ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept.MethodsIn this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed.ResultsOf 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept–treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept–treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval –4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept–treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept–treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept–treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)–treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)–treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept–treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept–treated patients.ConclusionSC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

In this large observational cohort of patients with RA treated with RTX, seropositive patients achieved significantly greater reductions in DAS28 at 6 months than seronegative patients. Effectiveness was best when RTX was used as the first biological agent or after failure of no more than one anti-tumour necrosis factor agent.

SummaryBackgroundThe aim of this study was to assess and compare patients’ access to biologic anti-RA drugs in selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and to analyze the determinants of differences between countries.Material/MethodsThis is a multi-country survey study, based on a combination of desk research and direct contact with national RA stakeholders. Data was collected using a pre-defined questionnaire. Affordability was measured using an affordability index, calculated comparing the index of health care expenditures to the price index, using Poland as an index of 1.ResultsThe percentage of patients on biologic treatment in 2009 was highest in Hungary (5% RA patients on biologic treatment), followed by Slovenia (4.5%), Slovakia (3.5%), Czech Republic (2.92%), Romania (2.2%), Estonia (1.8%), and Croatia, Serbia, Poland (below 1.5%). Infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab were included in the reimbursement system in all countries, but abatacept and tocilizumab were included only in Slovakia. In Slovenia, public payer covered 75% of the price, and 25% is covered by supplementary health insurance; in Bulgaria public payer covered 50% of etanercept and adalimumab costs, and 75% of rituximab cost. In other countries, biologic drugs are reimbursed at 100%. Affordability index for biologic drugs was the lowest in Slovenia (0.4). In each country national guidelines define which patients are eligible for biologic treatment. Disease Activity Score (DAS28) of over 5.1 and failure of 2 or more disease-modifying anti-RA drugs, including methotrexate, are commonly used criteria.ConclusionsThe most important factors limiting access to biologic anti-RA treatment in the CEE region are macroeconomic conditions and restrictive treatment guidelines.

Leflunomide is an effective and safe alternative to methotrexate as concomitant treatment with rituximab. Slightly better results were obtained by the combination of rituximab and leflunomide than rituximab and methotrexate, raising the possibility of a synergistic effect of leflunomide and rituximab.

IntroductionTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). During the clinical development programme, increases in mean serum creatinine (SCr) of approximately 0.07 mg/dL and 0.08 mg/dL were observed which plateaued early. This study assessed changes in measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) with tofacitinib relative to placebo in patients with active RA.MethodsThis was a randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 study (NCT01484561). Patients were aged ≥18 years with active RA. Patients were randomised 2:1 to oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily (BID) in Period 1 then placebo BID in Period 2 (tofacitinib → placebo); or oral placebo BID in both Periods (placebo → placebo). Change in mGFR was evaluated by iohexol serum clearance at four time points (run-in, pre-dose in Period 1, Period 1 end, and Period 2 end). The primary endpoint was the change in mGFR from baseline to Period 1 end. Secondary endpoints included: change in mGFR at other time points; change in estimated GFR (eGFR; Cockcroft–Gault equation) and SCr; efficacy; and safety.Results148 patients were randomised to tofacitinib → placebo (N = 97) or placebo → placebo (N = 51). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. A reduction of 8% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 2%, 14%) from baseline in adjusted geometric mean mGFR was observed during tofacitinib treatment in Period 1 vs placebo. During Period 2, mean mGFR returned towards baseline during placebo treatment, and there was no difference between the two treatment groups at the end of the study – ratio (tofacitinib → placebo/placebo → placebo) of adjusted geometric mean fold change of mGFR was 1.04 (90% CI: 0.97, 1.11). Post-hoc analyses, focussed on mGFR variability in placebo → placebo patients, were consistent with this conclusion. At study end, similar results were observed for eGFR and SCr. Clinical efficacy and safety were consistent with prior studies.ConclusionIncreases in mean SCr and decreases in eGFR in tofacitinib-treated patients with RA may occur in parallel with decreases in mean mGFR; mGFR returned towards baseline after tofacitinib discontinuation, with no significant difference vs placebo, even after post-hoc analyses. Safety monitoring will continue in ongoing and future clinical studies and routine pharmacovigilance.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01484561. Registered 30 November 2011.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0612-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.