ObjectivesTo compare over 2 years the safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of subcutaneous abatacept versus adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAMPLE is a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomised, investigator-blinded study with a 1-year primary endpoint. Biologic-naive patients with active RA and an inadequate response to MTX were randomised to 125 mg abatacept weekly or 40 mg adalimumab bi-weekly, both with a stable dose of MTX.ResultsOf 646 patients randomised, 79.2% abatacept and 74.7% adalimumab patients completed year 2. At year 2, efficacy outcomes, including radiographic, remained comparable between groups and with year 1 results. The American College Rheumatology 20, 50 and 70 responses at year 2 were 59.7%, 44.7% and 31.1% for abatacept and 60.1%, 46.6% and 29.3% for adalimumab. There were similar rates of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). More serious infections occurred with adalimumab (3.8% vs 5.8%) including two cases of tuberculosis with adalimumab. There were fewer discontinuations due to AEs (3.8% vs 9.5%), SAEs (1.6% vs 4.9%) and serious infections (0/12 vs 9/19 patients) in the abatacept group. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred less frequently with abatacept (4.1% vs 10.4%).ConclusionsThrough 2 years of blinded treatment in this first head-to-head study between biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, subcutaneous abatacept and adalimumab were similarly efficacious based on clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes. Overall, AE frequency was similar in both groups but there were less discontinuations due to AEs, SAEs, serious infections and fewer local ISRs with abatacept.ClinicalTrials.gov IdentifierNCT00929864.

ObjectiveThere is a need for comparative studies to provide evidence-based treatment guidance for biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, this study was undertaken as the first head-to-head comparison of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and SC adalimumab, both administered along with background methotrexate (MTX), for the treatment of RA.MethodsPatients with active RA who were naive to treatment with biologic agents and had an inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned to receive 125 mg SC abatacept weekly or 40 mg SC adalimumab biweekly, both given in combination with MTX, in a 2-year study. The primary end point was treatment noninferiority, assessed according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement response (ACR20) at 1 year.ResultsOf the 646 patients who were randomized and treated, 86.2% receiving SC abatacept and 82% receiving SC adalimumab completed 12 months of treatment. At 1 year, 64.8% of patients in the SC abatacept group and 63.4% in the SC adalimumab group demonstrated an ACR20 response; the estimated difference between groups was 1.8% (95% confidence interval −5.6%, 9.2%), thus demonstrating the noninferiority of abatacept compared to adalimumab. All efficacy measures showed similar results and kinetics of response between treatments. The rate of radiographic nonprogression (defined as a total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score [SHS] less than or equal to the smallest detectable change) was 84.8% for SC abatacept–treated patients and 88.6% for SC adalimumab–treated patients, while the mean change from baseline in the total SHS was 0.58 and 0.38, respectively. In the SC abatacept and SC adalimumab groups, the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was 10.1% and 9.1%, respectively, and the rate of serious infections was 2.2% and 2.7%, respectively. In patients treated with SC abatacept, the frequency of discontinuations due to AEs was 3.5% and discontinuations due to SAEs was 1.3%, while in patients treated with SC adalimumab, the frequencies were 6.1% and 3%, respectively. Injection site reactions occurred in 3.8% of patients receiving SC abatacept compared to 9.1% of patients receiving SC adalimumab (P = 0.006).ConclusionThe results demonstrate that SC abatacept and SC adalimumab have comparable efficacy in patients with RA, as shown by similar kinetics of response and comparable inhibition of radiographic progression over 1 year of treatment. The safety was generally similar, other than the occurrence of significantly more local injection site reactions in patients treated with SC adalimumab.

Objective. To refine and validate the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS) as a disease-specific activity index for Wegener's granulomatosis (WG).Methods. Sixteen members of the International Network for the Study of the Systemic Vasculitides (INSSYS) revised the BVAS, with 3 goals: to reduce the redundancy of some component items, to enhance its ability to capture important disease manifestations specific to WG, and to streamline the instrument for use in clinical research. We defined the items and weighted them empirically as either minor (e.g., nasal crusting ‫؍‬ 1 point) or major (e.g., alveolar hemorrhage ‫؍‬ 3 points). We then validated the new, disease-specific BVAS/WG in 2 simulation exercises and a clinical case series that involved 117 patients with WG.Results. We removed 38 items from the original BVAS, revised 9 items, and added 7 new items. Correlations between the scores on the BVAS/WG and the physician's global assessment (PGA) of disease activity were high, even when patients in remission were excluded. In the clinical case series, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between the BVAS/WG and the PGA was r ‫؍‬ 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.87). The interobserver reliability using intraclass (withincase) correlation coefficients in the 2 simulation exercises was r ‫؍‬ 0.93 for the BVAS/WG and r ‫؍‬ 0.88 for the PGA in the first and r ‫؍‬ 0.91 for the BVAS/WG and r ‫؍‬ 0.88 for the PGA in the second. There was no significant observer effect in the scoring of the BVAS/WG or the PGA. The discriminant validity of the BVAS/WG was good: r ‫؍‬ 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.43-0.83).Conclusion. The BVAS/WG is a valid, diseasespecific activity index for WG. Tested in simulation exercises and in actual patients, the BVAS/WG correlates well with the PGA, is sensitive to change, and has good interand intraobserver reliability. The INSSYS will use the BVAS/WG to assess the primary outcome in a phase II/III trial of etanercept in WG.The investigation of new therapies for the treatment of systemic vasculitis and the organization of

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.

Objective. To identify prognostic markers that are predictive of progressive erosive disease in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods. The study involved an inception cohort of 111 consecutive patients with RA and a disease duration of <1 year. Patients were treated according to an algorithm designed to avoid overtreatment of mild disease and to accelerate treatment in patients who had continuous disease activity. Patients were evaluated for the presence of clinical and laboratory disease activity markers. We determined the frequency of CD4؉,CD28 null T cells by flow cytometry, HLA-DRB1 gene polymorphisms by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/sequencing, and 26 single-nucleotide polymorphisms in 19 candidate genes by multiplex PCR and hybridization to an immobilized probe array. Data were analyzed using proportional odds models to identify prognostic markers predictive of erosive progression over 2 years on serial hand/wrist radiographs.Results. After 2 years, disease activity in 52% of the cohort was controlled by treatment with hydroxychloroquine and nonsteroidal agents. Forty-eight percent of the patients did not develop erosions. Older age, presence of erosions at baseline, presence of rheumatoid factor, rheumatoid factor titer, and HLA-DRB1*04 alleles, particularly homozygosity for HLA-DRB1*04, were univariate predictors of radiographic progression. Promising novel markers were the frequency of CD4؉,CD28 null T cells as an immunosenescence indicator, and a polymorphism in the uteroglobin gene.Conclusion. Clinical disease activity in patients with early RA can frequently be controlled with nonaggressive treatment, but this is not always sufficient to prevent new erosions. Rheumatoid factor titer, HLA-DRB1 polymorphisms, age, and immunosenescence markers are predictors of poor radiographic outcome. A polymorphism in the uteroglobin gene may identify patients who have a low risk of erosive disease.