSIONS: The DAS28 (CRP) has been validated against radiographic progression and physical function. While the DAS28 (CRP) yielded a better EULAR response more often than the DAS28 (ESR), the validation profile was similar to the DAS28 (ESR), indicating that both measures are useful for assessing disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Genant HK, Peterfy CG, Westhovens R, Becker JC, Aranda R, Vratsanos G, Teng J, Kremer JM. · University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #18086727 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: Assess the effect of abatacept on progression of structural damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had an inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: 539 patients entered an open-label extension of the AIM (Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate) trial and received abatacept. Radiographic assessment of the hands and feet was performed at baseline, year 1 and year 2. At year 2, each patient's radiographs were scored for progression blinded to sequence and treatment allocation. RESULTS: In patients treated with abatacept for 2 years, greater reduction in progression of structural damage was observed in year 2 than in year 1. The mean change in total Genant-modified Sharp scores was reduced from 1.07 units in year 1 to 0.46 units in year 2. Similar reductions were observed in erosion and joint space narrowing scores. Following 2 years of treatment with abatacept, 50% of patients had no progression of structural damage as defined by a change in the total score of < or =0 compared with baseline. 56% of patients treated with abatacept had no progression during the first year compared with 45% of patients treated with placebo. In their second year of treatment with abatacept, more patients had no progression than in the first year (66% vs 56%). CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept has a sustained effect that inhibits progression of structural damage. Furthermore, the mean change in radiographic progression in patients treated with abatacept for 2 years was significantly lower in year 2 versus year 1, suggesting that abatacept may have an increasing disease-modifying effect on structural damage over time.

Genovese MC, Schiff M, Luggen M, Becker JC, Aranda R, Teng J, Li T, Schmidely N, Le Bars M, Dougados M. · Stanford University, Division of Immunology and Rheumatology, 1000 Welch Road #203, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #17921185 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept during 2 years of the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate responders) trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind period were eligible to enter the long-term extension; patients received abatacept approximately 10 mg/kg, plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Safety and efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses, DAS28 (C-reactive protein), HAQ-DI, SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index, fatigue VAS) were assessed through 2 years. RESULTS: 317 patients (218 from the abatacept and 99 from the placebo group) entered and 222 (70%) completed 18 months of long-term extension treatment. The incidence and type of adverse events were consistent between the double-blind and cumulative (double-blind plus long-term extension) periods. Rates of serious adverse events were 25.6 and 23.4 per 100 patient-years in the double-blind versus cumulative period. At 6 months and 2 years, using non-responder analyses, ACR responses in abatacept-treated patients were: ACR 20, 59.4% and 56.2%; ACR 50, 23.5% and 33.2%; ACR 70, 11.5% and 16.1%; HAQ-DI responses were 54.4% and 47.9%. At 6 months and 2 years, using post-hoc as-observed analyses, the percentage of patients (95% confidence interval) achieving DAS28 (C-reactive protein) low disease activity score (< or = 3.2) and DAS28 (C-reactive protein)-defined remission (< 2.6) increased from 18.3% (13.0, 23.5) to 32.0% (24.6, 39.4) and 11.1% (6.8, 15.3) to 20.3% (13.9, 26.6). Clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36, pain, fatigue and sleep problems were also maintained throughout the 2 years of abatacept treatment. CONCLUSION: No unique safety observations were reported during open-label exposure. Improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, physical function and health-related quality of life observed after 6 months, were maintained throughout the 2 years in this population with difficult-to-treat disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00124982.

Russell AS, Wallenstein GV, Li T, Martin MC, Maclean R, Blaisdell B, Gajria K, Cole JC, Becker JC, Emery P. · 562 Heritage Medical Research Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2S2 Canada. · Ann Rheum Dis. · Pubmed #16984942 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of added abatacept treatment on health related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: The impact of abatacept treatment on HRQoL was examined in a longitudinal, randomised double blind, placebo controlled clinical trial. Effects of treatment on HRQoL were examined using repeated measures analysis of covariance and comparing rates of change in HRQoL across treatment groups. The relationship between American College of Rheumatology (ACR) clinical markers and disease duration with changes in HRQoL indicators was also examined. Finally, a responder analysis was used to examine the percentage of patients who improved by 0.5 SD in 12 months or who reached the normative levels seen in the US general population. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements in the abatacept group relative to controls were observed across a range of HRQoL measures, including physical function, fatigue, all eight domains of the SF-36, and the physical and mental component summaries (PCS and MCS). Improvements were seen as early as day 29 for fatigue and for five out of eight SF-36 domains. By day 169, all HRQoL measures were significantly better with abatacept than with placebo. HRQoL gains were associated with greater ACR clinical improvement, and the effects were consistent for patients with different disease duration. A significantly greater percentage of patients treated with abatacept reached normative levels of PCS, MCS, physical functioning, and fatigue compared with patients treated with MTX alone. CONCLUSION: Combined abatacept and MTX treatment produces significant improvements across a wide range of HRQoL domains in patients with RA.

Weinblatt M, Combe B, Covucci A, Aranda R, Becker JC, Keystone E. · Rheumatology and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. · Arthritis Rheum. · Pubmed #16947384 links to  free full text

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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%). CONCLUSION: 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.

Emery P, Kosinski M, Li T, Martin M, Williams GR, Becker JC, Blaisdell B, Ware JE, Birbara C, Russell AS. · Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Research Unit, University of Leeds, UK. · J Rheumatol. · Pubmed #16568505 No free full text.

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study examined the effect of abatacept, a costimulation modulator, on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Three hundred thirty-nine patients with RA on a background of methotrexate (MTX), who participated in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, were randomized to abatacept 2 mg/kg, abatacept 10 mg/kg, or placebo. HRQOL was assessed at pretreatment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment using the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36). Changes in SF-36 scores from baseline to 12 months were compared across treatment and placebo groups to examine HRQOL benefits of abatacept. A link between American College of Rheumatology improvement and changes in SF-36 scores was established to demonstrate the association between HRQOL outcomes and clinical response. RESULTS: After 12 months of treatment, patients randomized to abatacept 10 mg/kg showed significantly better HRQOL outcomes overall versus patients randomized to placebo (MANOVA F = 4.71, p < 0.001) or to abatacept 2 mg/kg (MANOVA F = 1.97, p = 0.05). Differences in SF-36 change scores between abatacept 10 mg/kg and placebo groups reached statistical significance on all 8 domain scales, the 2 summary measures, and the SF-36 utility index (SF-6D). Differences in SF-36 change scores between abatacept 10 mg/kg and abatacept 2 mg/kg reached statistical significance on 5 of the 8 domain scales, the physical summary measure, and the SF-6D. Improvement in HRQOL was highly related to clinical response. CONCLUSION Abatacept 10 mg/kg plus MTX demonstrated a stronger HRQOL response than placebo plus MTX. The abatacept 2 mg/kg arm showed a very weak and transient response.