Abatacept increases T cell exhaustion in early RA individuals who carry HLA risk alleles.

Exhausted CD8 T cells (TEX) are associated with worse outcome in cancer yet better outcome in autoimmunity. Building on our past findings of increased TIGIT+KLRG1+ TEX with teplizumab therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D), in the absence of treatment we found that the frequency of TIGIT+KLRG1+ TEX is stable within an individual but differs across individuals in both T1D and healthy control (HC) cohorts. This TIGIT+KLRG1+ CD8 TEX population shares an exhaustion-associated EOMES gene signature in HC, T1D, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and cancer subjects, expresses multiple inhibitory receptors, and is hyporesponsive in vitro, together suggesting co-expression of TIGIT and KLRG1 may broadly define human peripheral exhausted cells. In HC and RA subjects, lower levels of EOMES transcriptional modules and frequency of TIGIT+KLRG1+ TEX were associated with RA HLA risk alleles (DR0401, 0404, 0405, 0408, 1001) even when considering disease status and cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity. Moreover, the frequency of TIGIT+KLRG1+ TEX was significantly increased in RA HLA risk but not non-risk subjects treated with abatacept (CTLA4Ig). The DR4 association and selective modulation with abatacept suggests that therapeutic modulation of TEX may be more effective in DR4 subjects and TEX may be indirectly influenced by cellular interactions that are blocked by 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.

Abatacept, Cenicriviroc, or Infliximab for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Objective: To investigate whether abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab provides benefit when added to standard care for COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators added to standard care for treatment of participants hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. The results of 3 substudies are reported from 95 hospitals at 85 clinical research sites in the US and Latin America. Hospitalized patients 18 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days and evidence of pulmonary involvement underwent randomization between October 2020 and December 2021. Interventions: Single infusion of abatacept (10 mg/kg; maximum dose, 1000 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg) or a 28-day oral course of cenicriviroc (300-mg loading dose followed by 150 mg twice per day). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to recovery by day 28 evaluated using an 8-point ordinal scale (higher scores indicate better health). Recovery was defined as the first day the participant scored at least 6 on the ordinal scale. Results: Of the 1971 participants randomized across the 3 substudies, the mean (SD) age was 54.8 (14.6) years and 1218 (61.8%) were men. The primary end point of time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia was not significantly different for abatacept (recovery rate ratio [RRR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]; P = .09), cenicriviroc (RRR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.86-1.18]; P = .94), or infliximab (RRR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.99-1.28]; P = .08) compared with placebo. All-cause 28-day mortality was 11.0% for abatacept vs 15.1% for placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.62 [95% CI, 0.41-0.94]), 13.8% for cenicriviroc vs 11.9% for placebo (OR, 1.18 [95% CI 0.72-1.94]), and 10.1% for infliximab vs 14.5% for placebo (OR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.90]). Safety outcomes were comparable between active treatment and placebo, including secondary infections, in all 3 substudies. Conclusions and Relevance: Time to recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia among hospitalized participants was not significantly different for abatacept, cenicriviroc, or infliximab vs placebo. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04593940.

Abatacept for Treatment of Adults Hospitalized with Moderate or Severe Covid-19.

Background: We investigated whether abatacept, a selective costimulation modulator, provides additional benefit when added to standard-of-care for patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Methods: We conducted a master protocol to investigate immunomodulators for potential benefit treating patients hospitalized with Covid-19 and report results for abatacept. Intravenous abatacept (one-time dose 10 mg/kg, maximum dose 1000 mg) plus standard of care (SOC) was compared with shared placebo plus SOC. Primary outcome was time-to-recovery by day 28. Key secondary endpoints included 28-day mortality. Results: Between October 16, 2020 and December 31, 2021, a total of 1019 participants received study treatment (509 abatacept; 510 shared placebo), constituting the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Participants had a mean age 54.8 (SD 14.6) years, 60.5% were male, 44.2% Hispanic/Latino and 13.7% Black. No statistically significant difference for the primary endpoint of time-to-recovery was found with a recovery-rate-ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 1.00-1.29; p=0.057) compared with placebo. We observed a substantial improvement in 28-day all-cause mortality with abatacept versus placebo (11.0% vs. 15.1%; odds ratio [OR] 0.62 [95% CI 0.41- 0.94]), leading to 38% lower odds of dying. Improvement in mortality occurred for participants requiring oxygen/noninvasive ventilation at randomization. Subgroup analysis identified the strongest effect in those with baseline C-reactive protein >75mg/L. We found no statistically significant differences in adverse events, with safety composite index slightly favoring abatacept. Rates of secondary infections were similar (16.1% for abatacept; 14.3% for placebo). Conclusions: Addition of single-dose intravenous abatacept to standard-of-care demonstrated no statistically significant change in time-to-recovery, but improved 28-day mortality. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04593940 ).

ACPA-negative and ACPA-positive RA patients achieving disease resolution demonstrate distinct patterns of MRI-detected joint-inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: Although sustained DMARD-free remission (SDFR; sustained absence of clinical-synovitis after DMARD-discontinuation) is increasingly achievable in RA, prevalence differs between ACPA-negative (40%) and ACPA-positive RA (5-10%). Additionally, early DAS remission (DAS4months<1.6) is associated with achieving SDFR in ACPA-negative, but not in ACPA-positive RA. Based on these differences, we hypothesized that longitudinal patterns of local tissue inflammation (synovitis/tenosynovitis/osteitis) also differ between ACPA-negative and ACPA-positive RA patients achieving SDFR. With the ultimate aim being to increase understanding of disease resolution in RA, we studied MRI-detected joint inflammation over time in relation to SDFR development in ACPA-positive RA and ACPA-negative RA. METHODS: A total of 198 RA patients (94 ACPA-negative, 104 ACPA-positive) underwent repeated MRIs (0/4/12/24 months) and were followed on SDFR development. The course of MRI-detected total inflammation, and synovitis/tenosynovitis/osteitis individually were compared between RA patients who did and did not achieve SDFR, using Poisson mixed models. In total, 174 ACPA-positive RA patients from the AVERT-1 were studied as ACPA-positive validation population. RESULTS: In ACPA-negative RA, baseline MRI-detected inflammation levels of patients achieving SDFR were similar to patients without SDFR but declined 2.0 times stronger in the first year of DMARD treatment [IRR 0.50 (95% CI; 0.32, 0.77); P < 0.01]. This stronger decline was seen in tenosynovitis/synovitis/osteitis. In contrast, ACPA-positive RA-patients achieving SDFR, had already lower inflammation levels (especially synovitis/osteitis) at disease presentation [IRR 0.45 (95% CI; 0.24, 0.86); P = 0.02] compared with patients without SDFR, and remained lower during subsequent follow-up (P = 0.02). Similar results were found in the ACPA-positive validation population. CONCLUSION: Compared with RA patients without disease resolution, ACPA-positive RA patients achieving SDFR have less severe joint inflammation from diagnosis onwards, while ACPA-negative RA patients present with similar inflammation levels but demonstrate a stronger decline in the first year of DMARD therapy. These different trajectories suggest different mechanisms underlying resolution of RA chronicity in both RA subsets.

Differential Changes in ACPA Fine Specificity and Gene Expression in a Randomized Trial of Abatacept and Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The biologics abatacept and adalimumab have different mechanisms of action (MoAs). We analyzed data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in AMPLE (NCT00929864) to explore the pharmacodynamic effects of abatacept or adalimumab on anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and gene expression. METHODS: AMPLE was a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomized, head-to-head trial of abatacept versus adalimumab. Post hoc analyses of baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (anti-CCP2, an ACPA surrogate) positive (+) status and ACPA fine-specificity profiles over time, as well as transcriptional profiling (peripheral whole blood), were performed. RESULTS: Of 646 patients treated (abatacept, n = 318; adalimumab, n = 328), ACPA and gene expression data were available from 508 and 566 patients, respectively. In anti-CCP2+ patients (n = 388), baseline fine specificities for most ACPAs were highly correlated; over 2 years, levels decreased with abatacept but not adalimumab. By year 2, expression of genes associated with T cell co-stimulation and antibody production was lower for abatacept versus adalimumab; expression of genes associated with proinflammatory signaling was lower for adalimumab versus abatacept. Treatment modulated the expression of T- and B-cell gene signatures, with differences in CD8+ T cells, activated T cells, plasma cells, B cells, natural killer cells (all lower with abatacept versus adalimumab), and polymorphonuclear leukocytes (higher with abatacept versus adalimumab). CONCLUSIONS: In AMPLE, despite similar clinical outcomes, data showed that pharmacodynamic/genetic changes after 2 years of abatacept or adalimumab were consistent with drug MoAs. Further assessment of the relationship between such changes and clinical outcomes, including prediction of response, is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00929864.

Urinary CD80 Discriminates Among Glomerular Disease Types and Reflects Disease Activity.

INTRODUCTION: Heterogeneity of nephrotic diseases and a lack of validated biomarkers limits interventions and reduces the ability to examine outcomes. Urinary CD80 is a potential biomarker for minimal change disease (MCD) steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (NS). We investigated and validated a CD80 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in urine in a large cohort with a variety of nephrotic diseases. METHODS: A commercial CD80 ELISA was enhanced and analytically validated for urine. Patients were from Mayo Clinic (307) and Nephrotic Syndrome Study Network Consortium (NEPTUNE; 104) as follows: minimal change disease (MCD, 56), focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS, 92), lupus nephritis (LN, 25), IgA nephropathy (IgAN, 20), membranous nephropathy (MN, 49), autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD, 10), diabetic nephropathy (DN; 106), pyuria (19), and controls (34). Analysis was by Kruskal-Wallis test, generalized estimating equation (GEE) models, and receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. RESULTS: Urinary CD80/creatinine values were highest in MCD compared to other glomerular diseases and were increased in DN with proteinuria >2 compared to controls (control = 36 ng/g; MCD = 139 ng/g, P < 0.01; LN = 90 ng/g, P < 0.12; FSGS = 66 ng/g, P = 0.18; DN = 63, P = 0.03; MN = 69 ng/g, P = 0.33; ng/g, P = 0.07; IgA = 19 ng/g, P = 0.09; ADPKD = 42, P = 0.36; and pyuria 31, P = 0.20; GEE, median, P vs. control). In proteinuric patients, CD80 concentration appears to be independent of proteinuria levels, suggesting that it is unrelated to nonspecific passage across the glomeruli. CD80/creatinine values were higher in paired relapse versus remission cases of MCD and FSGS (P < 0.0001, GEE). CONCLUSION: Using a validated ELISA, urinary CD80 levels discriminate MCD from other forms of NS (FSGS, DN, IgA, MN) and primary from secondary FSGS.

Efficacy of Abatacept and Adalimumab in Patients with Early Rheumatoid Arthritis With Multiple Poor Prognostic Factors: Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial (AMPLE).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with poor prognostic factors, such as seropositivity for anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and early erosions, may benefit from early intensive treatment. However, information to guide physicians on the best choice of therapy in these patients is limited. The objective of this study was to describe the efficacy of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab over 2 years in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the AMPLE study. METHODS: This exploratory post hoc analysis compared clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes in two subsets of patients: patients with early RA (≤ 6 months' disease duration) who were seropositive for rheumatoid factor and/or anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and had > 1 radiographic erosion (Cohort 1); and patients with RA and absence of ≥ 1 of these inclusion criteria (Cohort    2). RESULTS: Of the 646 randomized patients, Cohort 1 included 38 patients receiving abatacept and 45 receiving adalimumab, and Cohort 2 included 280 patients receiving abatacept and 283 receiving adalimumab. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups in both cohorts. Over 2 years, in Cohort 1, the adjusted mean change from baseline in the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (using C-reactive protein) was numerically greater for abatacept than for adalimumab (mean difference at day 365 was 0.9, 95% confidence interval - 1.47 to - 0.33). Similar patterns of improvement were observed for other disease activity measures and physical function, but not for radiographic outcomes. No treatment-related differences were observed in Cohort 2. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates a trend towards improved disease activity and physical function with abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00929864. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Relationship Between Middle Ear Volume and Long-term Audiological Outcomes in Congenital Aural Atresia Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of middle ear volume with long-term hearing outcomes in congenital aural atresia (CAA) repair. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart and radiological review. SETTING: Single academic tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Children and adults who underwent CAA repair between 1995 and 2016. Patients were divided into "best" and "worst" audiometric groups, based on stability of postoperative air conduction pure-tone average (AC PTA) results. Ten patients were included for study in the "best" group, and 12 in the "worst" group. INTERVENTION(S): CAA repair. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Long-term (> 1 yr) postoperative three-tone (500, 1000, 2000 Hz) AC PTA, speech reception threshold (SRT), air bone gap, and semiautomated calculated middle ear volume from preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were noted between "best" and "worst" groups in AC PTA, SRT, and air bone gap (p < 0.001). Mean middle ear volume in the "best" group was 434.6 mm (range 326.3-602.1 mm) and 339.5 mm (range 199.4-502.1 mm) in the "worst" group (p = 0.02). The majority in both groups were right ears (p = 0.38), and males outnumbered females in the "best" group (9 out of 10; p = 0.018). Preoperative Jahrsdoerfer grading scores were similar between groups (p = 0.31). Mean follow-up for the "best" and "worst" groups was approximately 3.5 and 4.5 yr, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing CAA repair, larger middle ear volume is associated with stable and better long-term audiometric outcomes.

Re-treatment with abatacept plus methotrexate for disease flare after complete treatment withdrawal in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: 2-year results from the AVERT study.

Objectives: To complete reporting of outcomes after total withdrawal of all rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapy and re-treatment after flare in Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment study (NCT01142726). Methods: Patients with early RA were initially randomised to double-blind, weekly subcutaneous abatacept plus methotrexate, or abatacept or methotrexate monotherapy. At month 12, patients with Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 C reactive protein (CRP) <3.2 had all RA treatments rapidly withdrawn and were observed for ≤12 months or until flare. After ≥3 months' withdrawal, patients with protocol-defined RA flare received open-label abatacept plus methotrexate for 6 months (re-treatment). Results: Proportion of patients in DAS28-CRP-defined remission remained numerically higher in original abatacept plus methotrexate and abatacept arms versus methotrexate arm up to day 253 of withdrawal. At the end of the withdrawal period, few patients remained in remission across all arms: 9/73 (12.3%), 7/50 (14.0%) and 6/53 (11.3%), respectively. For patients entering re-treatment, after 6 months' re-treatment, 95/124 (76.6%) and 78/124 (62.9%) patients achieved DAS28-CRP <3.2 and <2.6, respectively; mean changes in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores from re-treatment baseline were -2.87 and 0.76, respectively. Re-treatment was well tolerated; exposure-adjusted infection rates per 100 patient-years were lower with abatacept plus methotrexate during withdrawal (7.2) and re-treatment (17.2) versus initial treatment periods of months 0-6 (116.6) and 6-12 (64.6). Conclusions: Most patients flared within 6 months of therapy withdrawal and few sustained major responses for 1 year. Re-treatment with abatacept plus methotrexate was effective and well tolerated in this controlled setting.

Spinal Hematomas: What a Radiologist Needs to Know.

Spinal hematomas are a frequent indication for radiologic evaluation and can be a diagnostic dilemma for many radiologists and surgeons. There are four types of spinal hematomas: epidural, subdural, subarachnoid, and intramedullary (spinal cord) hematomas. Because they differ by their location in relationship to the meningeal membranes and spinal cord, unique radiologic appearances can be recognized to distinguish these types of spinal hemorrhage. Anatomic knowledge of the spinal compartments is essential to the radiologist for confident imaging diagnosis of spinal hematomas and to specify correct locations. MRI is the modality of choice to diagnose the location of the hematoma, characterize important features such as age of the hemorrhage, and detect associated injury or disease. Each type of spinal hematoma has imaging patterns and characteristics that distinguish it from the others, as these specific spinal compartments displace and affect the adjacent anatomic structures. Early detection and accurate localization of spinal hematomas is critical for the surgeon to address the proper treatment and surgical decompression, when necessary, as neurologic deficits may otherwise become permanent. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2018.

Isolated left upper eyelid ptosis with pansinusitis and contralateral otitis media in a 9-year-old boy.

PURPOSE: Upper eyelid ptosis has different etiologies in children and adults. In children, the common causes include orbital cellulitis, congenital ptosis, Cranial Nerve (CN) III palsy, and Horner's syndrome. The purpose of this report is to discuss an unusual presentation of ptosis. OBSERVATIONS: We describe a case of a 9-year-old boy with left-sided ptosis with no apparent clinical signs of orbital or preseptal infection. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed pansinusitis and contralateral otitis media with direct extension into the superior aspect of the left orbit affecting the levator palpebrae superioris muscle. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: This finding on imaging disclosed the etiology of an otherwise unexplained case of upper lid ptosis.

Randomized Clinical Trial Design to Assess Abatacept in Resistant Nephrotic Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome is a rare form of glomerular disease that occurs in children and adults. No Food and Drug Administration-approved treatments consistently achieve remission of proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. CD80 (B7-1) can be expressed on injured podocytes, and administration of abatacept (modified CTLA4-Ig based on a natural ligand to CD80) has been associated with sustained normalization of urinary protein excretion and maintenance of glomerular filtration rate in experimental and clinical settings. METHODS: In this report, we describe the rationale for and design of a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of abatacept in patients with treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome caused by focal segmental glomerulosclerosis or minimal change disease. The design is a hybrid of a parallel-group and crossover design (switchover) with the primary objectives assessed in the first period of the study and the secondary objectives assessed using data from both periods. All participants will receive the active agent in 1 of the periods. The duration of treatment will be 4 months per period. RESULTS: The primary outcome will be improvement in nephrotic-range proteinuria to subnephrotic range, that is, reduction from baseline to 4 months in urine protein:creatinine ratio ≥ 50% and to a level < 3. The projected sample size is 90 patients, which has 80% power to detect a treatment difference of 28%. CONCLUSION: This study advances efforts to validate CD80 as a therapeutic target for treatment-resistant nephrotic syndrome, and implements a precision medicine-based approach to this serious kidney condition in which the selection of a therapeutic agent is guided by the underlying disease mechanism operating in individual patients.

Imaging of pediatric neurovascular emergencies.

Pediatric strokes are rare but critical diagnoses to make in the emergency setting. They are associated with a set of pathologies that are not frequently encountered in the adult population. Some of these diseases have variable clinical presentations and imaging appearance depending on the age of onset and severity of the underlying pathologies. This article reviews the differential diagnoses and noninvasive imaging evaluation of pediatric cerebral ischemic and hemorrhagic diseases.

Identification of biomarkers of response to abatacept in patients with SLE using deconvolution of whole blood transcriptomic data from a phase IIb clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To characterise patients with active SLE based on pretreatment gene expression-defined peripheral immune cell patterns and identify clusters enriched for potential responders to abatacept treatment. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used baseline peripheral whole blood transcriptomic data from patients in a phase IIb trial of intravenous abatacept (~10 mg/kg/month). Cell-specific genes were used with a published deconvolution algorithm to identify immune cell proportions in patient samples, and unsupervised consensus clustering was generated. Efficacy data were re-analysed. RESULTS: Patient data (n=144: abatacept: n=98; placebo: n=46) were grouped into four main clusters (C) by predominant characteristic cells: C1-neutrophils; C2-cytotoxic T cells, B-cell receptor-ligated B cells, monocytes, IgG memory B cells, activated T helper cells; C3-plasma cells, activated dendritic cells, activated natural killer cells, neutrophils; C4-activated dendritic cells, cytotoxic T cells. C3 had the highest baseline total British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) scores, highest antidouble-stranded DNA autoantibody levels and shortest time to flare (TTF), plus trends in favour of response to abatacept over placebo: adjusted mean difference in BILAG score over 1 year, -4.78 (95% CI -12.49 to 2.92); median TTF, 56 vs 6 days; greater normalisation of complement component 3 and 4 levels. Differential improvements with abatacept were not seen in other clusters, except for median TTF in C1 (201 vs 109 days). CONCLUSIONS: Immune cell clustering segmented disease severity and responsiveness to abatacept. Definition of immune response cell types may inform design and interpretation of SLE trials and treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00119678; results.

Reductions in disease activity in the AMPLE trial: clinical response by baseline disease duration.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical response by baseline disease duration using 2-year data from the AMPLE trial. METHODS: Patients were randomised to subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg weekly or adalimumab 40 mg bi-weekly, with background methotrexate. As part of a post hoc analysis, the achievement of validated definitions of remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤2.8, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤3.3, Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) ≤3.0, Boolean score ≤1), low disease activity (CDAI <10, SDAI <11, RAPID3 ≤6.0), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response and American College of Rheumatology responses were evaluated by baseline disease duration (≤6 vs >6 months). Disease Activity Score 28 (C-reactive protein) <2.6 or ≤3.2 and radiographic non-progression in patients achieving remission were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were randomised and treated (abatacept, n=318; adalimumab, n=328). In both treatment groups, comparable responses were achieved in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (≤6 months) and in those with later disease (>6 months) across multiple clinical measures. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept or adalimumab with background methotrexate were associated with similar onset and sustainability of response over 2 years. Patients treated early or later in the disease course achieved comparable clinical responses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00929864, Post-results.

Brief Report: Estimating Disease Activity Using Multi-Biomarker Disease Activity Scores in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated With Abatacept or Adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of a multi-biomarker disease activity (MBDA) test (Vectra DA) to reflect clinical measures of disease activity in patients enrolled in the AMPLE (Abatacept Versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate) trial. METHODS: In the AMPLE trial, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were naive to biologic agents and had an inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized (1:1) to receive subcutaneous abatacept (125 mg every week) or subcutaneous adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), with background methotrexate, for 2 years. The MBDA score was determined using serum samples collected at baseline, month 3, and years 1 and 2. The adjusted mean change from baseline in the MBDA score was compared between the abatacept and adalimumab treatment groups. Cross-tabulation was used to compare the MBDA score with the following clinical measures of disease activity: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP), and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID-3). RESULTS: In total, 318 patients were randomized to receive abatacept, and 328 were randomized to receive adalimumab; MBDA data were available for 259 and 265 patients, respectively. No association between the MBDA score and disease activity defined by the CDAI, SDAI, DAS28-CRP, or RAPID-3 in the abatacept and adalimumab treatment groups was observed. CONCLUSION: The MBDA score did not reflect clinical disease activity in patients enrolled in AMPLE and should not be used to guide decision-making in the management of RA, particularly for patients who receive abatacept or adalimumab as the first biologic agent.

Patient-Reported Outcomes From a Two-Year Head-to-Head Comparison of Subcutaneous Abatacept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To report 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the head-to-head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial. METHODS: AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. Biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs (pain, fatigue, ability to perform work, and ability to perform daily activities) were compared up to year 2 for patients in each treatment group, as well as those who achieved low disease activity at both years 1 and 2 (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders). RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were randomized and treated with SC abatacept (n = 318) or adalimumab (n = 328). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Comparable improvements in PROs were observed in the abatacept and adalimumab groups over 2 years, with both groups achieving clinically meaningful improvements in PROs from baseline. At year 2, fatigue improved by 23.4 mm and 21.5 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale with abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. Clinical responders achieved greater improvements in PROs than nonresponders. CONCLUSION: In biologic-naive patients with active RA, despite prior MTX, treatment with SC abatacept or adalimumab with background MTX resulted in comparable improvements in PROs, which were highly correlated with physician-reported clinical response end points.

Impact of baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 antibody concentration on efficacy outcomes following treatment with subcutaneous abatacept or adalimumab: 2-year results from the AMPLE trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (CCP2) antibody status and concentration correlated with clinical outcomes in patients treated with abatacept or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) in the 2-year AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE rheumatoid arthritis subjects with background MTX) study. METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, anti-CCP2 antibody concentration was measured at baseline, and antibody-positive patients were divided into equal quartiles, Q1-Q4, representing increasing antibody concentrations. Clinical outcomes analysed by baseline anti-CCP2 status and quartile included change from baseline in disease activity and disability and remission rates. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally comparable across quartiles and treatment groups. In both treatment groups, anti-CCP2 antibody-negative patients responded less well than antibody-positive patients. At year 2, improvements in disease activity and disability and remission rates were similar across Q1-Q3, but were numerically higher in Q4 in the abatacept group; in contrast, treatment effects were similar across all quartiles in the adalimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: In AMPLE, baseline anti-CCP2 positivity was associated with a better response for abatacept and adalimumab. Patients with the highest baseline anti-CCP2 antibody concentrations had better clinical response with abatacept than patients with lower concentrations, an association that was not observed with adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00929864.