scholarly journals Subcutaneous Abatacept for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Longterm Data from the ACQUIRE Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Genovese ◽  
César Pacheco Tena ◽  
Arturo Covarrubias ◽  
Gustavo Leon ◽  
Eduardo Mysler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Link Type

Objective.Assess longterm tolerability, safety, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.The phase III, multinational Abatacept Comparison of Sub[QU]cutaneous Versus Intravenous in Inadequate Responders to MethotrexatE (ACQUIRE) trial comprised a 6-month, randomized, double-blind (DB) period, in which patients received intravenous (IV) or SC ABA, plus MTX, followed by an open-label, longterm extension (LTE), in which patients received SC ABA, 125 mg/week. Safety and efficacy from the LTE (∼3.5 yrs of exposure) are reported.Results.Patients who completed the DB period (1372/1385, 99.1%) entered the LTE; 1134 patients (82.7%) kept taking the treatment at time of reporting. Mean (SD) was 31.9 months (6.8); median (range) exposure was 33.0 (8–44) months. Patients entering the LTE had longstanding, moderate-to-severe disease [mean 7.6 (7.9) yrs and DAS28 (C-reactive protein) 6.2 (0.9)]. Incidence rates (events/100 patient-yrs) were reported for serious adverse events (8.76, 95% CI 7.71, 9.95), infections (44.80, 95% CI 41.76, 48.01), serious infections (1.72, 95% CI 1.30, 2.27), malignancies (1.19, 95% CI 0.86, 1.66), and autoimmune events (1.31, 95% CI 0.95, 1.79). Twenty-seven patients (2%) experienced injection-site reactions; all except 1 were mild. American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70 responses achieved during the DB period were maintained through the LTE, and on Day 981 were 80.2% (95% CI 77.2, 83.2), 63.5% (95% CI 58.2, 68.9), and 39.5% (95% CI 34.0, 44.9) for patients who kept taking SC ABA, and 80.0% (95% CI 77.0, 83.0), 63.2% (95% CI 57.8, 68.7), and 39.2% (95% CI 33.7, 44.7) for those who switched from IV to SC ABA.Conclusion.These findings support SC ABA as a well-tolerated and efficacious longterm treatment for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00559585).

scholarly journals Long-term safety, efficacy and inhibition of radiographic progression with abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: 3-year results from the AIM trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 1826-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M Kremer ◽  
Anthony S Russell ◽  
Paul Emery ◽  
Carlos Abud-Mendoza ◽  
Jacek Szechinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Inadequate Responders

ObjectiveTo evaluate abatacept treatment over 3 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate (MTX).MethodsPatients randomised to abatacept or placebo (+MTX) during the 1-year double-blind period of the Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate (AIM) trial received open-label abatacept (+MTX) in the long-term extension (LTE). Safety was assessed for patients who received ≥1 dose of abatacept, regardless of randomisation group. Efficacy was assessed for patients randomised to abatacept who entered the LTE.Results433 and 219 patients were randomised and treated with abatacept or placebo, respectively; 378 and 161 entered the LTE. At year 3, 440/539 patients were ongoing. No unexpected safety events were observed in the LTE. By year 3, incidence rates of adverse event and serious adverse events were 249.8/100 and 15.1/100 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates were generally stable over time. At year 3, 84.8%, 63.4% and 37.5% of patients achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 20, 50 and 70, respectively, compared with 82.3%, 54.3% and 32.4% of patients at year 1. Mean changes in Genant-modified Sharp scores were reduced progressively over 3 years, with significantly greater inhibition during year 3 compared with year 2 (p=0.022 for total score).ConclusionIn MTX-inadequate responders with RA, abatacept provided consistent safety and sustained efficacy over 3 years. The data suggest an increasing inhibitory disease-modifying effect on radiographic progression.

scholarly journals Longterm Safety, Efficacy, and Inhibition of Structural Damage Progression Over 5 Years of Treatment with Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the Abatacept in Inadequate Responders to Methotrexate Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1077-1087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M. Kremer ◽  
Charles Peterfy ◽  
Anthony S. Russell ◽  
Paul Emery ◽  
Carlos Abud-Mendoza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Inadequate Responders

Objective.Evaluate the safety and efficacy of longterm abatacept (ABA) treatment over 5 years in methotrexate (MTX)-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.Patients from the 1-year, double-blind Abatacept in Inadequate Responders to Methotrexate (AIM) study (NCT00048568) received open-label ABA (∼10 mg/kg) in the longterm extension (LTE). Safety was assessed for patients who received ≥ 1 ABA dose, and efficacy for patients randomized to ABA and treated in the LTE. Radiographs were evaluated for changes in Genant-modified Sharp scores.Results.Out of 652 patients, 539 entered the LTE (ABA, n = 378; placebo, n = 161). At Year 5, 72.4% were ongoing; discontinuation rates declined over time. Incidence rates of serious adverse events, serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events were 13.87, 2.84, 1.45, and 0.99 events/100 patient-years exposure, respectively. American College of Rheumatology 20 response was 82.3% (n = 373) and 83.6% (n = 268) at years 1 and 5, respectively. Disease Activity Score 28 C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 2.6 and ≤ 3.2 were achieved by 25.4% and 44.1% of patients at Year 1 (n = 370), and 33.7% and 54.7% at Year 5 (n = 267), respectively. Mean changes in DAS28-CRP and Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index at Year 1 [–2.83 (n = 365) and −0.68 (n = 369)] were maintained at Year 5 [−3.14 (n = 264) and −0.77 (n = 271)] for patients continuing treatment. Of them, 59.5% (n = 291) and 45.1% (n = 235) remained free from radiographic progression at years 1 and 5, respectively.Conclusion.In MTX-refractory patients with RA, longterm ABA treatment was well tolerated and provided consistent safety and sustained efficacy, with high patient retention. Radiographic progression continued to be inhibited with ongoing treatment.

scholarly journals Safety and Efficacy of Various Dosages of Ocrelizumab in Japanese Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with an Inadequate Response to Methotrexate Therapy: A Placebo-controlled Double-blind Parallel-group Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 486-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
MASAYOSHI HARIGAI ◽  
YOSHIYA TANAKA ◽  
SHINGO MAISAWA ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Cell Therapies ◽  
Link Type ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Serious Infections

Objective.To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ocrelizumab (OCR) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).Methods.RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX 6–8 mg/week received an infusion of 50, 200, or 500 mg OCR or placebo on Days 1 and 15 and were observed for 24 weeks. The double-blind period was prematurely terminated because of a possible risk for serious infection from OCR.Results.A total of 152 patients were randomized into the study. The incidence of infection was 37.7% (43/114) in the OCR groups combined, compared to 18.9% (7/37) in the placebo group. Serious infections occurred in 7 patients in the OCR groups combined; there were no serious infections in the placebo group. Among the serious infections, Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia occurred in 2 patients in the OCR 200 mg group. The American College of Rheumatology 20% response rates at Week 24 (the primary endpoint) of the OCR 50, 200, and 500 mg groups were 54.1% (p = 0.0080), 55.6% (p = 0.0056), and 47.2% (p = 0.044), respectively, all significantly higher than that of the placebo group (25.0%).Conclusion.These results suggest inappropriate benefit-risk balance of OCR in this patient population. Because rituximab is not approved for treatment of RA in Japan, it will be necessary to investigate safety and efficacy of other anti-B cell therapies in Japanese patients with RA. (ClinicalTrials.govNCT00779220).

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes in patients switched from adalimumab to baricitinib due to non-response and/or study design: phase III data in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (7) ◽  
pp. 890-898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Bruno Fautrel ◽  
Edward C Keystone ◽  
Robert A Ortmann ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Link Type

ObjectiveTo evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who changed treatment from adalimumab to baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, during a phase III programme.MethodsIn phase III RA-BEAM, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo, baricitinib 4 mg once daily, or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly. At week 16 or subsequent visits, non-responders were rescued to open-label baricitinib 4 mg. At week 52, patients could enter a long-term extension (LTE) and continue on baricitinib or switch from adalimumab to baricitinib 4 mg with no adalimumab washout period. Percentage of patients achieving low disease activity and remission were assessed, along with physical function, patient’s assessment of pain, and safety.ResultsThirty-five (7%) baricitinib-treated and 40 (12%) adalimumab-treated patients were rescued to baricitinib in RA-BEAM; 78% (381/487) of baricitinib-treated and 72% (238/330) of adalimumab-treated patients who were not rescued in RA-BEAM, entered the LTE and continued/were switched to baricitinib. In both baricitinib-rescued and adalimumab-rescued patients, there were significant improvements in all measures up to 12 weeks after rescue compared with the time of rescue. Patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib showed improvements in disease control through 12 weeks in the LTE. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates for treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and infections, including serious events, were similar for patients who switched from adalimumab to baricitinib and those who continued on baricitinib.ConclusionsSwitching from adalimumab to baricitinib (without adalimumab washout) was associated with improvements in disease control, physical function and pain during the initial 12 weeks postswitch, without an increase in TEAEs, serious adverse events or infections.Trial registration numbersNCT01710358, NCT01885078.

scholarly journals Evaluation of abatacept administered subcutaneously in adults with active rheumatoid arthritis: impact of withdrawal and reintroduction on immunogenicity, efficacy and safety (phase Iiib ALLOW study)

2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kaine ◽  
Geoffrey Gladstein ◽  
Ingrid Strusberg ◽  
Manuel Robles ◽  
Ingrid Louw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Immunogenicity Rate

ObjectivesTo assess the effect of a temporary interruption in subcutaneous (SC) abatacept on immunogenicity, safety and efficacy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate in a phase III trial.MethodsFollowing a 12-week open-label introduction (period I; intravenous abatacept loading dose and weekly fixed-dose SC abatacept 125 mg), patients were randomised 2:1 to double-blind SC placebo or SC abatacept for 12 weeks (period II). At the end of period II, patients receiving SC abatacept continued treatment and patients on placebo were reintroduced to SC abatacept (12-week open-label period III). The co-primary end points were ELISA-detected immunogenicity rate and safety at the end of period II. Efficacy was also monitored.ResultsOf 167 patients entering period I, 72% qualified for period II; during periods II and III, three patients discontinued treatment. Mean (SD) disease duration was 6.6 (6.5) years and Disease Activity Score 28 was 4.8 (0.8). The primary end point was met, with a non-significant increase in immunogenicity upon withdrawal (7/73 placebo vs 0/38 abatacept in period II; p=0.119) which was reversed upon reintroduction of SC abatacept (2/73 vs 1/38, end period III). Safety was comparable regardless of withdrawal, with no unexpected events upon reintroduction. Two patients experienced reactions at the SC injection site. On withdrawal, patients experienced slight worsening in efficacy which improved following reintroduction.ConclusionsOverall immunogenicity to SC abatacept is low, consistent with intravenous abatacept, and is not significantly affected by a 3-month interruption and reintroduction. This stop–start schedule was well tolerated, with little impact on safety and efficacy. These are important considerations for the clinical use of SC abatacept.ClinicalTrials govIdentifier NCT00533897

scholarly journals Olokizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 6, in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis inadequately controlled by methotrexate: efficacy and safety results of a randomised controlled phase III study

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-219876
Author(s):  
Evgeniy Nasonov ◽  
Saeed Fatenejad ◽  
Eugen Feist ◽  
Mariana Ivanova ◽  
Elena Korneva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks, OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks, or placebo plus MTX. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. The secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage of subjects achieving Disease Activity Score 28-joint count based on C reactive protein <3.2, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at week 12, ACR50 response and Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤2.8 at week 24. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed throughout the study.ResultsA total of 428 patients were randomised. ACR20 responses were more frequent with OKZ every 2 weeks (63.6%) and OKZ every 4 weeks (70.4%) than placebo (25.9%) (p<0.0001 for both comparisons). There were significant differences in all secondary efficacy endpoints between OKZ-treated arms and placebo. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were reported by more patients in the OKZ groups compared with placebo. Infections were the most common TESAEs. No subjects developed neutralising antidrug antibodies.ConclusionsTreatment with OKZ was associated with significant improvement in signs, symptoms and physical function of rheumatoid arthritis without discernible differences between the two regimens. Safety was as expected for this class of agents. Low immunogenicity was observed.Trial registration numberNCT02760368.

Efficacy and Safety of Belimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Dose-ranging Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 579-589 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Stohl ◽  
Joan T. Merrill ◽  
James D. McKay ◽  
Jeffrey R. Lisse ◽  
Z. John Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
B Lymphocyte ◽  
Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Link Type ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology

Objective.To evaluate the efficacy/safety of belimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.Patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA for ≥ 1 year who had at least moderate disease activity while receiving stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and failed ≥ 1 DMARD were randomly assigned to placebo or belimumab 1, 4, or 10 mg/kg, administered intravenously on Days 1, 14, and 28, and then every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (n = 283). This was followed by an optional 24-week extension (n = 237) in which all patients received belimumab. Primary efficacy endpoint was the Week 24 ACR20 response.Results.Week 24 ACR20 responses with placebo and belimumab 1, 4, and 10 mg/kg were 15.9%, 34.7% (p = 0.010), 25.4% (p = 0.168), and 28.2% (p = 0.080), respectively. Patients taking any belimumab dose who continued with belimumab in the open-label extension had an ACR20 response of 41% at 48 weeks. A similar ACR20 response (42%) at 48 weeks was seen in patients taking placebo who switched in the extension to belimumab 10 mg/kg. Greater response rates were observed in patients who at baseline were rheumatoid factor-positive, anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-naive, or had elevated C-reactive protein levels, Disease Activity Score 28 > 5.1, or low B lymphocyte stimulator levels (< 0.858 ng/ml). Adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups.Conclusion.In this phase II trial, belimumab demonstrated efficacy and was generally well tolerated in patients with RA who had failed previous therapies. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00071812]

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerd R Burmester ◽  
Yong Lin ◽  
Rahul Patel ◽  
Janet van Adelsberg ◽  
Erin K Mangan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Point

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who should not continue treatment with methotrexate (MTX) due to intolerance or inadequate response.MethodsMONARCH was a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III superiority trial. Patients received sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)) or adalimumab (40 mg q2w) monotherapy for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24.ResultsSarilumab was superior to adalimumab in the primary end point of change from baseline in DAS28-ESR (−3.28 vs −2.20; p<0.0001). Sarilumab-treated patients achieved significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates (sarilumab: 71.7%/45.7%/23.4%; adalimumab: 58.4%/29.7%/11.9%; all p≤0.0074) and had significantly greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (p=0.0037). Importantly, at week 24, more patients receiving sarilumab compared with adalimumab achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (7.1% vs 2.7%; nominal p=0.0468) and low disease activity (41.8% vs 24.9%; nominal p=0.0005, supplemental analysis). Adverse events occurred in 63.6% (adalimumab) and 64.1% (sarilumab) of patients, the most common being neutropenia and injection site reactions (sarilumab) and headache and worsening RA (adalimumab). Incidences of infections (sarilumab: 28.8%; adalimumab: 27.7%) and serious infections (1.1%, both groups) were similar, despite neutropenia differences.ConclusionsSarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy by improving the signs and symptoms and physical functions in patients with RA who were unable to continue MTX treatment. The safety profiles of both therapies were consistent with anticipated class effects.Trial registration numberNCT02332590.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document