Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the PRINTO/PRCSG registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the interim 5-year safety and effectiveness of abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the PRINTO/PRCSG registry. METHODS: The Abatacept JIA Registry (NCT01357668) is an ongoing observational study of children with JIA receiving abatacept; enrolment started in January 2013. Clinical sites enrolled patients with JIA starting or currently receiving abatacept. Eligible patients were assessed for safety (primary end point) and effectiveness over 10 years. Effectiveness was measured by clinical 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS10) in patients with JIA over 5 years. As-observed analysis is presented according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. RESULTS: As of 31 March 2020, 587 patients were enrolled; 569 are included in this analysis (including 134 new users) with 1214.6 patient-years of safety data available. Over 5 years, the incidence rate (IR) per 100 patient-years of follow-up of serious adverse events was 5.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.27, 7.01) and of events of special interest was 3.62 (95% CI: 2.63, 4.86), with 18 serious infections (IR 1.48 [95% CI: 0.88, 2.34]). As early as month 3, 55.9% of patients achieved cJADAS10 low disease activity and inactive disease (20.3%, 72/354 and 35.6%, 126/354, respectively), sustained over 5 years. Disease activity measures improved over 5 years across JIA categories. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was well tolerated in patients with JIA, with no new safety signals identified and with well-controlled disease activity, including some patients achieving inactive disease or remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01357668.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice. METHODS: Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Infection outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. METHODS: Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM). RESULTS: The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Safety outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept: results from a multinational surveillance study across seven European registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and malignancy compared with the general population. Infection risk is increased further with the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), whereas evidence on whether the use of biologic DMARDs increases cancer risk remains equivocal. This single-arm, post-marketing study estimated the incidence of prespecified infection and malignancy outcomes in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept. METHODS: Data were included from seven European RA quality registries: ATTRA (Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Czech Republic]), DANBIO (Danish Rheumatologic Database), ROB-FIN (National Registry of Antirheumatic and Biological Treatment in Finland), ORA (Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis [France]), GISEA (Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis), BIOBADASER (Spanish Register of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases), and the SCQM (Swiss Clinical Quality Management) system. Each registry is unique with respect to design, data collection, definition of the study cohort, reporting, and validation of outcomes. In general, registries defined the index date as the first day of abatacept treatment and reported data for infections requiring hospitalization and overall malignancies; data for other infection and malignancy outcomes were not available for every cohort. Abatacept exposure was measured in patient-years (p-y). Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 1000 p-y of follow-up with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over 5000 patients with RA treated with abatacept were included. Most patients (78-85%) were female, and the mean age range was 52-58 years. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent across registries. Among patients treated with abatacept, IRs for infections requiring hospitalization across the registries ranged from 4 to 100 events per 1000 p-y, while IRs for overall malignancy ranged from 3 to 19 per 1000 p-y. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity between registries in terms of design, data collection, and ascertainment of safety outcomes, as well as the possibility of under-reporting of adverse events in observational studies, the safety profile of abatacept reported here was largely consistent with previous findings in patients with RA treated with abatacept, with no new or increased risks of infection or malignancy.

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 < 16 years of age, with a minimum symptom duration of 6 weeks. 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.

Development of Resilience Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Resilience, the ability to recover from and adapt successfully to stressful situations, is a valuable resource for patients who live with chronic conditions. This qualitative study examines the development of resilience among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. We aimed to describe the resilience development process and to describe strategies used by patients to cultivate resilience. METHODS: Our approach combined ethnographic data collection and narrative analysis methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult RA patients in the US. Interviewees were asked to discuss their experiences with diagnosis, living with RA, coping with challenges, treatment, and health care providers. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed to describe the stages of resilience development and to identify patients' strategies for building/maintaining resilience. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed, ages 27-80 years and with RA duration of 5-41 years. Patient responses to challenging situations were grouped into 3 stages: 1) lacking capacity to handle the situation, 2) struggling but growing in capacity to handle the situation, and 3) attaining mastery. Patients used 10 strategies to cultivate resilience: perseverance, exchanging social support, pursuing valued activities, flexibility, positive reframing, acceptance, humor, avoiding threatening thoughts, equanimity, and maintaining a sense of control. CONCLUSION: RA patients acquire resilience in a dynamic process of learning in response to new challenges. Patients use a combination of behavioral and emotion management strategies to cultivate resilience. Awareness of these strategies may benefit patients, health care providers, and researchers developing behavioral interventions and social support programs in the context of RA and other chronic diseases.