Jabado Omar, Maldonado Michael A, Schiff Michael, Weinblatt Michael E, Fleischmann Roy, Robinson William H, He Aiqing, Patel Vishal, Greenfield Alex, Saini Jasmine, Galbraith David, Connolly Sean E
Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ, USA.
University of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA.
Rheumatol Ther. 2022 Apr;9(2):391-409. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00404-x. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
The biologics abatacept and adalimumab have different mechanisms of action (MoAs). We analyzed data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated in AMPLE (NCT00929864) to explore the pharmacodynamic effects of abatacept or adalimumab on anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and gene expression.
AMPLE was a phase IIIb, 2-year, randomized, head-to-head trial of abatacept versus adalimumab. Post hoc analyses of baseline anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 (anti-CCP2, an ACPA surrogate) positive (+) status and ACPA fine-specificity profiles over time, as well as transcriptional profiling (peripheral whole blood), were performed.
Of 646 patients treated (abatacept, n = 318; adalimumab, n = 328), ACPA and gene expression data were available from 508 and 566 patients, respectively. In anti-CCP2+ patients (n = 388), baseline fine specificities for most ACPAs were highly correlated; over 2 years, levels decreased with abatacept but not adalimumab. By year 2, expression of genes associated with T cell co-stimulation and antibody production was lower for abatacept versus adalimumab; expression of genes associated with proinflammatory signaling was lower for adalimumab versus abatacept. Treatment modulated the expression of T- and B-cell gene signatures, with differences in CD8+ T cells, activated T cells, plasma cells, B cells, natural killer cells (all lower with abatacept versus adalimumab), and polymorphonuclear leukocytes (higher with abatacept versus adalimumab).
In AMPLE, despite similar clinical outcomes, data showed that pharmacodynamic/genetic changes after 2 years of abatacept or adalimumab were consistent with drug MoAs. Further assessment of the relationship between such changes and clinical outcomes, including prediction of response, is warranted.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00929864.
生物制剂阿巴西普和阿达木单抗具有不同的作用机制(MoAs)。我们分析了在AMPLE(NCT00929864)中接受治疗的类风湿性关节炎患者的数据,以探究阿巴西普或阿达木单抗对抗瓜氨酸化蛋白抗体(ACPA)和基因表达的药效学作用。
AMPLE是一项为期2年的阿巴西普与阿达木单抗对比的IIIb期随机对照试验。对基线抗环瓜氨酸肽-2(抗CCP2,一种ACPA替代物)阳性(+)状态以及随时间变化的ACPA精细特异性谱进行事后分析,同时进行转录谱分析(外周全血)。
在646例接受治疗的患者中(阿巴西普组,n = 318;阿达木单抗组,n = 328),分别有508例和566例患者可获得ACPA和基因表达数据。在抗CCP2阳性患者(n = 388)中,大多数ACPA的基线精细特异性高度相关;在2年时间里,阿巴西普治疗使ACPA水平下降,而阿达木单抗治疗则未使其下降。到第2年,与T细胞共刺激和抗体产生相关的基因表达,阿巴西普组低于阿达木单抗组;与促炎信号传导相关的基因表达,阿达木单抗组低于阿巴西普组。治疗调节了T细胞和B细胞基因特征的表达,在CD8 + T细胞、活化T细胞、浆细胞、B细胞、自然杀伤细胞(所有这些细胞阿巴西普组均低于阿达木单抗组)以及多形核白细胞方面存在差异(阿巴西普组高于阿达木单抗组)。
在AMPLE试验中,尽管临床结果相似,但数据显示,阿巴西普或阿达木单抗治疗2年后的药效学/基因变化与药物作用机制一致。有必要进一步评估此类变化与临床结果之间的关系,包括反应预测。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符,NCT00929864。