• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center

Show Search
Hide Search
  • Disease Information
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Ankylosing Spondylitis
    • Osteoarthritis
    • Gout
    • Osteoporosis
  • Patient Corner
    • Drug Information Sheets
    • Managing Your Arthritis
    • RheumTV – Patient Education Video Library
  • Our Research
    • Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
    • Current Research Studies
    • The Camille Julia Morgan Arthritis Research and Education Fund
  • About Us
    • Appointment Information
    • Contact Us
    • Our Faculty
    • Our Staff
    • Rheumatology Specialty Centers
  • Donate
Home / Arthritis News / ASSURE Trial Explores the Safety of Abatacept Therapy in RA

ASSURE Trial Explores the Safety of Abatacept Therapy in RA

October 31, 2006 By Arthritis Center

Safety data obtained from randomized clinical trials designed to evaluate the efficacy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) drugs can be misleading for several reasons. Often, the studies are short term (6 months or less), and are highly selective of the subjects included (usually subjects with very active disease and with few medical comorbidities). In addition, background DMARDs are usually restricted to methotrexate. Real-world situations often include patients with medical comorbidities and a variety of background DMARDs. The FDA has recommended a 12-month safety study approximating real-world conditions for each new biologic agent prior to approval. Abatacept (Orencia) has been shown to be effective at reducing the signs and symptoms of active RA and in slowing radiographic progression of disease in patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate and TNF-inhibitors. No major safety signals were identified as a result of these efficacy trials. Here, Weinblatt et al (Arthritis Rheum 2006; 54(9):2807) explore the safety of abatacept therapy in real-world patients receiving background therapy with biologic and non-biologic DMARDs enrolled in the Abatacept Study of Safety in Use with other RA Therapies (ASSURE) trial.

Methods

 Men and women with active RA despite background biologic or non-biologic DMARD therapy were randomized to receive abatacept (10 mg/kg) vs placebo in a 2:1 fashion for one year. Subjects with stable chronic conditions (e.g. CHF, COPD) were enrolled. Subjects continued background DMARDs, including biologics, with the exception of mycophenolate, cyclosporine and other calcineurin inhibitors, penicillamine, cyclophosphamide, and immunoadsorption column therapy. Safety outcomes were monitored as the primary outcome measure and included adverse events, infusion events, and incident autoimmunity. Clinical outcomes (change in HAQ, self-reported pain, and physician and patient global assessments) were assessed as secondary outcome measurements.

Results

 1,441 subjects received at least one infusion of study drug (959 abatacept, 482 placebo). Of these, 1,231 completed one year of double-blind treatment (836 abatacept, 395 placebo). Subjects were typical of RA clinical trials, with most subjects being female (82%), and White (85%), with an average age of 52 years. The average disease duration was almost 10 years. Of the 1274 subjects (88% of the total 1441 subjects) receiving non-biologic background DMARDs, 856 received abatacept and 418 received placebo. Of the 167 subjects (12% of the total 1441 subjects) receiving biologic background DMARDs, 103 received abatacept and 64 received placebo. 80% of subjects receiving background therapy with biologic DMARDs also received concomitant therapy with a non-biologic DMARD. Background therapy with methotrexate was the most common non-biologic DMARD. Corticosteroids were used in 73% of subjects, and just as frequently in those receiving biologic DMARD background therapy as those receiving non-biologic background DMARD therapy.

Summary of Safety Events in ASSURE According to Treatment Allocation and Background DMARD Treatment

Abatacept vs. Placebo Abatacept vs. Placebo Non-Biologic Background Therapy Only Abatacept vs. Placebo Biologic Background Therapy Only
Overall
  Adverse Events 90% vs 87% 89.7% vs 86.1% 95.1% vs 89.1%
  Serious Adverse Events 13% vs 12% 11.7% vs 12.2% 22.3% vs 12.5%
  Deaths 0.5% vs 0.8%1 0.6% vs 1.0% 0% vs 0%
Infections
  Non-serious 56% vs 54.1%2 54.9% vs 53.6% 65.0% vs 57.8%
  Serious/Severe 2.9% vs 1.9%3 2.6% vs 1.7% 5.8% vs 1.6%4
Neoplasms
  Overall (benign & malig.) 3.5% vs 3.5%5 3.2% vs 3.8% 6.8% vs 1.6%6
  Breast 0.1% vs 0.4% 0.1% vs 0.4% 0% vs 0%
  Lung 0.3% vs 0% 0.3% vs 0% 0% vs 0%
Autoimmunity
  Overall incidence 3.3% vs 3.1% Not specified Not specified
Acute Infusion Reactions (severe and non-severe)
  Overall incidence 10.0% vs. 71% Not specified Not specified
1. 9 deaths were reported, 5 in the abatacept group and 4 in the placebo group: Cardiac causes in 7, unknown cause in 1, and Pneumocystis pneumonia in a placebo treated patient. 2. most commonly upper respiratory tract infections and nasopharyngitis 3. All serious infections were bacterial in origin, no opportunistic infections reported in abatacept treated subjects 4. Cellulitis, intestinal abscess, infective bursitis, pyelonephritis 5. Non-malignant skin cancers most frequent 6. 2 basal cell carcinomas and 1 squamous cell carcinoma in abatacept treated subjects

Subjects with COPD: Adverse events involving the respiratory system were more common in COPD treated subjects receiving abatacept than those receiving placebo (43.2% vs. 23.5%). Serious adverse events were also more common in subjects with COPD treated with abatacept (27% vs. 5.9%) , and included worsening of COPD symptoms and other respiratory complaints.

Conclusions

 Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between abatacept and placebo treated patients receiving background non-biologic DMARD therapy. However, in combination with background biologic DMARD therapy, abatacept therapy was associated with an increase in serious adverse events, including infections and non-malignant neoplasms. Adverse respiratory events occurred more frequently in abatacept treated patients with COPD.

Editorial Comment

These results are an important addition for all rheumatologists in clinical practice who are beginning to initiate patients on therapy with abatacept. It was hoped that abatacept may be an option for combination with TNF inhibitors for patients with particularly refractive RA. However, these results definitively argue against the combination. The awareness on the part of treating rheumatologists to the risk of COPD exacerbation and other respiratory events when treating patients with COPD with abatacept is an important message that requires broad dissemination. The lack of opportunistic infection is encouraging, but will require further post-marketing surveillance in order to be confirmed. The increase in lung cancer among abatacept treated patients will also require further vigilance. Lung cancers are thought to take many months to years to develop, so it is unlikely that abatacept therapy for less than one year could initiate a lung cancer to the stage that it would be clinically detected. However, if a continued disproportionate number of cases are reported, then further investigation will be warranted in order to define if there is a tangible risk regarding this and other forms of neoplasia.

Receive the Latest News from Johns Hopkins Rheumatology

Receive the Latest News from Johns Hopkins Rheumatology

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from Johns Hopkins Rheumatology.

Interested In

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Arthritis Center

Founded in 1998, the Arthritis Center at Johns Hopkins is dedicated to providing quality education to patients and healthcare providers alike.

Use of this Site

All information contained within the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center website is intended for educational purposes only. Physicians and other health care professionals are encouraged to consult other sources and confirm the information contained within this site. Consumers should never disregard medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something they may have read on this website.

Primary Sidebar

Recent News

Exercise Tips for Arthritis Patients

How Does Exercise Affect my Joints? How Frequently Should I Be Exercising? Should I Lose Weight for Exercise to be

Risks and Benefits of Biologic Medications

Victoria Ruffing, RN, BC, Director of Patient Education at the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center, shares the risks and benefits of biologic for

How to Manage Rheumatoid Arthritis Flares

Through research, doctors have a clearer understanding of how flares can impact a patient on a personal and emotional level. Dr. Uzma Haque

Complementary & Alternative Medicines for Psoriatic Arthritis

There are many complementary & alternative medicines and practices that have been found to be beneficial in curbing arthritis pain,

I can’t be a runner because I have Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), right?

Dr. Manno discusses running and Rheumatoid Arthritis. Is it an option for the RA patient?

News Categories

  • Ankylosing Spondylitis News
  • Fibromyalgia News
  • Gout News
  • Lupus News
  • Osteoarthritis News
  • Osteoporosis News
  • Psoriatic Arthritis News
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis News
RheumTV Logo

Rheum.TV is an informational platform created to educate patients living with a rheumatic disease. With over 100 disease education videos produced by the team at Johns Hopkins Rheumatology.

Visit Rheum.TV

Footer

Johns Hopkins Rheumatology

  • Johns Hopkins Rheumatology
  • Johns Hopkins Lupus Center
  • Johns Hopkins Lyme Disease Research Center
  • Johns Hopkins Myositis Center
  • Johns Hopkins Scleroderma Center
  • Johns Hopkins Sjögren’s Syndrome Center
  • Johns Hopkins Vasculitis Center

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Johns Hopkins Medicine

© 2023 Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center
Patient Privacy