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.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of infliximab-biosimilar and other available biologicals for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), namely abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab and tocilizumab. A systematic literature review of MEDLINE database until August 2013 was carried out to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Bayesian mixed treatment comparison method was applied for the pairwise comparison of treatments. Improvement rates by the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20 and ACR50) at week 24 were used as efficacy endpoints, and the occurrence of serious adverse events was considered to assess the safety of the biologicals. Thirty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. All the biological agents proved to be superior to placebo. For ACR20 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest odds ratio (OR) compared to placebo, OR 7.69 [95 % CI 3.69-14.26], followed by abatacept OR 3.7 [95 % CI 2.17-6.06], tocilizumab OR 3.69 [95 % CI 1.87-6.62] and infliximab-biosimilar OR 3.47 [95 % CI 0.85-9.7]. For ACR50 response, certolizumab pegol showed the highest OR compared to placebo OR 8.46 [3.74-16.82], followed by tocilizumab OR 5.57 [95 % CI 2.77-10.09], and infliximab-biosimilar OR 4.06 [95 % CI 1.01-11.54]. Regarding the occurrence of serious adverse events, the results show no statistically significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and placebo, OR 1.87 [95 % CI 0.74-3.84]. No significant difference regarding efficacy and safety was found between infliximab-biosimilar and the other biological treatments. This is the first indirect meta-analysis in RA that compares the efficacy and safety of biosimilar-infliximab to the other biologicals indicated in RA. We found no significant difference between infliximab-biosimilar and other biological agents in terms of clinical efficacy and safety.
    The European Journal of Health Economics 05/2014; · 2.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is the most frequent autoimmune chronic inflammatory disease of the joints and it is characterized by the inflammation of the synovial membrane and the subsequent destruction of the joints. In RA, CD4+ T cells are the main drivers of disease initiation and the perpetuation of the damaging inflammatory process. To date, however, the genetic regulatory mechanisms of CD4+ T cells associated with RA etiology are poorly understood. The genome-wide analysis of expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) in disease-relevant cell types is a recent genomic integration approach that is providing significant insights into the genetic regulatory mechanisms of many human pathologies. The objective of the present study was to analyze, for the first time, the genome-wide genetic regulatory mechanisms associated with the gene expression of CD4+ T cells in RA. Whole genome gene expression profiling of CD4+ T cells and the genome-wide genotyping (598,258 SNPs) of 29 RA patients with an active disease were performed. In order to avoid the excessive burden of multiple testing associated with genome-wide trans-eQTL analysis, we developed and implemented a novel systems genetics approach. Finally, we compared the genomic regulation pattern of CD4+ T cells in RA with the genomic regulation observed in reference lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs). We identified a genome-wide significant cis-eQTL associated with the expression of FAM66C gene (P = 6.51e-9). Using our new systems genetics approach we identified six statistically significant trans-eQTLs associated with the expression of KIAA0101 (P<7.4e-8) and BIRC5 (P = 5.35e-8) genes. Finally, comparing the genomic regulation profiles between RA CD4+ T cells and control LCLs we found 20 genes showing differential regulatory patterns between both cell types. The present genome-wide eQTL analysis has identified new genetic regulatory elements that are key to the activity of CD4+ T cells in RA.
    PLoS ONE 06/2014; 9(6):e100690. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.
    The Journal of Rheumatology 12/2013; · 3.17 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014