Abatacept retention and clinical effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world setting in Taiwan.

AIM: To evaluate real-world abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Taiwan. METHODS: This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged ≥20 years who received abatacept in real-world practice. The primary endpoint was the abatacept retention rate at 24 months. Patients were categorized into subgroups based on abatacept treatment status and previous biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy. Risk factors affecting abatacept retention were determined by regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 212 patients were enrolled. The overall abatacept retention rate at 24 months among all patients was 59.9% (95% confidence interval 53.0%-66.6%). Patients who were ongoing users of abatacept and bDMARD-naïve had the highest retention rate (76.3%); of these, 31.6% achieved low disease activity or remission after 2 years. Previous treatment with bDMARDs was associated with an increased risk of abatacept discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.99; p = .002). The most common reasons for abatacept discontinuation were drug switch (11.3%) and loss to follow-up (6.1%). Abatacept was well-tolerated with no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: The 24-month retention rate of abatacept was 59.9%; abatacept was associated with improved clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting in Taiwan.

Long-term effects of abatacept on atherosclerosis and arthritis in older vs. younger patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 3-year results of a prospective, multicenter, observational study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to reveal the effect of abatacept (ABT) on atherosclerosis in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, 3-year efficacy for arthritis, and safety in a population of older vs. younger patients. METHODS: In this open-label, prospective, observational study, patients were stratified into four groups: younger (20-64 years old) and older (≥ 65 years) patients taking ABT (AY and AO) and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (CY and CO). Primary endpoints were change from baseline in mean intima-media thickness (IMT) of the common carotid artery, IMT max (bulbus, bifurcation, and internal and common carotid artery), and plaque score at Week 156. Disease activity, retention rate, and adverse effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: The ABT group (AY + AO) tended to have smaller increases in mean IMT, max IMT, and plaque score than the csDMARD group (CY + CO) at Week 156, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis showed significantly lower increases in plaque score with ABT than with csDMARDs, only when considering disease activity at 156 weeks (p = 0.0303). Proportions of patients with good or good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism response were higher in the ABT group, without significant difference between older and younger patients. No significant differences were observed in ABT retention rates between older and younger patients. Serious adverse effects, especially infection, tended to be more frequent with ABT than with csDMARDs, although no significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: ABT may decelerate atherosclerosis progression and may be useful for patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease, such as older patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000014913.

Full Guidelines-From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation: Perioperative management of systemic immunomodulatory agents in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Systemic immunomodulatory agents are indicated in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Perioperative use of these medications may increase the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) and complication. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of SSI and complication in patients with chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease receiving immunomodulatory agents (tumor necrosis factor-alfa [TNF-α] inhibitors, interleukin [IL] 12/23 inhibitor, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 costimulator, phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, Janus kinase inhibitors, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, cyclosporine (CsA), and methotrexate [MTX]) undergoing surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of the MEDLINE PubMed database of patients with chronic autoimmune inflammatory disease on immune therapy undergoing surgery. RESULTS: We examined 48 new or previously unreviewed studies; the majority were retrospective studies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSION: For low-risk procedures, TNF-α inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, ustekinumab, abatacept, MTX, CsA, and apremilast can safely be continued. For intermediate- and high-risk surgery, MTX, CsA, apremilast, abatacept, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitors, and ustekinumab are likely safe to continue; however, a case-by-case approach is advised. Acitretin can be continued for any surgery. There is insufficient evidence to make firm recommendations on tofacitinib, upadacitinib, and deucravacitinib.

Abatacept in individuals at high risk of rheumatoid arthritis (APIPPRA): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of developing rheumatoid arthritis. In the arthritis prevention in the pre-clinical phase of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept (APIPPRA) trial, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and acceptability of treating high risk individuals with the T-cell co-stimulation modulator abatacept. METHODS: The APIPPRA study was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel, placebo-controlled, phase 2b clinical trial done in 28 hospital-based early arthritis clinics in the UK and three in the Netherlands. Participants (aged ≥18 years) at risk of rheumatoid arthritis positive for ACPA and rheumatoid factor with inflammatory joint pain were recruited. Exclusion criteria included previous episodes of clinical synovitis and previous use of corticosteroids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block sizes of 2 and 4) stratified by sex, smoking, and country, to 125 mg abatacept subcutaneous injections weekly or placebo for 12 months, and then followed up for 12 months. Masking was achieved by providing four kits (identical in appearance and packaging) with pre-filled syringes with coded labels of abatacept or placebo every 3 months. The primary endpoint was the time to development of clinical synovitis in three or more joints or rheumatoid arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology and European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology 2010 criteria, whichever was met first. Synovitis was confirmed by ultrasonography. Follow-up was completed on Jan 13, 2021. All participants meeting the intention-to-treat principle were included in the analysis. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2013-003413-18). FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2014, and Jan 14, 2019, 280 individuals were evaluated for eligibility and, of 213 participants, 110 were randomly assigned to abatacept and 103 to placebo. During the treatment period, seven (6%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group and 30 (29%) of 103 participants in the placebo group met the primary endpoint. At 24 months, 27 (25%) of 110 participants in the abatacept group had progressed to rheumatoid arthritis, compared with 38 (37%) of 103 in the placebo group. The estimated proportion of participants remaining arthritis-free at 12 months was 92·8% (SE 2·6) in the abatacept group and 69·2% (4·7) in the placebo group. Kaplan-Meier arthritis-free survival plots over 24 months favoured abatacept (log-rank test p=0·044). The difference in restricted mean survival time between groups was 53 days (95% CI 28-78; p<0·0001) at 12 months and 99 days (95% CI 38-161; p=0·0016) at 24 months in favour of abatacept. During treatment, abatacept was associated with improvements in pain scores, functional wellbeing, and quality-of-life measurements, as well as low scores of subclinical synovitis by ultrasonography, compared with placebo. However, the effects were not sustained at 24 months. Seven serious adverse events occurred in the abatacept group and 11 in the placebo group, including one death in each group deemed unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: Therapeutic intervention during the at-risk phase of rheumatoid arthritis is feasible, with acceptable safety profiles. T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept for 12 months reduces progression to rheumatoid arthritis, with evidence of sustained efficacy beyond the treatment period, and with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

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.

Long-Term Outcomes after Conversion to a Belatacept-Based Immunosuppression in Kidney Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Conversion to a belatacept-based immunosuppression is currently used as a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) avoidance strategy when the CNI-based standard-of-care immunosuppression is not tolerated after kidney transplantation. However, there is a lack of evidence on the long-term benefit and safety after conversion to belatacept. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 311 kidney transplant recipients from 2007 to 2020 from two referral centers, converted from CNI to belatacept after transplant according to a prespecified protocol. Patients were matched at the time of conversion to patients maintained with CNIs, using optimal matching. The primary end point was death-censored allograft survival at 7 years. The secondary end points were patient survival, eGFR, and safety outcomes, including serious viral infections, immune-related complications, antibody-mediated rejection, T-cell-mediated rejection, de novo anti-HLA donor-specific antibody, de novo diabetes, cardiovascular events, and oncologic complications. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients converted to belatacept (belatacept group) were matched to 243 patients maintained on CNIs (CNI control group). All recipient, transplant, functional, histologic, and immunologic parameters were well balanced between the two groups with a standardized mean difference below 0.05. At 7 years post-conversion to belatacept, allograft survival was 78% compared with 63% in the CNI control group ( P < 0.001 for log-rank test). The safety outcomes showed a similar rate of patient death (28% in the belatacept group versus 36% in the CNI control group), active antibody-mediated rejection (6% versus 7%), T-cell-mediated rejection (4% versus 4%), major adverse cardiovascular events, and cancer occurrence (9% versus 11%). A significantly higher rate of de novo proteinuria was observed in the belatacept group as compared with the CNI control group (37% versus 21%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence study shows that conversion to belatacept post-transplant was associated with lower risk of graft failure and acceptable safety outcomes compared with patients maintained on CNIs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Long-term Outcomes after Conversion to Belatacept, NCT04733131 .

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.

Oral glucocorticoid use in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNF-inhibitors, tocilizumab or abatacept: Results from the international TOCERRA and PANABA observational collaborative studies.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the use of oral glucocorticoids with three classes of bDMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We included patients from 13 observational registries treated with a TNF-inhibitor, abatacept or tocilizumab and with available information on the use of oral glucocorticoids. The main outcome was oral glucocorticoid withdrawal. A McNemar test was used to analyse the change in the use of glucocorticoids after 1 year. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regressions, adjusted for patient, treatment, and disease characteristics, were used to evaluate glucocorticoid discontinuation in patients with glucocorticoids at baseline. Because of heterogeneity, analyses were done by registers and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12,334 participants treated with TNF-inhibitors, 2100 with tocilizumab and 3229 with abatacept were included. At one-year, oral glucocorticoid use decreased in all treatment groups (odds ratio for stopping vs. starting of 2.19 [95% CI 1.58; 3.04] for TNF-inhibitors, 2.46 [1.39; 4.35] for tocilizumab; 1.73 [1.25; 2.21] for abatacept). Median time to glucocorticoid withdrawal was ≈2 years or more in most countries, with a gradual decrease over time. Compared to TNF-inhibitors, crude hazard ratios of glucocorticoid discontinuation were 0.65[0.48-0.87] for abatacept, and 1.04 [0.76-1.43] for tocilizumab, and adjusted hazard ratios were 1.1 [0.83-1.47] for abatacept, and 1.30 [0.96-1.78] for tocilizumab. CONCLUSION: After initiation of a bDMARD, glucocorticoid use decreased similarly in all treatment groups. However, glucocorticoid withdrawal was much slower than advocated by current international guidelines. More effort should be devoted to glucocorticoid tapering when low disease activity is achieved.

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.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept for interstitial lung disease associated with antisynthetase syndrome: a case series.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) in interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with antisynthetase syndrome (ASS). METHODS: Eight patients were identified through retrospective analysis of the medical records of our centre. All patients fulfilled the Solomon criteria and had a disease complicated with ILD. Lung function, imaging, serum markers, clinical evaluation indicators of ILD, peripheral blood cell classification, cytokines, and prednisone doses were analysed. RESULTS: Seven of the eight patients were female. The mean age was 54.4 (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) years. Antibodies against Jo-1, PL-12, and PL-7 were present in three, three, and two patients respectively. At baseline, the mean diffusing lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) was 53.8% (SD 9.2%), the mean score of King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (KBILD) was 40.6 (SD 13.8), the median Krebs Von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) was 1612.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 1180.5-2431.5) U/ml. All patients experienced symptom alleviation after ABA therapy. The mean and median changes in DLCO percentage, KBILD, and KL-6 were 12.3% (p<0.05), 21.4 (p<0.01), and 174.5U/ml (p<0.01), respectively. No obvious adverse events related to ABA were observed during the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers preliminary, but encouraging, clinical evidence in favour of ABA as a therapy for ASS-ILD. ABA demonstrated favourable effects on ILD and was well-tolerated. Well-designed randomised controlled studies are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of this strategy.

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 in Patients on Belatacept Regimen After Kidney Transplant.

OBJECTIVES: A common complication after transplant is an opportunistic infection, in part due to the necessary immunosuppression regimens that patients are placed on. This study aimed to assess the outcomes and rates of infection in kidney transplant recipients on belatacept compared with kidney transplant recipients on standard immunosuppression therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a matched-pair case-control retrospective analysis of a prospectively recollected database of all adult kidney transplant patients at the SUNY Upstate Medical Hospital from January 1, 2016, to July 31, 2022. RESULTS: Among study patients, 60.5% of patients in the belatacept group and 47.9% of patients in the standard immunosuppression regimen group were diagnosed with an infectious disease during follow-up, although no significant difference was shown between the 2 groups (P = .21). The most common infection in both groups was urinary tract infection, which was comparable between the groups (41.8% vs 50%; P = .42). No significant difference was shown between patients with early and late conversion to belatacept in terms of infection incident and type. CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplant recipients who were converted to belatacept because of poor renal function had a similar infection rate compared with patients on standard immunosuppression treatment. Neither conversion to belatacept nor timing of conversion changed the risk of infection after kidney transplant. Our findings suggest that physicians may convert a kidney transplant recipient with poor renal function to belatacept without changing the patient's risk of opportunistic infection.

Drug retention of biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the ANSWER cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: This multicentre retrospective study in Japan aimed to assess the retention of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), and to clarify the factors affecting their retention in a real-world cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: The study included 6666 treatment courses (bDMARD-naïve or JAKi-naïve cases, 55.4%; tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) = 3577; anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibodies (aIL-6R) = 1497; cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-Ig (CTLA4-Ig) = 1139; JAKi=453 cases). The reasons for discontinuation were divided into four categories (ineffectiveness, toxic adverse events, non-toxic reasons and remission); multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling by potential confounders was used to analyse the HRs of treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: TNFi (HR=1.93, 95% CI: 1.69 to 2.19), CTLA4-Ig (HR=1.42, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.67) and JAKi (HR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.63) showed a higher discontinuation rate due to ineffectiveness than aIL-6R. TNFi (HR=1.28, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.56) and aIL-6R (HR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.57) showed a higher discontinuation rate due to toxic adverse events than CTLA4-Ig. Concomitant use of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) at baseline was associated with higher discontinuation rate due to ineffectiveness in TNFi (HR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41), as well as toxic adverse events in JAKi (HR=2.30, 95% CI: 1.23 to 4.28) and TNFi (HR=1.29, 95%CI: 1.07 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: TNFi (HR=1.52, 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.68) and CTLA4-Ig (HR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.30) showed a higher overall drug discontinuation rate, excluding non-toxicity and remission, than aIL-6R.

Higher abatacept exposure after transplant decreases acute GVHD risk without increasing adverse events.

In the ABA2 study, the T-cell costimulation blockade agent, abatacept, was safe and effective in preventing acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) after unrelated-donor hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval. Here, we performed a determination of abatacept pharmacokinetics (PK), which enabled an examination of how abatacept exposure-response relationships affected clinical outcomes. We performed a population PK analysis of IV abatacept using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling and assessed the association between abatacept exposure and key transplant outcomes. We tested the association between the trough after dose 1 (Ctrough_1) and grade (GR) 2 or 4 aGVHD (GR2-4 aGVHD) through day +100. An optimal Ctrough_1 threshold was identified via recursive partitioning and classification tree analysis. This demonstrated that abatacept PK was characterized by a 2-compartment model with first-order elimination. The ABA2 dosing regimen was based on previous work targeting a steady-state abatacept trough of 10 µg/mL. However, a higher Ctrough_1 (≥39 µg/mL, attained in ∼60% of patients on ABA2) was associated with a favorable GR2-4 aGVHD risk (hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.65; P < .001), with a Ctrough_1 <39 µg/mL associated with GR2-4 aGVHD risk indistinguishable from placebo (P = .37). Importantly, no significant association was found between Ctrough_1 and key safety indicators, including relapse, and cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus viremia. These data demonstrate that a higher abatacept Ctrough_1 (≥39 µg/mL) was associated with a favorable GR2-4 aGVHD risk, without any observed exposure-toxicity relationships. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01743131.

Outcomes With Belatacept Exposure During Pregnancy in Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Posttransplant fertility returns quickly, and female recipients of child-bearing age may conceive while on immunosuppression. However, pregnancy after transplantation confers risks to the recipient, transplant, and fetus, including gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, transplant dysfunction, preterm labor, and low birthweight infants. Additionally, mycophenolic acid (MPA) products are teratogenic. Literature evidence regarding belatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation blocker, during pregnancy and while breastfeeding is extremely limited. When female transplant recipients on a belatacept-based regimen are desirous of pregnancy or at the time of conception, transplant providers manage the immunosuppression regimen in 1 of 2 ways: (1) switch both belatacept and MPA to a calcineurin inhibitor-based regimen with or without azathioprine, which is the more common practice but requires several modifications, having potential negative outcomes; or (2) only switch MPA to azathioprine while continuing belatacept. METHODS: This case series includes 16 pregnancies in 12 recipients with exposure to belatacept throughout pregnancy and while breastfeeding. Patient information was obtained from several sources, including Transplant Pregnancy Registry International, providers at Emory University, and Columbia University, as well as literature review. RESULTS: Pregnancy outcomes included 13 live births and 3 miscarriages. No birth defects or fetal deaths were reported in any of the live births. Seven infants were breastfed while their mothers continued belatacept. Outcomes appear comparable to those documented with the administration of calcineurin inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: This case series provides data supporting the continued administration of belatacept during pregnancy. Additional research will assist in developing better guidelines to counsel female transplant recipients on belatacept desiring to pursue pregnancy.