-
Diabetes Care May 2023Previous studies showed that inhibiting lymphocyte costimulation reduces declining β-cell function in individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. We tested... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
Previous studies showed that inhibiting lymphocyte costimulation reduces declining β-cell function in individuals newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. We tested whether abatacept would delay or prevent progression of type 1 diabetes from normal glucose tolerance (NGT) to abnormal glucose tolerance (AGT) or to diabetes and the effects of treatment on immune and metabolic responses.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
We conducted a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked trial of abatacept in antibody-positive participants with NGT who received monthly abatacept/placebo infusions for 12 months. The end point was AGT or diabetes, assessed by oral glucose tolerance tests.
RESULTS
A total of 101 participants received abatacept and 111 placebo. Of these, 81 (35 abatacept and 46 placebo) met the end point of AGT or type 1 diabetes diagnosis (hazard ratio 0.702; 95% CI 0.452, 1.09; P = 0.11) The C-peptide responses to oral glucose tolerance tests were higher in the abatacept arm (P < 0.03). Abatacept reduced the frequency of inducible T-cell costimulatory (ICOS)+ PD1+ T-follicular helper (Tfh) cells during treatment (P < 0.0001), increased naive CD4+ T cells, and also reduced the frequency of CD4+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) from the baseline (P = 0.0067). Twelve months after treatment, the frequency of ICOS+ Tfh, naive CD4+ T cells, and Tregs returned to baseline.
CONCLUSIONS
Although abatacept treatment for 1 year did not significantly delay progression to glucose intolerance in at-risk individuals, it impacted immune cell subsets and preserved insulin secretion, suggesting that costimulation blockade may modify progression of type 1 diabetes.
Topics: Humans; Abatacept; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Immunosuppressive Agents; T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory; Glucose
PubMed: 36920087
DOI: 10.2337/dc22-2200 -
RMD Open Feb 2020Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA.
METHODS
Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients.
RESULTS
For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments.
CONCLUSION
Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.
Topics: Abatacept; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Biological Products; Clinical Decision-Making; Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Interleukin-17; Network Meta-Analysis; Placebos; Safety; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32094304
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2019-001117 -
Rheumatology (Oxford, England) May 2022To estimate the occurrence and relative risks of first-ever-incident non-cutaneous cancer overall and for 16 sites in patients with RA treated with biologic and targeted... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the occurrence and relative risks of first-ever-incident non-cutaneous cancer overall and for 16 sites in patients with RA treated with biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs), by time since treatment start, attained age, and duration of active treatment.
METHODS
This is an observational nationwide and population-based cohort study of patients with RA (n = 69 308), treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi; adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or other b/tsDMARDs (abatacept, rituximab, baricitinib, tofacitinib and tocilizumab) compared with RA patients not treated with b/tsDMARDs, and matched general population referents (n = 109 532), 2001-2018. The study was based on prospectively collected data from the Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register and from other registers, linked to the national Swedish Cancer Register. Incidence rates and hazard ratios were estimated via Cox regression adjusted for co-morbidities and other health characteristics.
RESULTS
Based on 8633 incident cancers among RA patients, the overall relative risk of cancer with TNFi [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.0] was neither increased nor did it change with time since treatment start, duration of active treatment, or attained age, when compared with b/tsDMARD-naïve RA. For other b/tsDMARDs, we noted no consistent signal of increased overall risks (HRs ranged from 1.0 to 1.2), but there were statistically significant estimates above 1 for abatacept with 2-5 years of active treatment, for older age groups, and between several of the bDMARDs and urinary tract cancer.
CONCLUSION
TNFis, as used long term in clinical practice against RA, are not linked to increased risks for cancer overall. For other b/tsDMARDs, and for site-specific risks, our results are generally reassuring but contain signals that call for replication.
Topics: Abatacept; Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Biological Products; Cohort Studies; Humans; Neoplasms
PubMed: 34324640
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/keab570 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2023Current data are lacking regarding the risk of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use on the development of interstitial...
IMPORTANCE
Current data are lacking regarding the risk of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use on the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
OBJECTIVE
To determine the risk of developing ILD in patients with RA undergoing treatment with different b/tsDMARDs.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
Retrospective cohort study using claims data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart between December 2003 and December 2019. Adult patients with RA, 1 year or more of continuous enrollment, treatment with a b/tsDMARD of interest, and without preexisting ILD were included. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to April 2022.
EXPOSURES
New administration of adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Crude incidence rates (IRs) for the development of ILD were calculated. The risk of ILD across different b/tsDMARDs was compared using Cox-regression models. A sensitivity analysis using a prevalent new-user cohort design compared patients treated with tofacitinib and adalimumab.
RESULTS
A total of 28 559 patients with RA (mean [SD] age 55.6 [13.7] years; 22 158 female [78%]) were treated with adalimumab (13 326 patients), abatacept (5676 patients), rituximab (5444 patients), tocilizumab (2548 patients), or tofacitinib (1565 patients). Crude IRs per 1000 person-years for ILD were 3.43 (95% CI 2.85-4.09) for adalimumab, 4.46 (95% CI 3.44-5.70) for abatacept, 6.15 (95% CI 4.76-7.84) for rituximab, 5.05 (95% CI 3.47-7.12) for tocilizumab, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.54-3.27) for tofacitinib. After multiple adjustments, compared with patients treated with adalimumab, patients treated with tofacitinib had a lower risk of ILD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78; P = .009). In a prevalent new-user cohort analysis, patients treated with tofacitinib had 68% reduced risk of ILD compared with adalimumab (aHR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13-0.82; P < .001). In an adjusted model, there was a 69% reduced risk of ILD in patients treated with tofacitinib compared with patients treated with adalimumab.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this retrospective cohort of patients with RA, patients treated with tofacitinib had the lowest incidence of ILD compared with patients treated with all bDMARDs evaluated, and patients treated with tofacitinib had a reduced risk of ILD compared with patients treated with adalimumab after adjusting for important covariates. Additional prospective studies are needed to better understand the role tofacitinib may play in preventing ILD in patients with RA. These results, while significant, should be interpreted with caution given the fairly small sample size of the tofacitinib group.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Middle Aged; Antirheumatic Agents; Abatacept; Rituximab; Retrospective Studies; Incidence; Adalimumab; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Biological Products
PubMed: 36939701
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.3640 -
RMD Open Mar 2022Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Targeted systemic therapies for psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and comparative synthesis of short-term articular, dermatological, enthesitis and dactylitis outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared biological and targeted systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDS) against placebo in psoriatic arthritis (PsA); few have compared them head to head.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy and safety of all evaluated DMARDs for active PsA, with a special focus on biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) licensed for PsA or psoriasis.
METHODS
A systematic review identified RCTs and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) compared treatments on efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response, resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis) and safety (patients discontinuing due to adverse events (DAE)) outcomes. Subgroup analyses explored ACR response among patients with and without prior biological therapy exposure.
RESULTS
The NMA included 46 studies. Results indicate that some tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (anti-TNFs) may perform numerically, but not significantly, better than interleukin (IL) inhibitors on ACR response but perform worse on PASI response. Few significant differences between bDMARDs on ACR response were observed after subgrouping for prior bDMARD exposure. Guselkumab and IL-17A or IL-17RA inhibitors-brodalumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab-were best on PASI response. These IL-inhibitors and adalimumab were similarly efficacious on resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis. Infliximab with and without methotrexate, certolizumab 400 mg every 4 weeks and tildrakizumab showed the highest rates of DAE; abatacept, golimumab and the IL-inhibitors, the lowest.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite similar efficacy for ACR response, IL-17A and IL-17RA inhibitors and guselkumab offered preferential efficacy to anti-TNFs in skin manifestations, and for enthesitis and dactylitis, thereby supporting drug selection based on predominant clinical phenotype.
Topics: Abatacept; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Enthesopathy; Humans
PubMed: 35321874
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002074 -
Journal of the American Society of... Dec 2021Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are standard of care after kidney transplantation, but they are associated with nephrotoxicity and reduced long-term graft survival.... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are standard of care after kidney transplantation, but they are associated with nephrotoxicity and reduced long-term graft survival. Belatacept, a selective T cell costimulation blocker, is approved for the prophylaxis of kidney transplant rejection. This phase 3 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of conversion from CNI-based to belatacept-based maintenance immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients.
METHODS
Stable adult kidney transplant recipients 6-60 months post-transplantation under CNI-based immunosuppression were randomized (1:1) to switch to belatacept or continue treatment with their established CNI. The primary end point was the percentage of patients surviving with a functioning graft at 24 months.
RESULTS
Overall, 446 renal transplant recipients were randomized to belatacept conversion ( n =223) or CNI continuation ( n =223). The 24-month rates of survival with graft function were 98% and 97% in the belatacept and CNI groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 0.8; 95.1% CI, -2.1 to 3.7). In the belatacept conversion versus CNI continuation groups, 8% versus 4% of patients experienced biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), respectively, and 1% versus 7% developed de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSAs), respectively. The 24-month eGFR was higher with belatacept (55.5 versus 48.5 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 with CNI). Both groups had similar rates of serious adverse events, infections, and discontinuations, with no unexpected adverse events. One patient in the belatacept group had post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder.
CONCLUSIONS
Switching stable renal transplant recipients from CNI-based to belatacept-based immunosuppression was associated with a similar rate of death or graft loss, improved renal function, and a numerically higher BPAR rate but a lower incidence of dnDSA.Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: A Study in Maintenance Kidney Transplant Recipients Following Conversion to Nulojix® (Belatacept)-Based, NCT01820572.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Abatacept; Calcineurin Inhibitors; Kidney Transplantation; Immunosuppressive Agents; Kidney; Immunosuppression Therapy; Graft Rejection; Transplant Recipients; Graft Survival
PubMed: 34706967
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2021050628 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Mar 2021To evaluate efficacy and safety of abatacept in adults with active primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) in a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate efficacy and safety of abatacept in adults with active primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) in a phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
METHODS
Eligible patients (moderate-to-severe pSS [2016 ACR/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria], EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Disease Activity Index [ESSDAI] ≥5, anti-SS-related antigen A/anti-Ro antibody positive) received weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg or placebo for 169 days followed by an open-label extension to day 365. Primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in ESSDAI at day 169. Key secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline in EULAR Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and stimulated whole salivary flow (SWSF) at day 169. Other secondary clinical endpoints included glandular functions and patient-reported outcomes. Selected biomarkers and immune cell phenotypes were examined. Safety was monitored.
RESULTS
Of 187 patients randomised, 168 completed double-blind period and 165 continued into open-label period. Mean (SD) baseline ESSDAI and ESSPRI total scores were 9.4 (4.3) and 6.5 (2.0), respectively. Statistical significance was not reached for primary (ESSDAI -3.2 abatacept vs -3.7 placebo, p=0.442) or key secondary endpoints (ESSPRI, p=0.337; SWSF, p=0.584). No clinical benefit of abatacept over placebo at day 169 was seen with other clinical and PRO endpoints. Relative to baseline, abatacept was associated with significant differences vs placebo in some disease-relevant biomarkers (including IgG, IgA, IgM-rheumatoid factor) and pathogenic cell subpopulations (post hoc analyses). No new safety signals were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Abatacept treatment did not result in significant clinical efficacy compared with placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe pSS, despite evidence of biological activity.
Topics: Abatacept; Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Severity of Illness Index; Sjogren's Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33168545
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218599 -
JAMA Jul 2023Immune dysregulation contributes to poorer outcomes in COVID-19.
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.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Middle Aged; Female; COVID-19; Abatacept; Infliximab; SARS-CoV-2; Pandemics
PubMed: 37428480
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.11043 -
Inflammopharmacology Jun 2022To examine the effectiveness of Janus-kinase inhibitors (JAKis) or abatacept (ABA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness of Janus-kinase inhibitors (JAKis) or abatacept (ABA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).
METHODS
Patients with RA-ILD receiving JAKis or ABA were retrospectively evaluated at baseline and after 18 months of treatment. A computer-aided method (CaM) was used to assess the extent of high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) fibrosis percentage. According to HRCT fibrosis changes, patients were classified as "worsened" (progression of 15% or more), "stable" (changes within 15%) or "improved" (reduction of 15% or more). Correlations between RA characteristics and JAKis or ABA responses were studied using a multivariate regression model.
RESULTS
Seventy-five patients (69.3% women) were evaluated, 31 received a JAKi while 44 received ABA. In the JAKis group, five patients (16.1%) showed RA-ILD progression, 20 patients (64.5%) were considered stable, and six patients (19.4%) demonstrated RA-ILD improvement. In the ABA group, five patients (11.3%) showed RA-ILD progression, 32 patients (72.7%) were stable, and seven patients (16.0%) demonstrated RA-ILD improvement. In both groups, the percentage of current smokers was different between those classified as "worsened" and those classified as "improved/stable" (p = 0.01). In multivariate regression analysis, current smoking habit (p = 0.0051) and concomitant methotrexate treatment (p = 0.0078) were the two variables related to RA-ILD progression in ABA-treated patients, whereas in JAKis-treated patients, the only RA-ILD progression-related variable was disease duration of RA (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Treatment with JAKis or ABA was related to stability or improvement of RA-ILD in 83.9% and 88.6% of patients, respectively. RA duration is the only variable associated with worsening RA-ILD in JAKis-treated patients.
Topics: Abatacept; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Female; Fibrosis; Humans; Janus Kinase Inhibitors; Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Male; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35462572
DOI: 10.1007/s10787-022-00936-w -
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2024Individuals with serum antibodies to citrullinated protein antigens (ACPA), rheumatoid factor, and symptoms, such as inflammatory joint pain, are at high risk of... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled 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.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Abatacept; Arthralgia; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Pain; Rheumatoid Factor; Synovitis
PubMed: 38364839
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02649-1