Dataset Information

Efficacy of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Anti-citrullinated Protein Antibody-Positive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Korean Nationwide Biologics Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To compare the efficacy of abatacept and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in patients with anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and identify those who benefit most from abatacept over TNFi.

Methods

This observational study identified RA patients who were ACPA-positive and initiated abatacept or TNFi from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics and Targeted therapy registry. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed to balance baseline confounding in abatacept- or TNFi-treated patients. The major endpoints were changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and achievement of CDAI remission/low disease activity after 1 year of treatment. Subgroup analysis was mainly performed stratified by prior biologics use.

Results

A total of 291 PS-matched, ACPA-positive RA patients who initiated abatacept (n = 97) and TNFi (n = 194) were included. From baseline CDAI scores of 26.52 in the abatacept group and 26.38 in the TNFi group, the mean changes after 1 year were - 16.78 and - 13.61, respectively (difference - 3.17, p = 0.020). The proportion of patients achieving CDAI remission/low disease activity was 68.0% with abatacept and 52.6% with TNFi (p = 0.013). In the subgroup analysis, patients that were biologics-naïve had better improvement in CDAI after treatment with abatacept than TNFi (difference - 3.35, p = 0.021).

Conclusions

This real-world study suggests that abatacept may have better clinical response compared to TNFi in patients with established ACPA-positive RA, especially in those that were biologics-naïve.

SUBMITTER: Kim MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9314478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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:Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disease affecting synovial joints. Patients with persistent, active disease have traditionally been treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (eg, methotrexate) or biologic agents (eg, tumor necrosis factor [TNF] antagonists). However, patients may discontinue these treatments due to toxicity, infection, or lack of efficacy. Two additional biologic therapies-rituximab and abatacept-are currently available for TNF-antagonist inadequate responders. Abatacept is also indicated for inadequate responders to traditional DMARDs.The aims of this review was to provide an overview of the issues surrounding the treatment of RA patients experiencing inadequate responses to current treatment and to discuss the current and future impact of abatacept on the RA treatment armamentarium.The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases were searched (search dates: January 1, 2000-September 19, 2007) using the terms abatacept or CTLA-4 or Orencia with rheumatoid arthritis. Full text articles in English were selected for relevance, and only articles presenting primary clinical trial data from randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials of abatacept were included. This review focused on the Phase III trials of abatacept in methotrexate and/or TNF-antagonist inadequate responders, as these trials had the largest number of patients and the longest study durations.The literature search initially yielded 848 papers. A total of 12 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Abatacept is a novel agent that has been reported to reduce the signs and symptoms of RA in patients with active RA with an inadequate response to DMARDs and/or TNF-antagonist treatment. In both of these patient populations, treatment with abatacept was found to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality-of-life benefits, such as improvements in physical function, activity limitation, sleep, and fatigue. Abatacept was reported to have a consistent safety and tolerability profile, with a low rate (3.5%-4.2%) of discontinuation due to adverse events.The efficacy and tolerability data from Phase III clinical trials suggest that abatacept is an effective and generally well tolerated treatment option for RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate and/or TNF antagonists.