Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and poor prognostic factors. Methods: In this double-blind, phase IIIb study, patients with RA for 2 years or less were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive abatacept (similar to 10 mg/kg) plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were methotrexate-naive and seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) type 2 or both and had radiographic evidence of joint erosions. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (C-reactive protein) and joint damage progression (Genant-modified Sharp total score; TS) at year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. Results: At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.3, a mean TS of 7.1 and mean disease duration of 6.5 months; 96.5% and 89.0% of patients were RF or anti-CCP2 seropositive, respectively. At year 1, a significantly greater proportion of abatacept plus methotrexate-treated patients achieved remission (41.4% vs 23.3%; p<0.001) and there was significantly less radiographic progression (mean change in TS 0.63 vs 1.06; p = 0.040) versus methotrexate alone. Over 1 year, the frequency of adverse events (84.8% vs 83.4%), serious adverse events (7.8% vs 7.9%), serious infections (2.0% vs 2.0%), autoimmune disorders (2.3% vs 2.0%) and malignancies (0.4% vs 0%) was comparable for abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone. Conclusions: In a methotrexate-naive population with early RA and poor prognostic factors, the combination of abatacept and methotrexate provided significantly better clinical and radiographic efficacy compared with methotrexate alone and had a comparable, favourable safety profile

Sustained disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors treated with abatacept : 2-year outcomes.

To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone in early erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and poor prognostic factors. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase IIIb study, patients with RA for 2 years or less were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive abatacept (approximately 10 mg/kg) plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were methotrexate-naive and seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) type 2 or both and had radiographic evidence of joint erosions. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (C-reactive protein) and joint damage progression (Genant-modified Sharp total score; TS) at year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. RESULTS: At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.3, a mean TS of 7.1 and mean disease duration of 6.5 months; 96.5% and 89.0% of patients were RF or anti-CCP2 seropositive, respectively. At year 1, a significantly greater proportion of abatacept plus methotrexate-treated patients achieved remission (41.4% vs 23.3%; p<0.001) and there was significantly less radiographic progression (mean change in TS 0.63 vs 1.06; p = 0.040) versus methotrexate alone. Over 1 year, the frequency of adverse events (84.8% vs 83.4%), serious adverse events (7.8% vs 7.9%), serious infections (2.0% vs 2.0%), autoimmune disorders (2.3% vs 2.0%) and malignancies (0.4% vs 0%) was comparable for abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone. CONCLUSIONS: In a methotrexate-naive population with early RA and poor prognostic factors, the combination of abatacept and methotrexate provided significantly better clinical and radiographic efficacy compared with methotrexate alone and had a comparable, favourable safety profile

Randomized trial of alendronate plus vitamin D3 versus standard care in osteoporotic postmenopausal women with vitamin D insufficiency.

Vitamin D insufficiency is common in patients with osteoporosis. We conducted a randomized trial comparing alendronate 70 mg combined with vitamin D(3) 5,600 IU in a single tablet (ALN/D5600, n = 257) with standard care chosen by the patients' personal physicians (n = 258) in patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis (BMD T score /=800 IU/day of supplemental vitamin D. At 6 months the proportion of patients with vitamin D insufficiency was 8.6% in the ALN/D5600 group compared with 31.0% in the standard care group (P < 0.001). Those in the ALN/D5600 group also had a greater reduction in urinary NTX/creatinine ratio (-57% vs. -46%, P < 0.001) and bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (-47% vs. -40%, P < 0.001). In the ALN/5600 group, by 12 months the increase in BMD was greater at the lumbar spine (4.9% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.047) and the total hip (2.2% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.035), significantly fewer patients were vitamin D-insufficient (11.3% vs. 36.9%, P < 0.001), and bone turnover marker (BTM) results were similar to those at 6 months. There was no difference between groups in those who experienced falls or fractures, and adverse events were similar. Based on the finding that ALN/D5600 was more effective than standard care at correcting vitamin D insufficiency, increasing BMD, and reducing BTMs in this patient group, greater attention needs to be directed toward optimizing the treatment of osteoporosis and correcting vitamin D deficiency in postmenopausal women