Krischer, Jeffrey P.

Objective To compare the efficacy of abatacept to placebo for the treatment of relapsing, nonsevere granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). Methods In this multicenter trial, eligible patients with relapsing, nonsevere GPA were randomized to receive abatacept 125 mg subcutaneously once a week or placebo, both together with prednisone 30 mg/day (or equivalent), tapered and discontinued at week 12. Patients already taking methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, or leflunomide continued this medication at a stable dose. Patients achieving remission remained on their randomized assignment until relapse, early termination, or the common close date 12 months after enrollment of the last patient. Those who had a nonsevere relapse, had nonsevere worsening, or were not in remission by month 6 had the option to receive open‐label abatacept. The primary end point was the rate of treatment failure, defined as relapse, disease worsening, or failure to achieve a Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score for Wegener's Granulomatosis (BVAS/WG) of 0 or 1 by six months. Results Sixty‐five patients were randomized; 34 received abatacept and 31 received placebo. No statistical difference in the treatment failure rate was found between those who received abatacept and those who received placebo ( P = 0.853). Treatment with abatacept did not demonstrate any statistical difference from placebo in key secondary end points, including time to full remission (BVAS/WG = 0), duration of glucocorticoid‐free remission, relapse severity, prevention of damage, and patient‐reported quality‐of‐life outcomes. There was no difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events between treatment arms, including infection. Conclusion In patients with relapsing, nonsevere GPA, abatacept did not reduce the risk of relapse, severe worsening, or failure to achieve remission.

ABSTRACT Objectives: Clinical features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have been well‐described in the literature, however, characterization of features experienced by patients with other eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) is lacking. Using data collected from a patient contact registry, we sought to characterize and contrast patient‐reported gastrointestinal and extragastrointestinal symptoms and comorbidities in non‐EoE EGIDs, including eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis and colitis, relative to EoE. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study of contact registry data collected from 2015 to 2018. Statistical comparisons were made using chi‐square (categorical measures) and the Mann‐Whitney U test (continuous measures). Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate associations between treatment and feelings of isolation. Results: Of the 715 reporting an EGID diagnosis (n = 525 EoE; n = 190 non‐EoE EGID), a higher proportion of those with a non‐EoE EGID reported more frequent specific and nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, and bloating ( P < 0.01 for all). Participants with a non‐EoE EGID were more likely to report higher frequency of fatigue, isolation, and deep muscle or joint pain ( P < 0.01 for all). Specific food elimination and elemental formula treatments were associated with increased odds of more frequent (at least weekly) feelings of isolation for participants with EoE (adjusted odds rtaio [aOR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5‐‐4.1 for specific food elimination and adjusted OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2‐‐3.3 for elemental formula). Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the symptoms and comorbidities experienced between those with EoE versus non‐EoE EGIDs. Additional investigation is needed to elucidate the factors that may contribute to the high disease burden of these poorly understood conditions.

Abstract Rationale Lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM) is a progressive cystic lung disease that predominantly affects women and can worsen with pregnancy, estrogen treatment, and the menstrual cycle, suggesting an important role for estrogen in disease pathogenesis. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of the aromatase inhibitor letrozole in the treatment of LAM. Methods Seventeen postmenopausal women with LAM were enrolled in this phase II trial and randomized to receive letrozole 2.5 mg daily (n = 9) or placebo (n = 8) for a period of 12 months. Five patients in each group were also taking sirolimus at baseline and remained on the drug throughout the treatment period. Lung function, exercise capacity, quality of life, and serum vascular endothelial growth factor D (VEGF-D) were measured at baseline and at 3-month intervals. Results Fifteen patients completed the study. Two patients withdrew. There were no differences in adverse events in the letrozole and placebo groups. The target enrollment of 25 patients per arm was not met, so the efficacy of letrozole could not be assessed as planned. After adjusting for sirolimus use, we found that the rate of change in FEV1 for all subjects was −3 ± 3 ml/mo (P = 0.4), and for serum VEGF-D, the rate of change was −0.024 ± 0.009 pg/ml/mo (P = 0.015), showing a steeper decline in the letrozole group (−0.029 ± 0.013; P = 0.025). All patients who were taking sirolimus had a reduction in VEGF-D levels from baseline to the last visit, compared with only half of the patients who were not taking sirolimus. In a post hoc analysis, eight matched letrozole-treated–placebo-treated pairs were constructed, six of which demonstrated better FEV1 improvement for the letrozole-treated patients. Conclusions Letrozole treatment appears to be safe and well tolerated in postmenopausal patients with LAM, including those taking sirolimus. Enrollment in this trial was compromised by the publication of an effective treatment (sirolimus) in the same month as the study opened, resulting in limited power to detect treatment effects. Post hoc matched pairs exploration studies provide tentative support for additional studies of letrozole in LAM. Considering the reduced rate of lung function decline in postmenopausal patients, future studies will likely require enhanced study designs, such as selective enrollment of those with prognostic biomarkers predictive of decline. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01353209).

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of abatacept to that of placebo for the treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA).MethodsIn this multicenter trial, patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing GCA were treated with abatacept 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 15, and 29 and week 8, together with prednisone administered daily. At week 12, patients in remission underwent a double‐blinded randomization to continue to receive abatacept monthly or switch to placebo. Patients in both study arms received a standardized prednisone taper, with discontinuation of prednisone at week 28. All patients remained on their randomized assignment until meeting criteria for early termination or until 12 months after enrollment of the last patient. The primary end point was duration of remission (relapse‐free survival rate).ResultsForty‐nine eligible patients with GCA were enrolled and treated with prednisone and abatacept; of these, 41 reached the week 12 randomization and underwent a blinded randomization to receive abatacept or placebo. Prednisone was tapered using a standardized schedule, reaching a daily dosage of 20 mg at week 12 with discontinuation in all patients at week 28. The relapse‐free survival rate at 12 months was 48% for those receiving abatacept and 31% for those receiving placebo (P = 0.049). A longer median duration of remission was seen in those receiving abatacept compared to those receiving placebo (median duration 9.9 months versus 3.9 months; P = 0.023). There was no difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events, including infection, between the treatment arms.ConclusionIn patients with GCA, the addition of abatacept to a treatment regimen with prednisone reduced the risk of relapse and was not associated with a higher rate of toxicity compared to prednisone alone.

Objective To compare the efficacy of abatacept to that of placebo for the treatment of Takayasu arteritis (TAK). Methods In this multicenter trial, patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing TAK were treated with abatacept 10 mg/kg intravenously on days 1, 15, and 29 and week 8, together with prednisone administered daily. At week 12, patients in remission underwent a double‐blinded randomization to continue to receive abatacept monthly or switch to placebo. Patients in both study arms received a standardized prednisone taper, reaching a dosage of 20 mg daily at week 12, with discontinuation of prednisone at week 28. All patients remained on their randomized assignment until meeting criteria for early termination or until 12 months after enrollment of the last patient. The primary end point was duration of remission (relapse‐free survival). Results Thirty‐four eligible patients with TAK were enrolled and treated with prednisone and abatacept; of these, 26 reached the week 12 randomization and underwent a blinded randomization to receive either abatacept or placebo. The relapse‐free survival rate at 12 months was 22% for those receiving abatacept and 40% for those receiving placebo ( P = 0.853). Treatment with abatacept in patients with TAK enrolled in this study was not associated with a longer median duration of remission (median duration 5.5 months for abatacept versus 5.7 months for placebo). There was no difference in the frequency or severity of adverse events, including infection, between the treatment arms. Conclusion In patients with TAK, the addition of abatacept to a treatment regimen with prednisone did not reduce the risk of relapse.