Dataset Information

Impact of anti-citrullinated protein antibody on tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or abatacept response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the impact of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) serostatus on response to treatment with either tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Data was obtained from the Optimizing Patient outcomes in Australian RheumatoLogy (OPAL) dataset. Patient data were included in the analysis if they commenced treatment with abatacept or TNFi between 01 August 2006 and 30 June 2017 and had at least 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome was the mean change in the clinical disease activity index (CDAI) score from baseline to 12 months.

Results

A total of 2,052 patients were included of which 1,415 were in the TNFi cohort (n=1,053 ACPA positive) and 637 in the abatacept cohort (n=445 ACPA positive). Patients were predominantly female (75% TNFi; 80% abatacept) with no significant difference in age between cohorts. Patients with ACPA positivity had longer disease duration before commencing treatment in both the TNFi and abatacept cohorts compared to ACPA negative patients. No difference in disease severity was observed in those with ACPA negativity compared to those with ACPA positivity. Patients treated with TNFi and abatacept had significantly improved mean change in CDAI after 12 months; ACPA positivity was associated with greater response to treatment with abatacept compared to that in patients with ACPA negativity (p=0.011). No difference in response was observed based on ACPA serostatus in patients treated with TNFi (p=0.73).

Conclusion

Baseline ACPA positivity was associated with improved clinical response using CDAI outcome measure at 12 months for abatacept but not for TNFi therapies.

SUBMITTER: Tymms K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8133894 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Because of its association with joint destruction, anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered to be more severe than ACPA-negative RA. Clinically relevant joint destruction is now infrequent thanks to adequate disease suppression. According to patients, important outcomes are pain, fatigue, and independence. We evaluated whether ACPA-positive RA patients diagnosed during or after 2000 have more severe self-reported limitations and impairments, including restrictions at work, than ACPA-negative RA patients. METHODS:A total of 492 ACPA-positive and 450 ACPA-negative RA patients who fulfilled the 2010 criteria and were included in the Leiden Early Arthritis Clinic cohort during or after 2000 were compared for self-reported pain, fatigue, disease activity, general well-being (measured by numerical rating scales), physical function (measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire), and work restrictions, including absenteeism at baseline and during the 4-year followup. Linear mixed models were used. RESULTS:At disease presentation, ACPA-negative patients had more severe pain, fatigue, self-reported disease activity scores, and functional disability (P < 0.05), although absolute differences were small. During followup, ACPA-negative patients remained somewhat more fatigued (P = 0.002), whereas other patient-reported impairments and limitations were similar. Thirty-eight percent of ACPA-negative and 48% of ACPA-positive patients reported absenteeism (P = 0.30), with median 4 days missed in both groups in the last 3 months. Also, restrictions at work among employed patients and restrictions with household work were not statistically different at baseline and during followup. CONCLUSION:In current rheumatology practice, ACPA-positive RA is not more severe than ACPA-negative RA in terms of patients' relevant outcomes, including physical functioning and restrictions at work. This implies that efforts to further improve the disease course should be proportional to both disease subsets.

Project description:The presence of anticitrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) indicates a breach in immune tolerance. Recent studies indicate that this breach extends to homocitrullination of lysines with the formation of anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP) antibodies. We analyzed the clinical and serologic relationships of anti-CarP in 2 RA cohorts.Circulating levels of immunoglobulin G anti-CarP antibodies were determined by ELISA in established (Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center) and early (Sherbrooke University Hospital Center) cohorts and evaluated for anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP), specific ACPA, and rheumatoid factor (RF) levels using the Student t test and correlation analysis.We identified elevated anti-CarP antibodies titers in 47.0% of seropositive patients (Dartmouth, n = 164), with relationships to anti-CCP (p < 0.0001) and IgM-RF (p = 0.001). Similarly, 38.2% of seropositive patients from the Sherbrooke cohort (n = 171) had elevated anti-CarP antibodies; titers correlated to anti-CCP (p = 0.01) but not IgM-RF (p = 0.09). A strong correlation with anti-Sa was observed: 47.9% anti-Sa+ patients were anti-CarP antibodies+ versus only 25.4% anti-Sa- in the Sherbrooke cohort (p = 0.0002), and 62.6% anti-Sa+ patients versus 26.9% anti-Sa- were anti-CarP antibodies+ in Dartmouth (p < 0.0001). We found a more variable response for reactivity to citrullinated fibrinogen or to citrullinated peptides from fibrinogen and ? enolase.In 2 North American RA cohorts, we observed a high prevalence of anti-CarP antibody positivity. We also describe a surprising and unexpected association of anti-CarP with anti-Sa antibodies that could not be explained by cross-reactivity. Further, considerable heterogeneity exists between anti-CarP reactivity and other citrullinated peptide reactivity, raising the question of how the pathogenesis of antibody responses for carbamylated proteins and citrullinated proteins may be linked in vivo.

Project description:IntroductionAnti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are highly specific serological biomarkers that are indicative of a poor prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different mechanisms of action may vary, based on patients' serostatus. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in patients with RA who were anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive (anti-CCP+).MethodsAbatacept or TNFi initiators with anti-CCP+ status (≥ 20 U/ml) at or prior to treatment initiation were identified from a large observational US cohort (1 December 2005-31 August 2016). Using propensity score matching (1:1), stratified by prior TNFi use (0, 1 and ≥ 2), effectiveness at 6 months after initiation was evaluated. Primary outcome was mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. Secondary outcomes included achievement of remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), low disease activity/remission (CDAI ≤ 10), modified American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire score.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between 330 pairs of abatacept and TNFi initiators (biologic naïve, n = 97; TNFi experienced, n = 233) were well balanced with absolute value standardized differences of ≤ 0.1. Both overall, and in the biologic-naïve cohort, there were no significant differences in mean change in CDAI score at 6 months. However, in the TNFi-experienced cohort, there was a significantly greater improvement in CDAI score at 6 months with abatacept versus TNFi initiators (p = 0.033). Secondary outcomes showed similar trends.ConclusionsImprovements in clinical disease activity were seen in anti-CCP+ abatacept and TNFi initiators. TNFi-experienced anti-CCP+ patients with RA had more improvement in disease activity with abatacept versus TNFis, whereas outcomes were similar between treatments in the overall population and in biologic-naïve patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01625650.FundingThis study is sponsored by Corrona, LLC and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the publication of this manuscript.