Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2017 Sep;76(9):1550-1558.
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210724. Epub 2017 May 4.

Efficacy and safety of abatacept, a T-cell modulator, in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in psoriatic arthritis

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Efficacy and safety of abatacept, a T-cell modulator, in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study in psoriatic arthritis

Philip J Mease et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, in a phase III study in psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Methods: This study randomised patients (1:1) with active PsA (~60% with prior exposure to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) to blinded weekly subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg (n=213) or placebo (n=211) for 24 weeks, followed by open-label subcutaneous abatacept. Patients without ≥20% improvement in joint counts at week 16 were switched to open-label abatacept. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20) criteria at week 24.

Results: Abatacept significantly increased ACR20 response versus placebo at week 24 (39.4% vs 22.3%; p<0.001). Although abatacept numerically increased Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response rates (reduction from baseline ≥0.35) at week 24, this was not statistically significant (31.0% vs 23.7%; p=0.097). The benefits of abatacept were seen in ACR20 responses regardless of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor exposure and in other musculoskeletal manifestations, but significance could not be attributed due to ranking below Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index response in hierarchical testing. However, the benefit on psoriasis lesions was modest. Efficacy was maintained or improved up to week 52. Abatacept was well tolerated with no new safety signals.

Conclusions: Abatacept treatment of PsA in this phase III study achieved its primary end point, ACR20 response, showed beneficial trends overall in musculoskeletal manifestations and was well tolerated. There was only a modest impact on psoriasis lesions.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01860976 (funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb).

Keywords: DMARDs (biologic); Psoriatic arthritis; T cells; Treatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: PM reports receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Crescendo, Demira, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun, UCB and Zynerba; and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. ABG reports receiving consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories (AbbVie), Actelion, Akros, Amgen, Astellas, Baxalta, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canfite, Catabasis, Celgene, Centocor (Janssen), Coronado, CSL Behring Biotherapies for Life, Dermipsor, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte, Karyopharm, Kineta One, KPI Therapeutics, Lilly, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Development America, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Takeda, TEVA, UCB, Vertex and Xenoport; and research grants (paid to Tufts Medical Center) from Abbott Laboratories (AbbVie), Amgen, Baxalta, Celgene, Centocor (Janssen), Dermira, Levia, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Xenoport. DvdH reports receiving consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and also consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi and UCB (outside the submitted work). OF reports receiving grant support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; and speaker fees from Celgene, Janssen, Novartis and UCB. AJ is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb and reports holding stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. MN is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb. SB is an employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb and reports holding stock in Bristol-Myers Squibb. DG reports receiving grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb to participate in this study; in addition, she reports receiving grant support and fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Patient disposition. SC, subcutaneous. *Includes missing (n=2).
Figure 2
Figure 2
ACR20 response over the 24-week double-blind period (non-responder imputation for early escape). Early escape patients switching to open-label abatacept at week 16 were imputed as non-responders at weeks 20 and 24. If there were still missing data, patients were imputed as non-responders, unless data were missing between two time points at which the patient had a response, in which case response was imputed. #Where 95% CI of estimate of differences in ACR20 responses for abatacept versus placebo do not contain zero. ACR20, ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportion of patients achieving ACR20 response (ITT analysis, actual data for early escape patients) over the combined double-blind and open-label periods in the total population (A) and the TNFi-naïve (B) and TNFi-exposed (C) subgroups. Error bars represent 95% CIs. For EE patients, measurements at weeks 20, 24, 28, 36 and 44 are actual measurements at weeks 4, 8, 12, 20 and 28 of open-label abatacept treatment. The increase in the proportion of patients with ACR20 response from week 16 to week 24 in the placebo group reflects the mixed population of EE patients who received abatacept between weeks 16 and 24 and non-EE patients who received placebo at week 24. If there were missing data, patients were imputed as non-responders, unless data were missing between two time points at which the patient had a response, in which case response was imputed. ACR20, ≥20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria; EE, early escape; ITT, intent to treat; TNFi, tumour necrosis factor inhibitor.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gladman DD, Antoni C, Mease P, et al. . Psoriatic arthritis: epidemiology, clinical features, course, and outcome. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64(Suppl 2):ii14–ii17.10.1136/ard.2004.032482 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Papp KA, et al. . Prevalence of rheumatologist-diagnosed psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis in European/North American dermatology clinics. J Am Acad Dermatol 2013;69:729–35.10.1016/j.jaad.2013.07.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lemos LL, de Oliveira Costa J, Almeida AM, et al. . Treatment of psoriatic arthritis with anti-TNF agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy, effectiveness and safety. Rheumatol Int 2014;34:1345–60.10.1007/s00296-014-3006-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ramiro S, Smolen JS, Landewé R, et al. . Pharmacological treatment of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review for the 2015 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:490–8.10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208466 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ungprasert P, Thongprayoon C, Davis JM. Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of subsequent biological agents in patients with psoriatic arthritis with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol 2016;35:1795–803.10.1007/s10067-016-3204-2 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data