Dataset Information

Safety and Effectiveness of Abatacept in a Prospective Cohort of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To prospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy profile of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

Methods

We performed a prospective observational multicenter study of a cohort of patients with RA-ILD treated with abatacept between 2015 and 2021. Patients were evaluated using high-resolution computed tomography and pulmonary function tests at initiation, 12 months, and the end of follow-up. The effectiveness of abatacept was evaluated based on whether ILD improved, stabilized, progressed, or was fatal. We also evaluated factors such as infection, hospitalization, and inflammatory activity using the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). Cox regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with progression of lung disease.

Results

The study population comprised 57 patients with RA-ILD treated with abatacept for a median (IQR) of 27.3 (12.2-42.8) months. Lung disease had progressed before starting abatacept in 45.6% of patients. At the end of follow-up, lung disease had improved or stabilized in 41 patients (71.9%) and worsened in 13 (22.8%); 3 patients (5.3%) died. No significant decreases were observed in forced vital capacity (FVC) or in the diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO).The factors associated with progression of RA-ILD were baseline DAS28-ESR (OR [95% CI], 2.52 [1.03-3.12]; p = 0.041), FVC (OR [95% CI], 0.82 [0.70-0.96]; p = 0.019), and DLCO (OR [95% CI], 0.83 [0.72-0.96]; p = 0.018). Only 10.5% of patients experienced severe adverse effects.

Conclusion

Pulmonary function and joint inflammation stabilized in 71% of patients with RA-ILD treated with abatacept. Abatacept had a favorable safety profile.

SUBMITTER: Mena-Vazquez N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9313094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and risk of RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).MethodsWe investigated disease activity and risk of RA-ILD using the Brigham RA Sequential Study (BRASS, 2003-2016). All patients were diagnosed as having RA according to accepted criteria. Disease Activity Scores in 28 joints (DAS28) and covariate data were measured prospectively at annual study visits. Diagnosis of RA-ILD was determined by review of images from clinically indicated chest computed tomography scans. We analyzed patients without RA-ILD at baseline. We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for RA-ILD, using annually updated DAS28 data, with adjustment for known RA-ILD risk factors (age, sex, smoking status, RA duration, and serologic status). We performed alternative analyses that did not censor at the time of missing DAS28 data and included adjustment for use of methotrexate, use of glucocorticoids, presence of bone erosions, and presence of rheumatoid nodules.ResultsAmong 1,419 participants, the mean ± SD age was 55.8 ± 14.2 years, and 68.6% were seropositive for either cyclic citrullinated peptide or rheumatoid factor. We identified 85 incident cases of RA-ILD during a mean ± SD follow-up duration of 8.9 ± 4.2 years per patient. The moderate/high disease activity group had a multivariable HR of 2.22 (95% CI 1.28-3.82) for RA-ILD compared to the remission/low disease activity group. Risk of RA-ILD increased across disease activity categories: multivariable HR 1.00 (reference) for remission, 1.41 (95% CI 0.61-3.28) for low disease activity, 2.08 (95% CI 1.06-4.05) for moderate disease activity, and 3.48 (95% CI 1.64-7.38) for high disease activity (P for trend = 0.001). For each unit increase in the DAS28, the risk of RA-ILD increased by 35% (95% CI 14-60%). Results were similar in analyses that included follow-up for missing DAS28 data and with adjustment for use of methotrexate, use of glucocorticoids, presence of bone erosions, or presence of rheumatoid nodules.ConclusionActive articular RA was associated with an increased risk of developing RA-ILD. These results suggest that decreasing systemic inflammation may alter the natural history of RA-ILD development.

Project description:BackgroundInterstitial lung disease (ILD) related to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is among the leading causes of death and an essential prognostic factor. There is only limited evidence for the safety of anti-rheumatic drugs for patients with RA-ILD. The aim of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) by comparing it with abatacept (ABT) in patients with RA-ILD.MethodsThis single centre, retrospective nested case-control study enrolled patients with RA-ILD treated with JAKi or ABT. To determine the safety of the two drugs for existing ILD, we compared their drug persistency, incidence rates of pulmonary complications, and change of chest computed tomography (CT) image. For their efficacy as RA treatment, disease activity scores and prednisolone (PSL)-sparing effect were compared. We performed propensity score matching to match the groups' patient characteristics.ResultsWe studied 71 patients with RA-ILD (ABT, n = 45; JAKi, n = 26). At baseline, the JAKi group had longer disease duration, longer duration of past bDMARD or JAKi use and higher usual interstitial pneumonia rate. After propensity score matching, no significant differences in patient characteristics were found between the two groups. No significant difference in the drug persistency rate for the first 2 years (ABT, 61.9%; JAKi, 42.8%; P = 0.256) was observed between the two matched groups. The incidence rate of pulmonary complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.683). The CT score did not change after the treatment for the ABT group (Ground-glass opacities (GGO): P = 0.87; fibrosis: P = 0.78), while the GGO score significantly improved for the JAKi group (P = 0.03), although the number was limited (ABT: n = 7; JAKi: n = 8). The fibrosis score of the JAKi group did not change significantly.(P = 0.82). Regarding the efficacy for RA, a significant decrease in disease activity scores after the 1-year treatment was observed in both groups, and PSL dose was successfully tapered, although no significant differences were observed between the two drugs.ConclusionsJAKi is as safe and effective as ABT for patients with RA-ILD. JAKi can be a good treatment option for such patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) ? inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN:Population based prospective study. SETTING:53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France. PARTICIPANTS:3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months. INTERVENTION:Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LEDwf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure. RESULTS:Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LEDwf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION:Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.