Abatacept in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal trial.

BACKGROUND: Some children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis either do not respond, or are intolerant to, treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) drugs. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had failed previous treatments. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised controlled withdrawal trial between February, 2004, and June, 2006. We enrolled 190 patients aged 6-17 years, from 45 centres, who had a history of active juvenile idiopathic arthritis; at least five active joints; and an inadequate response to, or intolerance to, at least one disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. All 190 patients were given 10 mg/kg of abatacept intravenously in the open-label period of 4 months. Of the 170 patients who completed this lead-in course, 47 did not respond to the treatment according to predefined American College of Rheumatology (ACR) paediatric criteria and were excluded. Of the patients who did respond to abatacept, 60 were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg/kg of abatacept at 28-day intervals for 6 months, or until a flare of the arthritis, and 62 were randomly assigned to receive placebo at the same dose and timing. The primary endpoint was time to flare of arthritis. Flare was defined as worsening of 30% or more in at least three of six core variables, with at least 30% improvement in no more than one variable. We analysed all patients who were treated as per protocol. This trial is registered, number NCT00095173. FINDINGS: Flares of arthritis occurred in 33 of 62 (53%) patients who were given placebo and 12 of 60 (20%) abatacept patients during the double-blind treatment (p=0.0003). Median time to flare of arthritis was 6 months for patients given placebo (insufficient events to calculate IQR); insufficient events had occurred in the abatacept group for median time to flare to be assessed (p=0.0002). The risk of flare in patients who continued abatacept was less than a third of that for controls during that double-blind period (hazard ratio 0.31, 95% CI 0.16-0.95). During the double-blind period, the frequency of adverse events did not differ in the two treatment groups. Adverse events were recorded in 37 abatacept recipients (62%) and 34 (55%) placebo recipients (p=0.47); only two serious adverse events were reported, both in controls (p=0.50). INTERPRETATION: Selective modulation of T-cell costimulation with abatacept is a rational alternative treatment for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Abatacept plus methotrexate provides incremental clinical benefits versus methotrexate alone in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis who achieve radiographic nonprogression.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports 1-year clinical outcomes in the subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the Abatacept study to Gauge Remission and joint damage progression in methotrexate-naive patients with Early Erosive rheumatoid arthritis (AGREE) who achieved radiographic nonprogression at the end of the double-blind phase. METHODS: Patients who achieved radiographic nonprogression (change from baseline in total Sharp score ≤ 0 at 12 months) with abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) or MTX alone were eligible for this analysis. Clinical outcomes were remission, defined by 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) using C-reactive protein (CRP), low Disease Activity Score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) scores, physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire), and tender and swollen joint counts. Safety was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: Patients in the abatacept plus MTX and MTX monotherapy groups had similar baseline characteristics and were similar to the overall study population. The proportion of patients who achieved DAS28 (CRP) remission or LDAS was greater with abatacept plus MTX vs MTX alone [43.2% vs 22.7% (p < 0.001) and 57.4% vs 40.6% (p = 0.008), respectively]. More patients receiving abatacept plus MTX achieved key ACR responses, including major clinical response (27.3% vs 11.9%; p < 0.001). Safety profiles were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: More MTX-naive patients with early RA who achieved radiographic nonprogression taking abatacept plus MTX also achieved DAS28 (CRP)-defined remission and LDAS compared with patients who received MTX alone, supporting the use of abatacept as a first-line biologic in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Infections requiring hospitalization in the abatacept clinical development program: an epidemiological assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and this risk appears to be higher with anti-TNF (tumor necrosis factor) agents. We pooled data from the cumulative abatacept RA clinical development program, both double-blind and open-label periods, to estimate the incidence rates (IRs) of infections requiring hospitalization including pneumonia and opportunistic infections, in comparison with RA patients treated with non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) from several reference cohorts. METHODS: Infections reported in seven abatacept clinical trials of RA patients (double-blind and open-label periods) were tabulated. Comparisons were made between the observed IRs in abatacept-treated patients and those in over 133,000 patients exposed to non-biologic DMARDs in six reference RA cohorts. Age- and sex-adjusted IRs of infections requiring hospitalization, including pneumonia (most frequent hospital infection), were used to estimate the expected IRs with abatacept by the method of indirect adjustment. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR) and 95% CI were calculated comparing incidence in the cumulative abatacept experience with incidence in each RA cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1,955 (double-blind period) and 4,134 (double-blind + open-label periods with a cumulative exposure of 8,392 person-years) abatacept-treated RA patients were analyzed. Observed IRs for infections requiring hospitalization during the double-blind period were 3.05 per 100-patient years for abatacept-treated patients and 2.15 per 100 patient years for placebo. In the cumulative population, observed IR for infections requiring hospitalization was 2.72 per 100-patient years. Rates for abatacept were similar to expected IRs based on other RA non-biologic DMARD cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: IRs of infections requiring hospitalization and pneumonia in abatacept trials are consistent with expected IRs based on reference RA DMARD cohorts. RA patients are at higher risk of infection compared with the general population, making the RA DMARD cohorts an appropriate reference group. The safety of abatacept, including incidence of infections requiring hospitalization, will continue to be monitored in a post-marketing surveillance program.

Abatacept improves health-related quality of life, pain, sleep quality, and daily participation in subjects with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in abatacept-treated children/adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, subjects with active polyarticular course JIA and an inadequate response/intolerance to ≥1 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (including biologics) received abatacept 10 mg/kg plus methotrexate (MTX) during the 4-month open-label period (period A). Subjects achieving the American College of Rheumatology Pediatric 30 criteria for improvement (defined "responders") were randomized to abatacept or placebo (plus MTX) in the 6-month double-blind withdrawal period (period B). HRQOL assessments included 15 Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ) health concepts plus the physical (PhS) and psychosocial summary scores (PsS), pain (100-mm visual analog scale), the Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire, and a daily activity participation questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 190 subjects from period A and 122 from period B were eligible for analysis. In period A, there were substantial improvements across all of the CHQ domains (greatest improvement was in pain/discomfort) and the PhS (8.3 units) and PsS (4.3 units) with abatacept. At the end of period B, abatacept-treated subjects had greater improvements versus placebo in all domains (except behavior) and both summary scores. Similar improvement patterns were seen with pain and sleep. For participation in daily activities, an additional 2.6 school days/month and 2.3 parents' usual activity days/month were gained in period A responders with abatacept, and further gains were made in period B (1.9 versus 0.9 [P = 0.033] and 0.2 versus -1.3 [P = 0.109] school days/month and parents' usual activity days/month, respectively, in abatacept- versus placebo-treated subjects). CONCLUSION: Improvements in HRQOL were observed with abatacept, providing real-life tangible benefits to children with JIA and their parents/caregivers.