Abatacept has been shown to be an effective biologic agent for use in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, according to findings of a Cochrane review of seven studies involving almost 3,000 patients.
Of the 2,908 patients included in this review, 1,863 were randomized to abatacept and 1,045 to placebo. Most were white women, and their average age was 48.3-55.8 years, depending on the trial. Most trials used a dose of 10 mg/kg of abatacept, and patients continued to use a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in addition to abatacept for the duration of the study, according to the review’s authors, Lara Maxwell of the University of Ottawa and Dr. Jasvinder A. Singh of the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center.
Patients treated with abatacept were 2.2 times more likely than those on placebo to have an ACR 50 response – that is, a 50% improvement based on American College of Rheumatology criteria, which was the primary end point – at the end of year 1 (relative risk, 2.21). There was a 21% absolute risk difference between the two groups. The number needed to achieve an ACR 50 was five patients.
Physical function significantly improved and both disease activity and pain lessened in patients who were treated with abatacept, compared with placebo.
Findings from one of the seven randomized, controlled trials in the review showed that abatacept significantly slowed radiographic progression of joint damage at 12 months, compared with placebo. However, it is unclear whether that finding had any clinical relevance. The other six studies did not assess radiographic progression.
The rate of adverse events was greater in abatacept-treated patients than in those on placebo (RR, 1.05). The number of infections after 12 months was significantly greater in the abatacept group vs. the placebo group (Peto odds ratio, 1.91). Serious adverse events were increased when abatacept was used in combination with other biologics (RR, 2.3), an observation that led the authors to recommend that abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat RA.
Of the seven studies included in the review, only two were free of any risk of bias arising from flawed methodology. Four of the seven did not address incomplete efficacy outcome data; two of those four also did not address incomplete safety outcome data; and a fifth study provided unclear information on both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. In addition, because all the included trials were funded by abatacept’s manufacturer, it is possible that the findings overestimated the treatment benefit, according to Ms. Maxwell and Dr. Singh.
The studies that were included in this Cochrane review were identified through an extensive literature search. The selected trials were all randomized, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of abatacept either alone or in combination with a DMARD or another biologic, vs. placebo alone or a DMARD or biologic, in patients with moderate to severe RA.
The cost of 1 year of abatacept therapy is estimated to be approximately £14,000. The prevalence of RA in the United Kingdom is estimated to be 0.8% among adults. Although abatacept has not been approved for use in the United Kingdom, it is approved for use in Europe.
Abatacept was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2005 for use in adults to treat moderate to severe RA that did not respond adequately to either oral DMARDs (such as methotrexate) or to tumor necrosis factor–alpha antagonists, according to the report (Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009 Oct. 7 [doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007277.pub2]).
Abatacept is the first biologic agent to work by disrupting T-cell activation. The drug is a selective costimulation modulator, inhibiting T-lymphocyte activation by binding to CD80 and CD86, thereby blocking interaction with CD28.
All the trials included in this review were funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the manufacturer of abatacept.
The authors declared that they received financial support from the University of Ottawa and the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Global Medical News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
有关16项随机试验的Cochrane评价显示,在糖耐量受损或空腹血糖受损的患者中,应用中药制剂使血糖水平恢复正常的几率是单独调节生活方式组的2倍。
作者“基于8项试验的结果发现,中草药制剂+调节生活方式在正常化血糖水平方面的作用显著优于单独调节生活方式。”此外,来自8项试验的数据显示,“服用中药的患者更可能具有较低的糖尿病发生率”(Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009;doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006690.pub2)。
然而,澳大利亚西悉尼大学的Suzanne J. Grant博士及其同事指出,“所有这些试验均存在较高的偏倚风险”,没有一项试验采用盲法,并且3项试验报告的随机步骤不够清楚。这些结果“为未来研究提供了指导,(但)没有为特定的临床实践提供指导。”
研究者分析了2001~2008年开展的16项随机试验。这些试验共入选1,391例空腹血糖受损或糖耐量受损的受试者,共评价15种不同的中草药制剂。这些不同制剂包含几种不同中药。10种制剂包含黄芪,8种包含山药,4种包含葛根。
尽管这些中药含有不同成分,但均被视为一“类”或一“组”口服降血糖中草药。然而,作者指出,任何汇总的治疗效应仅被看作是“粗略地显示出了疗效的整体趋势”。
9项共入选792例受试者的试验对中草药制剂+调节生活方式与单独调节生活方式进行了比较。 服用中草药制剂的患者血糖恢复正常的几率是仅调节生活方式的患者的2倍多。
其中8项试验还报告了糖尿病发生率。 服用中草药制剂的患者发生糖尿病的几率显著低于仅调节生活方式的患者(相对风险0.33)。
在4项试验中,中草药制剂+调节生活方式在降低空腹血糖水平方面的作用显著优于单独调节生活方式。 6项试验还报告,中药组的2h空腹血糖结果明显更佳。
在报告糖基化血红蛋白A1c水平的所有3项研究中,联合治疗组的结果明显更佳。
5项试验报告不良事件;所有不良事件均为胃肠道性,包括腹泻、腹部不适及其他轻微症状。
目前,Grant博士正进行一项随机对照试验,评价中草药治疗糖耐量受损和空腹血糖受损的作用。作者披露无任何潜在利益冲突。
爱思唯尔 版权所有