Abatacept produced significant clinical and functional benefits in patients who had had an inadequate response to anti-TNF-alpha therapy.

Objective. To determine whether sulfasalazine (SSZ) at a dosage of 2,000 mg/day is effective for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) resistant to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug therapy.Methods. Two hundred twenty-one patients with PsA were recruited from 15 clinics, randomized (doubleblind) to SSZ or placebo treatment, and followed up for 36 weeks. Treatment response was based on joint p a i d Address reprint request requests to Daniel 0. Clegg, MD, Division of Rheumatology, 4B200-SOM, 50 North Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84132.Submitted for publication March 19,1996; accepted in revised form July 19, 1996. tenderness and swelling scores and physician and patient global assessments.Resubs. Longitudinal analysis revealed a trend favoring SSZ treatment (P = 0.13). At the end of treatment, response rates were 57.8% for SSZ compared with 44.6% for placebo (P = 0.05). The Westergren erythrocyte sedimentation rate declined more in the PsA patients taking SSZ than in those taking placebo (P < 0.0001). Adverse reactions were fewer than expected and were mainly due to nonspecific gastrointestinal complaints, including dyspepsia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.Conclusion. SSZ at a dosage of 2,000 mg/day is well tolerated and may be more effective than placebo in the treatment of patients with PsA.

Objective. T cells are involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In animal models of autoimmune diseases, blockade of costimulatory molecules on antigen-presenting cells has been demonstrated to be effective in preventing or treating this disease by preventing T cell activation. To date, the effect of costimulatory blockade in patients with RA is unknown. The goal of this multicenter, multinational study was to determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of costimulatory blockade using CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y in RA patients who have been treated unsuccessfully with at least 1 disease-modifying agent.Methods. CTLA-4Ig, LEA29Y (0.5, 2, or 10 mg/ kg), or placebo was administered intravenously to 214 patients with RA. Patients received 4 infusions of study medication, on days 1, 15, 29, and 57, and were evaluated on day 85. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20). All patients were monitored for treatment safety and tolerability.Results. CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y infusions were well tolerated at all dose levels. Peri-infusional adverse events were carefully monitored, and showed similar incidence across all dose groups with the exception of headaches, which were slightly more frequent in the 2 treatment groups. The incidence of discontinuations due to worsening of RA was 19%, 12%, and 9% at 0.5, 2, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, in the CTLA-4Ig-treated patients and 3%, 3%, and 6% at 0.5, 2, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, in the LEA29Y-treated patients (versus 31% in the placebo group). ACR20 responses on day 85 had increased in a dose-dependent manner (23%, 44%, and 53% of CTLA-4Ig-treated patients and 34%, 45%, and 61% of LEA29Y-treated patients at 0.5, 2.0, and 10 mg/kg, respectively, versus 31% of placebo-treated patients).Conclusion. Both of the costimulatory blocking molecules studied were generally safe and well tolerated. As compared with placebo, both CTLA-4Ig and LEA29Y demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of RA.

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of abatacept in combination with etanercept in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis during a 1-year, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase, followed by an open-label, long-term extension (LTE). Methods: Patients continued etanercept (25 mg twice weekly) and were randomised to receive abatacept 2 mg/kg (n = 85) or placebo (n = 36). As the effective dose of abatacept was established as 10 mg/kg in a separate trial, all patients received abatacept 10 mg/kg and etanercept during the LTE. Results: A total of 121 patients were randomised; 80 completed double-blind treatment and entered the LTE. During double-blind treatment, the difference in the percentage of patients achieving the primary end point (modified American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at 6 months) was not significant between groups (48.2% v 30.6%; p = 0.072). At 1 year, no notable changes in modified ACR responses were observed. Subsequent to the dosing change, similar modified ACR responses were seen during the LTE. Significant improvements in quality of life were observed with abatacept and etanercept versus placebo and etanercept in five of the eight short-form 36 subscales at 1 year. More abatacept and etanercept-treated patients experienced serious adverse events (SAEs) at 1 year than patients receiving placebo and etanercept (16.5% v 2.8%), with 3.5% v 0% experiencing serious infections. Conclusion: The combination of abatacept (at a dose of 2 mg/kg during the double-blind phase and 10 mg/ kg during the LTE) and etanercept was associated with an increase in SAEs, including serious infections, with limited clinical effect. On the basis of the limited efficacy findings and safety concerns, abatacept in combination with etanercept should not be used for rheumatoid arthritis treatment.