Abatacept Bone Effects in Psoriatic Arthritis With Bone Biomarker

Abatacept Bone Effects in Psoriatic Arthritis With Bone Biomarkers - ABEPSA _ BB

Observation has pointed out, that osteitis present in the MRI scans, predicts bone erosion and that this in accordance with the concept by underlining the importance of bone marrow involvement in arthritis [Krabben A, 2013]. Abatacept with its favourable safety profile preferentially interrupts activation of naïve T cells and perhaps makes the strongest case for exploiting co-stimulatory blockade during the earliest detectable phase of the adaptive immune response at a time when predisposition to autoimmune disease can be detected.

Study Overview

Status

Unknown

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis that occurs in individuals with psoriasis. It is estimated that 1% to 3% of the general population have psoriasis.1,2,3 In Europe the prevalence of psoriasis ranges up to 6.5%.4 Between 10% and 30% of subjects with Psoriasis develop arthritis. As a result, PsA is the second most common inflammatory arthropathy, following rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 1,2,3 Psoriatic arthritis, a seronegative spondyloarthropathy, is a complex disease involving peripheral and axial joints and periarticular structures resulting in enthesitis and dactylitis. Without appropriate management, the number of joints affected by PsA and the severity of joint damage increase over time, which can lead to marked restriction of daily activities and to substantially compromised quality of life. There is evidence that active PsA is associated with accelerated atherosclerosis, obesity, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Other co-morbidities such as pulmonary fibrosis, uveitis, and, less commonly, aortic insufficiency, also contribute to the complexity of PsA.5 Unlike RA, effective treatment options are limited for PsA. Responses to the traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been suboptimal.6 There is a significant unmet medical need for more effective and safe therapies in PsA, especially for reducing the arthritic signs and symptoms as well as inhibiting progression of structural damage in joints. About 20% of subjects with PsA will develop a severe destructive disabling form of arthritis.7 In the absence of definitive therapy, more than 50% of subjects with PsA will develop 5 or more deformed joints within 10 years of the onset of disease.8 TNFi therapies are efficacious for both skin and joint diseases and have been shown to inhibit structural damage, but approximately 40% of subjects treated with TNFi agents do not reach a minimal improvement [American College of Rheumatology [ACR) 20]9,10,11,12.13,14,15,16,17 In addition, serious adverse events (SAEs) including infections and injection site reactions have been associated with the use of TNFi therapies. Although in some studies a small percentage of patients previously exposed to TNFi were included, these studies were not powered to demonstrate efficacy in that sub-population. Thus, in subjects who experience inefficacy or intolerance of TNF blockade, there is still medical need for new options. Therefore, there is still need in PsA for therapies that provide significant improvement in arthritis and a risk benefit profile that is acceptable. Therapies directed at novel targets (IL-12/23, PDE4-Antagonist) are also approved since 2014. 18, 19, 20, 21 Joint involvement, is clearly the most prominent example for the systemic nature of psoriasis. Notably, the burden of joint disease in patients with psoriasis may be even higher, given that not all psoriasis patients experiencing musculoskeletal complaints fulfill the classification criteria of PsA22. If present, PsA is a severe disease associated with impaired function and reduced life quality life.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Anticipated)

20

Phase

  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

      • Erlangen, Germany, 91054
        • Recruiting
        • University Clinic Erlangen, Medical Department 3, Rheumatology & Immunology
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Males/females with CASPAR criteria-positive PsA
  • Active disease with more than three swollen and tender joints
  • Must be aged ≥ 18 years at time of consent
  • ≥ 3 erosions on MRI or HR PQCT
  • Women of childbearing potential or men capable of fathering children must be using effective contraception during treatment with abatacept and up to 14 weeks after the last dose of abatacept treatment.
  • Must understand and voluntarily sign an informed consent form including written consent for data protection ´- Must be able to adhere to the study visit schedule and other protocol requirements

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Previous exposure to abatacept
  • CCP2 positivity
  • Investigational study drug within 4 weeks (or 5 halflives (half live is 14,3 days), whichever is longer) prior to randomisation
  • Any condition, including the presence of laboratory abnormalities, which places the subject at unacceptable risk if he/she were to participate in the study or confounds the ability to interpret data from the study
  • Any other autoimmune or inflammatory disease such as SLE, PSS, MCTD, SpA, Behcet disease, vasculitis or autoimmune hepatitis.
  • Any malignancy in the last 5 years
  • Chronic infection such as latent TB (TB not adequately treated according to guidelines) or hepatitis B or C infection
  • Immunocompromised or HIV-positive patients
  • Uncontrolled severe concomitant disease
  • Patients who are younger than 18 years or are incapable to understand the aim, importance and consequences of the study and to give legal informed consent (according to § 40 Abs. 4 and § 41 Abs. 2 and Abs. 3 AMG).
  • Pregnant or lactating females
  • Patients who possibly are dependent on the Principal Investigator or

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Diagnostic
  • Allocation: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Bone Erosion volume
Time Frame: 6 months
Change in bone erosion volume measured by Hr-PQ CT of the involved hand between baseline and 24 weeks follow-up
6 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Comparing bone Erosion baseline to week 24
Time Frame: 6 months
Change in bone erosion on CT between baseline and 24 wks
6 months
Comparing Osteophytes between baseline and week 24
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change in osteophytes CT between baseline and 24 wks
3 and 6 months
Comparing Tenosynovitis between baseline, month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change in MRI Tenosynovitis score between baseline compared to month 3 and 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing PSAMRIS score between baseline and month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change in PSAMRIS MRI score between baseline compared to month 3 and 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing bone Erosion between baseline month 3 and and month 6 with MRI
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change in MRI bone erosions between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing Synovitis between baseline and month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change in MRI synovitis between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing DAS28 from baseline to month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of DAS28 between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing DAPSA between baseline, month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of DAPSA between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing MDA from baseline, month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of MDA between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing HAQ-DI between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of HAQ-DI between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing SPARCC between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of SPARCC between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing PSAID between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of PSAID between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing PASI between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of PASI between baseline compared to month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months
Comparing SF36 between screening, month 3 and month 6
Time Frame: 3 and 6 months
Change of SF36 between screening, month 3 and month 6
3 and 6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 6, 2018

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

August 1, 2021

Study Completion (Anticipated)

August 1, 2022

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 25, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

September 27, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 27, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 25, 2019

Last Verified

September 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Evaluate Bone Changes in Patients With PsA

Clinical Trials on Abatacept 125 MG/ML

3
Subscribe