A head-to-head comparison of abatacept and adalimumab in adults with early and dual seropositive rheumatoid arthritis plus HLA-DRB1 shared epitope: results from the randomised phase 3 AMPLIFIED trial
- Journal
- Annals of the rheumatic diseases (Q1)
- Published
- 9 July 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Paul Emery, Michael E Weinblatt, Vivian P Bykerk, Andrew P Cope, Yoshiya Tanaka, Gustavo Citera, et al.
- PMID
- 42425800
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ard.2026.05.033
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Rheumatology (top studies of the week, 11 October 2026): Head‑to‑head phase 3 trial shows similar efficacy of abatacept vs
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), dual seropositivity for anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) and rheumatoid factor (RF), plus shared epitope (SE) human leukocyte antigen risk allele would show a superior response to abatacept vs adalimumab. METHODS: The AMPLIFIED trial (NCT04909801) was a global, phase 3, head-to-head, randomised, single-blind study designed to evaluate treatment response with abatacept vs adalimumab in patients with early RA and MTX-IR, with ACPA, RF, and SE positivity. The primary endpoint was a 50% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) at week 24 in the SE-positive subgroup. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers, immune cell subsets, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: In all, 338 patients were randomised. Most patients (96%) completed treatment. Baseline demographics, disease characteristics, and glucocorticoid use were balanced between arms. The primary endpoint was not met. ACR50 at week 24 was 59% with abatacept and 60% with adalimumab (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]: 1.0 [0.6-1.6]). Levels of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide 2, C-reactive protein, and RF decreased with both treatments. Abatacept and adalimumab had differential impacts on immune modulation, including B-cell homeostasis. Both treatments improved PROs, including pain. Abatacept and adalimumab demonstrated similar rates of adverse events (AEs; 58.0% vs 59.2%) and serious AEs (2.4% vs 3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients responded well to both treatments, with no clear advantage of abatacept vs adalimumab. Most patients tolerated their assigned therapies.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.