Abatacept inhibits inflammation and onset of rheumatoid arthritis in individuals at high risk (ARIAA): a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and subclinical inflammatory changes in joints are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment strategies to intercept this pre-stage clinical disease remain to be developed. We aimed to assess whether 6-month treatment with abatacept improves inflammation in preclinical rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The abatacept reversing subclinical inflammation as measured by MRI in ACPA positive arthralgia (ARIAA) study is a randomised, international, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 14 hospitals and community centres across Europe (11 in Germany, two in Spain, and one in the Czech Republic). Adults (aged ≥18 years) with ACPA positivity, joint pain (but no swelling), and signs of osteitis, synovitis, or tenosynovitis in hand MRI were randomly assigned (1:1) to weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 6 months followed by a double-blind, drug-free, observation phase for 12 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with any reduction in inflammatory MRI lesions at 6 months. The primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants who were randomly assigned and received study medication. Safety analyses were conducted in participants who received the study medication and had at least one post-baseline observation. The study was registered with the EUDRA-CT (2014-000555-93). FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2014, and June 15, 2021, 139 participants were screened. Of 100 participants, 50 were randomly assigned to abatacept 125 mg and 50 to placebo. Two participants (one from each group) were excluded due to administration failure or refusing treatment; thus, 98 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. 70 (71%) of 98 participants were female and 28 (29%) of 98 were male. At 6 months, 28 (57%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 15 (31%) of 49 participants in the placebo group showed improvement in MRI subclinical inflammation (absolute difference 26·5%, 95% CI 5·9-45·6; p=0·014). Four (8%) of 49 participants in the abatacept group and 17 (35%) of 49 participants in the placebo group developed rheumatoid arthritis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·0016). Improvement of MRI inflammation (25 [51%] of 49 participants in the abatacept group, 12 [24%] of 49 in the placebo group; p=0·012) and progression to rheumatoid arthritis (17 [35%] of 49, 28 [57%] of 49; HR 0·14 [0·04-0·47]; p=0·018) remained significantly different between the two groups after 18 months, 12 months after the end of the intervention. There were 12 serious adverse events in 11 participants (four [8%] of 48 in the abatacept group and 7 [14%] of 49 in the placebo group). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: 6-month treatment with abatacept decreases MRI inflammation, clinical symptoms, and risk of rheumatoid arthritis development in participants at high risk. The effects of the intervention persist through a 1-year drug-free observation phase. FUNDING: Innovative Medicine Initiative.

Efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 revaccination in non-responders with immune-mediated inflammatory disease.

OBJECTIVES: To test whether patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMIDs), who did not respond to two doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, develop protective immunity, if a third vaccine dose is administered. METHODS: Patients with IMID who failed to seroconvert after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were subjected to a third vaccination with either mRNA or vector-based vaccines. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, neutralising activity and T cell responses were assessed at baseline and 3 weeks after revaccination and also evaluated seprarately in rituximab (RTX) and non-RTX exposed patients. RESULTS: 66 non-responders were recruited, 33 treated with RTX, and 33 non-exposed to RTX. Overall, 49.2% patients seroconverted and 50.0% developed neutralising antibody activity. Seroconversion (78.8% vs 18.2%) and neutralising activity (80.0% vs 21.9%) was higher in non-RTX than RTX-treated patients with IMID, respectively. Humoral vaccination responses were not different among patients showing positive (59.3%) or negative (49.7%) T cell responses at baseline. Patients remaining on mRNA-based vaccines showed similar vaccination responses compared with those switching to vector-based vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these data strongly argue in favor of a third vaccination in patients with IMID lacking response to standard vaccination irrespective of their B cell status.

COVID-19 and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: effect of disease and treatment on COVID-19 outcomes and vaccine responses.

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were considered to be at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and the development of severe COVID-19. Data collected over the past year, however, suggest that a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, psoriasis, or inflammatory bowel diseases does not increase risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 compared with people without these diseases. Furthermore, substantial data suggest that certain medications frequently used in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, in particular cytokine inhibitors, might even lower the risk for severe COVID-19. Conversely, glucocorticoids and potentially B-cell-depleting treatments seem to worsen COVID-19 outcomes. Additionally, the first data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with these diseases suggest that tolerability of vaccination in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases is good, although the immune response to vaccination can be somewhat reduced in this patient group, particularly those taking methotrexate or CD20-targeted treatment.

Effects of ustekinumab versus tumor necrosis factor inhibition on enthesitis: Results from the enthesial clearance in psoriatic arthritis (ECLIPSA) study.

OBJECTIVES: To date, all studies addressing on anti-inflammatory drugs in PsA have been carried out in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with polyarticular disease. Specific studies on enthesitis are missing. IL-23 is considered to play a central role in the development of enthesitis. We therefore speculated that therapeutic inhibition of IL-12/IL-23 is particularly effective in enthesitis-driven PsA patients. METHODS: Enthesial CLearance In PSoriatic Arthritis (ECLIPSA) is a prospective randomized-controlled open-label study. Patients with PsA with active enthesitis were randomized 1:1 to receive either ustekinumab (UST; arm 1) or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi; arm 2). Primary endpoint was complete clearance of enthesitis, defined by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) index equal to zero at 24 weeks. RESULTS: 51 patients (UST = 25; TNFi = 26) were screened, 47 enrolled (UST = 23; TNFi = 24) and 46 completed the study. Mean ±â€¯SD SPARCC index at baseline was 4.8 ±â€¯2.6 in the UST group and 3.5 ±â€¯2.3 in the TNFi group with no significant difference. After 24 weeks, 73.9% of UST patients and 41.7% of TNFi patients reached the primary endpoint (SPARCC = 0) indicating clearance from enthesitis (p = 0.018). UST achieved superior responses as compared to TNFi with respect to enthesitis (p = 0.007) and psoriatic skin disease (p = 0.030) but not for arthritis (p = 0.95). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that p40-IL-12/IL-23 inhibition is superior to TNFi in the clearance of enthesitis. Future stratified therapeutic approaches in PsA patients may therefore consider the presence or absence of enthesitis as a discriminator of response between different cytokine blocking modalities.