Article

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis

Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 6N5.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007277.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Abatacept inhibits the co-stimulation of T cells and disrupts the inflammatory chain of events that leads to joint inflammation, pain, and damage in rheumatoid arthritis.
To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in reducing disease activity, pain, and improving function in people with rheumatoid arthritis.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), ACP Journal Club (from 2000), and Biosis Previews (from 1990) in March 2007 and December 2008. We contacted authors of included studies and the abatacept manufacturer.
Randomized controlled trials comparing abatacept alone, or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics, to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.
Two authors independently assessed search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. We obtained adverse event data from trials, long-term extension studies, and regulatory agencies.
Seven trials with 2908 patients were included. Compared with placebo, patients in the abatacept group were 2.2 times more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response at one year (RR 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.82) with a 21% (95% CI 16% to 27%) absolute risk difference between groups. The number needed to treat to achieve an ACR 50 response was 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Significant improvements in physical function and a reduction in disease activity and pain were found in abatacept-treated patients compared to placebo. One RCT found abatacept significantly slowed the radiographic progression of joint damage at 12 months compared to placebo, although it is not clear what the clinical relevance of this difference may be. There may be a risk of attrition bias. Total adverse events were greater in the abatacept group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Other harm outcomes were not significant with the exception of a greater number of serious infections at 12 months in the abatacept group (Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% CI 1.07 to 3.42). Serious adverse events were increased when abatacept was given in combination with other biologics (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.62).
There is moderate-level evidence that abatacept is efficacious and safe in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The withdrawal and toxicity profile appears acceptable at the present time but further long-term studies and post-marketing surveillance are required to assess harms and sustained efficacy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Jasvinder A Singh, Jul 31, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
189 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We sought to compare the benefits and safety of 6 biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab and rituximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In this network meta-analysis, we included all completed and updated Cochrane reviews on biologics for rheumatoid arthritis. We included data from all placebo-controlled trials that used standard dosing regimens. The major outcomes were benefit (defined as a 50% improvement in patient- and physician-reported criteria of the American College of Rheumatology [ACR50]) and safety (determined by the number of withdrawals related to adverse events). We used mixed-effects logistic regression to carry out an indirect comparison of the treatment effects between biologics. Compared with placebo, biologics were associated with a clinically important higher ACR50 rate (odds ratio [OR] 3.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.62-4.29) and a number needed to treat for benefit of 4 (95% CI 4-6). However, biologics were associated with more withdrawals related to adverse events (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.13-1.71), with a number needed to treat for harm of 52 (95% CI 29-152). Anakinra was less effective than all of the other biologics, although this difference was statistically significant only for the comparison with adalimumab (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.99) and etanercept (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81). Adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab were more likely than etanercept to lead to withdrawals related to adverse events (adalimumab OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.18-3.04; anakinra OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.29; and infliximab OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.43-5.26). Given the limitations of indirect comparisons, anakinra was less effective than adalimumab and etanercept, and etanercept was safer than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. This summary of the evidence will help physicians and patients to make evidence-based choices about biologics for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
    Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2009; 181(11):787-96. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.091391 · 5.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic heterogeneous autoimmune disorder of unknown etiology resulting in inflammation in the synovium, cartilage, and bone. Genetic factors play an important role in susceptibility to RA as the heritability of RA is between 50% and 60%, with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus accounting for at least 30% of overall genetic risk. Outside the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) region, six additional risk loci have been identified and validated including PTPN22, STAT4, PADI4, CTLA4, TNFAIP3-OLIG3, and TRAF1/C5. Genetic factors are also important in RA pharmacotherapy due to the gene-dependent activity of enzymes involved in the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of RA medications. Indeed, there is great variability in drug efficacy as well as adverse events associated with any anti-rheumatic therapy and genetics is thought to contribute significantly to this inter-individual variability in response. This review will summarize the genetic factors that have been implicated in the pathogenesis of RA, and how these determinants may factor into the potential pharmacogenetics of this disease. We will also review the therapeutic agents that are currently being utilized or presently being evaluated in the treatment of RA, along with potential pharmacogenetic markers that have been proposed for such medications.
    Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine 03/2010; 3:15-31. DOI:10.2147/PGPM.S5012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the liver, interface hepatitis (based on histologic examination), hypergammaglobulinemia, and production of autoantibodies. Many clinical and basic science studies have provided important insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of AIH. Transgenic mice that express human antigens and develop autoantibodies, liver-infiltrating CD4(+) T cells, liver inflammation, and fibrosis have been developed as models of AIH. AIH has been associated with autoantibodies against members of the cytochrome P450 superfamily of enzymes, transfer RNA selenocysteine synthase, formiminotransferase cyclodeaminase, and the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferases, whereas alleles such as DRB1*0301 and DRB1*0401 are genetic risk factors in white North American and northern European populations. Deficiencies in the number and function of CD4(+)CD25(+) (regulatory) T cells disrupt immune homeostasis and might be corrected as a therapeutic strategy. Treatment can be improved by continuing corticosteroid therapy until normal liver test results and normal liver tissue are within normal limits, instituting ancillary therapies to prevent drug-related side effects, identifying problematic patients early, and providing long-term maintenance therapy after patients experience a first relapse. Calcineurin inhibitors and mycophenolate mofetil are potential salvage therapies, and reagents such as recombinant interleukin-10, abatacept, and CD3-specific antibodies are feasible as therapeutics. Liver transplantation is an effective salvage therapy, even in the elderly, and AIH must be considered in all patients with graft dysfunction after liver transplantation. Identification of the key defects in immune homeostasis and antigen targets will direct new therapies.
    Gastroenterology 05/2010; 139(1):58-72.e4. DOI:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.04.053 · 13.93 Impact Factor
Show more