Clinical trial NCT05428488: Efficacy of a Sequential Treatment Strategy in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Official title: Efficacy of a Sequential Treatment Strategy in Rheumatoid Arthritis. a Randomized Controlled Trial with an Independent Efficacy Assessor.
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Phase: PHASE3
Conditions: Rheumatoid Arthritis
Keywords: Rheumatoid arthritis
sequential therapeutic strategy
immunological remission
anti-TNF
abatacept
Lead sponsor: University Hospital, Montpellier
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2022-06-23
Enrollment: 220
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: SEQUENTIAL
Intervention model description: This study will include a 12 weeks non-randomized phase. This phase will include RA patients ACPA+ with insufficient response to cs DMARDs and eligible for TNF inhibitors. All included patients will receive TNF inhibitors subcutaneous for 12 weeks.

At 12 weeks visit (W12), patients who have at least a moderate EULAR response (delta DAS28-CRP between and W0 and W12\>0.6 and DAS28-CRP≤5.1 at W12) will be randomized with a 1:1 ratio in the sequential strategy arm or the control arm. Then, the randomized phase will be 36 weeks long.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the consensual 1st line conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) of RA is methotrexate (MTX). In case of contra-indication or intolerance to MTX, leflunomide is an alternative. If the treatment target is not achieved with csDMARD strategy, addition of a biological DMARD (TNF inhibitors, anti-Interleukin 6 (anti-IL6)), abatacept, or rituximab) or a targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD (JAK inhibitors) is considered.

Current practice is to start a bDMARD (biologic Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs) and especially TNF inhibitors (etanercept or monoclonal anti-TNF antibodies) with the benefit of hindsight. However, abatacept and TNF inhibitors have demonstrated similar efficacy in patients with insufficient response to csDMARD (AMPLE trial).

Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Indeed, in real world study, compared to TNF inhibitors it seems that discontinuation of abatacept is more related to lack of effectiveness than safety issues.

Investigators have hypothesized that first rapidly controlling the inflammation phase, using TNF inhibitors followed by abatacept to induce an immunological remission would optimize response and tolerance of ACPA positive patients with RA. To demonstrate our hypothesis, the investigaors propose a randomized controlled trial with one arm receiving an induction therapy for 12 weeks with a TNF inhibitor followed by a cell-targeted bDMARD (abatacept) and the other arm, receiving TNF inhibitors.

Detailed description: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the consensual 1st line conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) of RA is methotrexate (MTX) (1). In case of contra-indication or intolerance to MTX, leflunomide is an alternative. If the treatment target is not achieved with csDMARD strategy, addition of a biological (b) DMARD (TNF inhibitors, anti-IL6, abatacept, or rituximab) or a targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD (JAK inhibitors) is considered.

Current practice is to start a bDMARD and especially TNF inhibitors (etanercept or monoclonal anti-TNF antibodies) with the benefit of hindsight. However, abatacept and TNF inhibitors have demonstrated similar efficacy in patients with insufficient response to csDMARD (AMPLE trial).

Although abatacept has shown a very good tolerance profile that might be superior to other bDMARDs rheumatologists might be reluctant to use it as a first line bDMARD as there is a belief of a slower efficacy compared to other bDMARDs or JAK inhibitors. Indeed, in real world study, compared to TNF inhibitors it seems that discontinuation of abatacept is more related to lack of effectiveness than safety issues.

This is the first study to propose a therapeutic sequential strategy with an induction therapy using a TNF inhibitor for 12 weeks to control inflammation followed by a cell-targeted biological DMARD targeting T cells (abatacept) in order to decrease auto-antibodies (rheumatoid factor and/or ACPA).

Presence of auto-antibodies (ACPA/RF) are predictive of better response to cell- targeted DMARDs.

In early AMPLE trial, RA patients ACPA+ with insufficient response to MTX were treated with abatacept or adalimumab. DAS28-CRP remission rates were 55% in abatacept group and 30% in adalimumab group.

Patients carrying the shared epitope (HLA-DR (Human Leucocyte Antigen-DR) alleles associated with RA), were also more likely to reach remission (DAS28-CRP\<2.6) with abatacept (50%) than adalimumab (23%) at 24 weeks.

The clinical trial offered by investigateors here could change the paradigm in the strategy used in RA supporting the importance to first control inflammation environment in order to allow the cell-targeted bDMARDs to control immunological process which has been recently associated with a higher percentage of clinical remission.

To compare the percentage of remission (DAS28-CRP\<2.6) obtained during the 36 weeks following randomization, with a sequential therapeutic strategy using abatacept versus a routine strategy continuing TNF inhibitors (TNFi), in ACPA positive RA patients responding to a first TNFi, initiated 12 weeks before randomization.

The primary endpoint will be analyzed with a generalized estimating equations (GEE) model for repeated data.

It is a multicentric, open label, randomized controlled trial comparing two different strategies of treatment with an independent efficacy assessor. For this clinical trial, to limit response bias, bDMARDs with a similar mode of administration (subcutaneous) are proposed.

In the experimental arm, a therapeutic sequential strategy will be proposed and in the control arm TNF inhibitors will be proposed for 48 weeks. All included patients will receive TNF inhibitors subcutaneous for 12 weeks. At 12 weeks (W12), patients who have at least a moderate EULAR response (delta DAS28-CRP between W0 and W12\>0.6 and DAS28-CRP≤5.1 at W12) will be randomized with a 1:1 ratio in the sequential strategy arm or the control arm. In the sequential strategy arm, the 88 randomized RA patients will be switched to abatacept subcutaneous for 36 weeks. Patients who will withdraw abatacept during the follow-up will be considered as a failure.

In the control group, the 88 randomized RA patients will be treated with TNF inhibitor subcutaneous for another 36 weeks. In case of insufficient response to a first TNF inhibitor at 24 or 36 weeks, a second TNF inhibitor will be proposed. Anti-TNF drugs withdrawal will be considered as a failure. Steroids 0.1mg/kg/ day will be allowed but at stable dose 2 weeks before and with guided step-down strategy targeting withdrawal before 24 weeks following randomization. Clinical evaluation of disease activity using different scores (DAS28-ESR, CDAI, SDAI, Boolean criteria) and tolerance will be performed at all visits.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Aged between 18 or above
* Rheumatoid arthritis according to ACR-EULAR 2010 (American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism)
* ACPA positive
* Under methotrexate or leflunomide treatment for at least 3 months
* DAS28-CRP\>3.2 under methotrexate or leflunomide calculated with CRP dated less than 7 days from baseline
* Escape under synthetic background treatment defined by an elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) (CRP\> 5mg/L ) or Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (for men: \> age in years/2 ; for women: \> age (+10) /2)) within the last 6 months before baseline
* Targeted DMARDs (biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs) naïve
* Indication for a TNF inhibitor

Exclusion Criteria:

* Subject unable to read or/and write
* Planned longer stay outside the region that prevents compliance with the visit plan
* Subject unable to sign informed consent form
* Subject not covered by public health insurance
* Dementia
* Fibromyalgia
* Contra-indications to TNF inhibitor and/or Abatacept
* Absence of tuberculosis screening in the previous 3 months before baseline
* Patient with untreated active tuberculosis
* Patient who cannot be followed during 48 weeks
* Drug addiction, addiction to alcohol
* Protected populations according to the French Public Health Code Articles L1121-5,6,8 (For example, pregnant, parturient or lactating women, prisoners, adults under guardianship or otherwise unable to consent).
* Women of child bearing potential, unless they are using an effective method of birth control
* Patient under law protection
* Prisoners
* Subject who are in a dependency or employment with the sponsor or the investigator
* Participation in another interventional clinical trial or administration of an investigational product within the last 4 weeks before the screening date
* Subject with moderate to severe heart failure (class 3 or class 4 cardiac disease as defined by the New York Heart Association Functional Classification)
* Patients had a history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heavy smoking
* Patients had a planned surgical procedure at least 30 days before the screening day
* Known allergy or intolerance to an anti-TNF therapy
* Hypersensitivity to the Abatacept or to any of its excipients
* Patient with untreated active hepatitis B
* Patient vaccinated with a live vaccine within 30 days prior to screening
* Patients with an Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) (loss of chance if switching from an anti-TNF to abatacept)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Percentage of patients in remission
timeFrame: 36 weeks following randomization
Secondary outcomes:
measure: percentage of patients in remission at 12 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: percentage of patients in remission at 12 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: percentage of patients in remission at 12 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: percentage of patients in remission at 12 weeks after randomization (Boolean)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 24 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at24 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 24 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 24 weeks after randomization (Boolean)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 36 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 36 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 36 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients in remission at 36 weeks after randomization (Boolean)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 12 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 12 weeks after randomization (DAS28-CRP)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 12 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 12 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 24 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 24 weeks after randomization (DAS28-CRP)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 24 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 24 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 36 weeks after randomization (DAS28-ESR)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 36 weeks after randomization (DAS28-CRP)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 36 weeks after randomization (CDAI)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Percentage of patients with low disease activity at 36 weeks after randomization (SDAI)
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Proportion of responder patients at 12 weeks after randomization
timeFrame: At 24 weeks visit (corresponding to 12 weeks after randomization)
measure: Proportion of responder patients at 24 weeks after randomization
timeFrame: At 36 weeks visit (corresponding to 24 weeks after randomization)
measure: Proportion of responder patients at 36 weeks after randomization
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
measure: Variations in the results of health assessment questionnaires administered to patients - HAQ-DI
timeFrame: Between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variations in the results of health assessment questionnaires administered to patients - EQ5D
timeFrame: Between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variations in the results of health assessment questionnaires administered to patients - SF-36
timeFrame: Between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variation in autoantibody titers (RF)
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variation in autoantibody titers (ACPA)
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Frequency of flares
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Cumulative doses of steroids consumed
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Percentage of Serious Adverse Events Occurring
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variation of medical costs on Quality Adjusted Life Year
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Variation of Sharp's score
timeFrame: between baseline and 48 weeks
measure: Percentage of patients remaining on abatacept
timeFrame: At 48 weeks visit (corresponding to 36 weeks after randomization)
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Bordeaux
country: France
facility: CHU Bordeaux groupe Pellegrin
city: Brest
country: France
facility: CHU de Brest La Cavale Blanche
city: Cahors
country: France
facility: Centre Hospitalier de Cahors
city: La Roche-sur-Yon
country: France
facility: CHD Vendée
city: Le Mans
country: France
facility: CH du Mans
city: Montpellier
country: France
facility: Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier
city: Nantes
country: France
facility: CHU de Nantes
city: Nice
country: France
facility: CHU de Nice
city: Nîmes
country: France
facility: CHU de Nîmes Carémeau
city: Orléans
country: France
facility: CHR Orléans Nouvel hôpital d'Orléans
city: Paris
country: France
facility: APHP Bicêtre
city: Paris
country: France
facility: APHP Cochin
city: Paris
country: France
facility: APHP La Pitié Salpetrière
city: Strasbourg
country: France
facility: CHU de Strasbourg Hautepierre
city: Toulouse
country: France
facility: Chu Purpan
city: Tours
country: France
facility: CHU de Tours - Hopital Trousseau
city: Monaco
country: Monaco
facility: Centre hospitalier Princesse Grace
Study officials:
affiliation: UF of Montpellier
name: Jacques MOREL, MD-PhD
role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
References: