Predictors of abatacept retention over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the real-world ACTION study

Predictors of the effectiveness of first-line CTLA4-Ig in patients with RA: the FIRST registry

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate which bio-naïve patients with RA are suitable for treatment with CTLA4-Ig.

METHODS

This study enrolled 953 patients with RA who were administered their first biological DMARD (CTLA4-Ig, n = 328; tumour necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi], n = 625) from July 2013 to August 2022. The primary outcome was the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission rate at week 24 in each group, adjusted using propensity score (PS)-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

After minimizing selection bias using PS-based IPTW, the CDAI remission showed no significant difference between the CTLA4-Ig and TNFi groups (P = 0.464). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified low baseline HAQ-Disability Index (DI) scores as a contributing factor to the CDAI remission rate at week 24 in both groups, along with high baseline ACPA levels in the CTLA4-Ig group. However, among patients with high baseline HAQ-DI scores and low baseline ACPA levels (≦57.2), the CDAI remission rate was significantly higher in the TNFi group (29.8%) compared with the CTLA4-Ig group (5.9%, P < 0.0001). Among patients with high baseline HAQ-DI scores and ACPA levels (>57.2), the CDAI remission rate was significantly higher in the CTLA4-Ig group (35.6%) compared with the TNFi group (22.1%, P = 0.0057).

CONCLUSION

Bio-naive RA patients with low HAQ-DI scores showed high treatment efficacy with no significant difference between CTLA4-Ig and TNFi. Among patients with high baseline HAQ-DI scores, TNFi and CTLA4-Ig were more likely to be effective in those with lower and higher baseline ACPA levels, respectively.

Comparative analysis of clinical profile, therapeutic management, and clinical prognosis of patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy in a real-life setting

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate clinical prognosis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy (TT) according to the serological profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to analyze differences in efficacy of TT.

METHOD

This single-center retrospective study included patients with RA who received a first TT between 2000 and 2020. Patients were seropositive (IgM and/or IgA rheumatoid factors plus anti-CCP) or seronegative (without autoantibodies). Various data were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary endpoint was remission (assessed by DAS28) at one and two years.

RESULTS

Among 259 patients, 164 (63.3%) were seropositive and presented higher disease activity and more frequent erosive involvement than seronegative patients at TT introduction. The most prescribed first TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA (47 ([49.5%) versus 41 (25%), p < 0.001) and abatacept for seropositive RA (41 (25%) versus 6 (6.3%), p < 0.001). Remission rates and TT switches were not significantly different between groups. Initial DAS28-CRP and number of painful joints were independent prognostic factors associated with absence of remission at one year (OR 0.46 (0.26, 0.80), p = 0.007) and two years (OR 0.90 (0.82, 0.98), p = 0.027) respectively. Among seropositive patients, the two-year remission rate was not significantly different according to the therapeutic class received (cellular- versus cytokine-targeted).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with seropositive RA showed more active and severe disease than patients with seronegative RA at the introduction of a first TT. Although the choice of the first TT varied according to serological profile and time of analysis, clinical prognosis at one and two years was similar between groups. Key Points • Seropositive versus seronegative RA was more active at start of first targeted therapy. • First-line TTs were etanercept for seronegative RA and abatacept for seropositive RA. • Rate of targeted therapy switches was comparable between both groups. • Remission rates at 1 and 2 years were similar in seropositive and seronegative RA. • Remission rates were similar for cellular and cytokine inhibitors in seropositive RA.

Rheumatoid factors revisited in the age of biologic therapy

The discovery of RF has been instrumental in diagnosing and classifying RA. Various RF isotypes, including IgM-RF and IgA-RF, have been linked to disease severity and treatment responses. The role of RF in RA pathogenesis, primarily through the formation of immune complexes, also carries the potential to influence the response to different medications. Recent progress in biologic therapies has further elucidated the role of RF in RA management. Treatments such as rituximab, abatacept and tocilizumab have shown differential efficacy based on RF status, with RF-positive patients often exhibiting better responses. Recent research also suggests that TNF inhibitors (TNFi) lacking the IgG1-Fc fragment like certolizumab pegol (CZP) may offer advantages over TNFi with an IgG1-Fc fragment, in RF-positive patients by preventing immune complex formation. Since this early observation is predominantly derived from previous multicentre studies with heterogeneous populations and potentially varying RF measurement methods, prospective randomized studies directly addressing this issue are essential for a more thorough and reliable evaluation. This paper is a narrative review outlining the evolving understanding of RF in the context of biologic therapies, emphasizing the need for personalized treatment approaches based on serological profiles and underlying immune mechanisms.

Rheumatoid Factor: Diagnostic and Prognostic Performance and Therapeutic Implications in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid factor (RF) is the first autoantibody identified in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) which targets the fragment crystallizable (Fc) region of immunoglobulin (Ig) G. Although IgM isotype is predominant, other Ig isotypes, including IgG and IgA, also exist. While RF is not specific to RA, it remains a valuable serological test for diagnosing the disease, as evidenced by its inclusion in the 2010 classification criteria for RA based on elevated serum RF levels. RF is also associated with RA severity, including joint damage and extra-articular manifestations, serving as a poor prognostic factor and aiding in the identification of difficult-to-treat RA. Recent studies have demonstrated that high serum RF levels are associated with a reduced response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors. In contrast, anti-TNF antibodies lacking the Fc portion have shown stable efficacy in RA patients regardless of baseline RF levels. These findings reaffirm the clinical significance of RF measurement, 80 years after its initial discovery. This review explores the diagnostic and prognostic significance of RF and its impact on treatment selection in RA management.

Abatacept retention and clinical effectiveness in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world setting in Taiwan

AIM

To evaluate real-world abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Taiwan.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged ≥20 years who received abatacept in real-world practice. The primary endpoint was the abatacept retention rate at 24 months. Patients were categorized into subgroups based on abatacept treatment status and previous biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy. Risk factors affecting abatacept retention were determined by regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were enrolled. The overall abatacept retention rate at 24 months among all patients was 59.9% (95% confidence interval 53.0%-66.6%). Patients who were ongoing users of abatacept and bDMARD-naïve had the highest retention rate (76.3%); of these, 31.6% achieved low disease activity or remission after 2 years. Previous treatment with bDMARDs was associated with an increased risk of abatacept discontinuation (hazard ratio 1.99; p = .002). The most common reasons for abatacept discontinuation were drug switch (11.3%) and loss to follow-up (6.1%). Abatacept was well-tolerated with no new safety signals.

CONCLUSION

The 24-month retention rate of abatacept was 59.9%; abatacept was associated with improved clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting in Taiwan.

Retention rate of abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis patients in a real-life setting: results from a monocentric cohort

OBJECTIVE

Data from trials demonstrated that abatacept (ABA) has a good safety and efficacy profile in treating rheumatoid arthritis. We have studied the retention rate of ABA in a real-life cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

This is a monocentric, retrospective study including patients with rheumatoid arthritis classified by the American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism 2010 criteria who started treatment with ABA. The Kaplan-Meier method was applied to evaluate the ABA retention rate.

RESULTS

This analysis was conducted on 161 patients [male/female 21/140, median age 65 years, interquartile range (IQR) 18.7, median disease duration 169 months, IQR 144.0]. 111 patients (68.9%) received ABA subcutaneously. ABA was associated with methotrexate in 61.9% of patients and was the first biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug in 41%. We observed a median ABA survival of 66 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 57.3-74.7], with a retention rate of 88% at 6 months and 50.9% at 5 years. Drug survival was significantly higher in patients treated with ABA subcutaneously and in male patients (p=0.039 and p=0.018, respectively). Adjusted for main confounders, female gender was the main predictor of withdrawal (hazard ratio 5.1, 95% CI 1.2-21.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that better survival is associated with subcutaneous administration and male gender, confirming ABA effectiveness.

Prediction of ineffectiveness of biological drugs using machine learning and explainable AI methods: data from the Austrian Biological Registry BioReg

OBJECTIVES

Machine learning models can support an individualized approach in the choice of bDMARDs. We developed prediction models for 5 different bDMARDs using machine learning methods based on patient data derived from the Austrian Biologics Registry (BioReg).

METHODS

Data from 1397 patients and 19 variables with at least 100 treat-to-target (t2t) courses per drug were derived from the BioReg biologics registry. Different machine learning algorithms were trained to predict the risk of ineffectiveness for each bDMARD within the first 26 weeks. Cross-validation and hyperparameter optimization were applied to generate the best models. Model quality was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). Using explainable AI (XAI), risk-reducing and risk-increasing factors were extracted.

RESULTS

The best models per drug achieved an AUROC score of the following: abatacept, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.54-0.78); adalimumab, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74); certolizumab, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89); etanercept, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87); tocilizumab, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77). The most risk-increasing variables were visual analytic scores (VAS) for abatacept and etanercept and co-therapy with glucocorticoids for adalimumab. Dosage was the most important variable for certolizumab and associated with a lower risk of non-response. Some variables, such as gender and rheumatoid factor (RF), showed opposite impacts depending on the bDMARD.

CONCLUSION

Ineffectiveness of biological drugs could be predicted with promising accuracy. Interestingly, individual parameters were found to be associated with drug responses in different directions, indicating highly complex interactions. Machine learning can be of help in the decision-process by disentangling these relations.

A Model to Predict Future Biologic or Targeted Synthetic DMARD Switch at a Subsequent Clinic Visit in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

To understand factors leading to biologic switches and to develop a readily usable model with data collected in clinical care at preceding visits, with the overall aim to predict the probability of switching biologic at a subsequent clinic visit in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Participants were adults with RA participating in the CorEvitas RA registry. The study matched patients who switched biologics or targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs) with control patients who had not switched biologics/tsDMARDs; the cohort was divided into a training and test set for prediction model development and validation. Using the training set, the best subset regression, lasso, and elastic net methods were used to determine the best potential models. Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used for the final selection of the best model, and estimated coefficients of this model were applied to the test dataset to predict switching.

RESULTS

A total of 5050 patients were included, of whom 3016 were in the training set and 2034 were in the test dataset. The average age was 59.6 years, the majority were female (3998, 79.2%), and the average duration of RA at the time of switch or control visit was 12.8 years. The final model included prior Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) by category, prior patient pain measurement, change in CDAI from baseline, age group, and number of prior biologics, all of which were significantly associated with switching biologics. The AUC was 0.690 for this model with the training dataset. The model was then applied to the test data with similar performance; the AUC was 0.687.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a simple model to determine the probability of switching biologics for RA at the following clinic visit. This model could be used in practice to provide clinicians with more information about their patient's trajectory and likelihood of switching to a new biologic.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: 2-year retention and efficacy by treatment line and serostatus

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES

The ASCORE study on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed better retention and clinical response rates for abatacept as first-line versus later-line therapy. This post hoc analysis of ASCORE assessed 2-year retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

METHODS

Adults with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were assessed. Primary endpoint was abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportions of patients with low disease activity (LDA)/remission per Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≤ 3.2), Simplified Disease Activity Index (≤ 11), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (≤ 10). Outcomes were analyzed by treatment line and serostatus.

RESULTS

For the pooled cohort, the 2-year abatacept retention rate was 47.6%; retention was highest in biologic-naïve patients (50.5% [95% confidence interval 44.9, 55.9]). Patients seropositive for both anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF; + / +) at baseline had a higher 2-year abatacept retention rate than patients with single seropositivity for either APCA or RF or double-seronegativity (- / -), irrespective of treatment line. At 2 years, a higher proportion of patients who were biologic-naïve were in LDA/remission than patients with one or ≥ two prior biologics.

CONCLUSION

A higher proportion of patients with + / + RA (compared with - / - RA) had abatacept retention after 2 years. Early identification of patients with seropositive RA may facilitate a precision-medicine approach to RA treatment, leading to a higher proportion of patients in LDA/remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02090556; date registered: March 18, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Key Points • This post hoc analysis of a German-speaking subset of European patients with RA from the global ASCORE study (NCT02090556) showed that retention of SC abatacept within this subset was 47.6%, with good clinical outcomes after 2 years. • Patients with double-seropositive RA (ACPA and RF positive) had higher retention of abatacept than patients with double-seronegative RA (ACPA and RF negative). Retention and clinical responses were highest for patients who were biologic-naïve compared with patients who had one or ≥ two prior biologic treatments. • These real-world data may be useful for clinicians in informing individualized treatment pathways for patients with RA, and fostering superior disease control and clinical outcomes.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

We compared the 52-week effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib (TOF) and abatacept (ABT) in patients with RA in a real-world setting and investigated a role of human leucocyte antigens (HLA)-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) in the effectiveness.

METHODS

RA patients starting TOF (n = 187) and ABT (n = 183) were enrolled. Effectiveness was compared after reducing the selection bias to a minimum using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores. The influence of SE alleles on effectiveness was compared within each treatment group. A treatment group comparison was also performed within SE-positive and SE-negative groups.

RESULTS

Herpes zoster and some laboratory abnormalities were more frequent in the TOF group than in the ABT group. Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between treatment groups after adjustments with IPTW. The TOF group had a significantly higher proportion of DAS in 28 joints using ESR (DAS28-ESR) remission at week 52 than the ABT group. The DAS28-ESR at week 12 and thereafter was not affected by the copy number of SE alleles in the TOF group, but decreased significantly as the copy number increased in the ABT group. In SE-positive patients, remission and drug retention rates did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. In SE-negative patients, the TOF group showed significantly higher remission and drug retention rates than the ABT group.

CONCLUSION

The present results suggest that TOF is more effective with regard to remission at week 52 based on treatment responses in SE-negative RA patients.

Comparison of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients' 2-Year Infliximab, Abatacept, and Tocilizumab Persistence Rates

Background: Drug persistence reflects an agent’s efficacy and safety in routine practice. This study was undertaken to compare the 2-year persistence rates of three biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to describe their efficacy and safety profiles. Methods: This retrospective, observational, single-center study included RA patients who had received at least one intravenous dose of infliximab, abatacept, and/or tocilizumab. Two-year drug persistence was estimated using the Kaplan−Meier method. Efficacy profiles were assessed as changes of Disease-Activity Score-28 (DAS28)-based EULAR-criteria responses. Results: The infliximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab groups included 40, 72, and 93 patients, respectively. Their respective 2-year persistence rates were similar: 55.0%, 45.8%, and 62.4%. Tocilizumab recipients benefited from greater improvement than those given infliximab (p = 0.0005) or abatacept (p < 0.0001). For all groups combined, 93.1% of patients obtained good or moderate EULAR responses. Conclusions: Even if this retrospective work includes different biases (lack of data, recruitment bias, etc.), it highlights that the 2-year persistence rates for infliximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in daily practice did not differ significantly, thereby confirming the long-term efficacies of these three bDMARDs. However, tocilizumab was associated with more significant DAS28 improvement at 2 years than infliximab and abatacept.

Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study.

METHODS

Patients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc.

RESULTS

Overall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes of Baricitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Spain: Results of a Multicenter, Observational Study in Routine Clinical Practice (The ORBIT-RA Study)

INTRODUCTION

Baricitinib is an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aimed to investigate patients' characteristics, prescription patterns, effectiveness, and treatment persistence in patients receiving baricitinib in real-world practice in Spain.

METHODS

This retrospective longitudinal cohort study conducted in five rheumatology units included adults with RA initiating baricitinib (Sep-2017-May-19) with at least a 6-month-follow-up. Demographic/clinical characteristics, prescription patterns, and changes in disease activity and pain level were collected until treatment discontinuation/end of follow-up. Treatment persistence was estimated by Kaplan-Meier methods.

RESULTS

Data from 182 patients were included (mean (SD)): 83.5% women, 62.2 (12.3) years, body mass index 26.8 (5.1), disease duration 13.2 (10.8) years and Charlson Comorbidity Index score 2.4 (2.0). All patients had received at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARD) before starting baricitinib and 78.0% at least one biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD). Furthermore, 90.1% started with baricitinib 4 mg/day; 43.4% in monotherapy. One hundred and twelve (61.5%) of patients continued baricitinib at data collection time; mean persistence was 14.1 (0.5) months. Overall treatment persistence was 79.7/64.8/59.1% at 6/12/18 months. Seventy (38.5%) patients discontinued baricitinib during follow-up due to loss of efficacy (68.6%) or adverse events (18.6%). In those patients with available scores at the different observed cut-off points, remission or low disease activity was reported in 71.6 and 76.3% of patients at 6/12 months at any index: Disease Activity Score 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) (73.1 and 73.5%), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) (62.4 and 75.0%), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) (66.7 and 78.1%). Good or moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)-response was noted in 80.0 and 78.2% of patients, respectively. Improvement from baseline in pain (Visual Analog Scale) was 2.5 cm and 3.0 cm at 6/12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This Spanish cohort of patients treated with baricitinib had a long-standing and refractory disease. Nevertheless, high persistence and improvements in disease activity and pain were found at 6 and 12 months after treatment initiation, independently of the composite disease activity measure used, reinforcing the effectiveness of baricitinib in routine clinical practice.

Toward Overcoming Treatment Failure in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder characterized by inflammation and bone erosion. The exact mechanism of RA is still unknown, but various immune cytokines, signaling pathways and effector cells are involved. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are commonly used in RA treatment and classified into different categories. Nevertheless, RA treatment is based on a "trial-and-error" approach, and a substantial proportion of patients show failed therapy for each DMARD. Over the past decades, great efforts have been made to overcome treatment failure, including identification of biomarkers, exploration of the reasons for loss of efficacy, development of sequential or combinational DMARDs strategies and approval of new DMARDs. Here, we summarize these efforts, which would provide valuable insights for accurate RA clinical medication. While gratifying, researchers realize that these efforts are still far from enough to recommend specific DMARDs for individual patients. Precision medicine is an emerging medical model that proposes a highly individualized and tailored approach for disease management. In this review, we also discuss the potential of precision medicine for overcoming RA treatment failure, with the introduction of various cutting-edge technologies and big data.

Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibodies Correlate to Ultrasound Synovitis in Rheumatoid Arthritis Better Than C-Reactive Protein

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare ultrasound (US) grading and laboratory measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Two-hundred four patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received US evaluation for synovitis were included after excluding those using tocilizumab. Ultrasound grading of synovial hypertrophy (SH) and power Doppler (PD) at the most severe site were recorded. An assessment of the correlation of laboratory measures and US grading was conducted by reviewing the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

High-titer anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) antibodies positivity was associated with SH grade ≥2 (odds ratio [OR], 6.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-20.2) and PD grade ≥2 (OR, 5.56; 95% CI, 1.82-16.9). Recent C-reactive protein (CRP) levels ≥0.3 mg/dL were associated with SH grade ≥2 (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.38-7.10) and PD grade ≥2 (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.31-4.31). Anti-CCP antibody levels correlated with US scores better than the levels of CRP with higher Spearman ρ correlation coefficients. Most of the patients with recent CRP levels <0.3 mg/dL had US synovitis. In logistic regression, high levels of anti-CCP antibodies and CRP were both independently associated with SH grade ≥2 and PD grade ≥2.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher levels of anti-CCP antibodies and CRP may predict synovitis on US, whereas discrepancies existed between inflammatory markers and US grading. These findings suggest that US has a role in the comprehensive assessment of disease activity, especially for patients with high-titer positive anti-CCP antibodies.

Effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous abatacept in biologic-naïve RA patients at Week 52: A Japanese multicentre investigational study (ORIGAMI study)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of abatacept over 52 weeks in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with moderate disease activity in the prospective, 5-year, observational study (ORIGAMI study) in Japan.

METHODS

Abatacept (125 mg) was administered subcutaneously once a week. Clinical outcomes included Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) remission at Week 52 (primary endpoint), Japanese Health Assessment Questionnaire (J-HAQ), EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D), treatment retention, and safety. The results were compared with those of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) controls from the ongoing Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) registry.

RESULTS

Overall, 325 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 66.9 ± 12.7 years. The proportion of patients achieving SDAI remission (≤3.3) at Week 52 was 18.9% (95% CI: 14.3-23.6) and low disease activity (≤11) was 53.3% (95% CI: 47.4-59.1). A significant improvement was observed in J-HAQ and EQ-5D over 52 weeks in both the abatacept and csDMARD groups. The probability of abatacept treatment retention at Week 52 was 69.9% (95% CI: 64.7-75.5). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported in 50.0% and 12.1% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Abatacept significantly improved disease activity, physical disability, and quality of life for up to 52 weeks in RA patients in a real-world setting.

The impact of seropositivity on the effectiveness of biologic anti-rheumatic agents: results from a collaboration of 16 registries

OBJECTIVES

RF and ACPA are used as diagnostic tools and their presence has been associated with clinical response to some biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in RA. This study compared the impact of seropositivity on drug discontinuation and effectiveness of bDMARDs in patients with RA, using head-to-head comparisons in a real-world setting.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of 16 observational RA registries. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of RA, initiation of treatment with rituximab (RTX), abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ) or TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and available information on RF and/or ACPA status. Drug discontinuation was analysed using Cox regression, including drug, seropositivity, their interaction, adjusting for concomitant and past treatments and patient and disease characteristics and accounting for country and calendar year of bDMARD initiation. Effectiveness was analysed using the Clinical Disease Activity Index evolution over time.

RESULTS

Among the 27 583 eligible patients, the association of seropositivity with drug discontinuation differed across bDMARDs (P for interaction <0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios for seropositive compared with seronegative patients were 1.01 (95% CI 0.95, 1.07) for TNFis, 0.89 (0.78, 1.02)] for TCZ, 0.80 (0.72, 0.88) for ABA and 0.70 (0.59, 0.84) for RTX. Adjusted differences in remission and low disease activity rates between seropositive and seronegative patients followed the same pattern, with no difference in TNFis, a small difference in TCZ, a larger difference in ABA and the largest difference in RTX (Lundex remission difference +5.9%, low disease activity difference +11.6%).

CONCLUSION

Seropositivity was associated with increased effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, especially RTX and ABA, but not TNFis.

Up to 5-year retention of abatacept in Belgian patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a sub-analysis of the international, observational ACTION study

Favorable efficacy and safety profiles have been demonstrated for abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in randomized controlled trials, but these data require validation during long-term follow-ups in routine clinical practice. This study explored long-term safety and retention rates in RA patients treated with intravenous abatacept in the Belgian cohort of the international AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study (NCT02109666). This non-interventional, observational, longitudinal study included Belgian patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderate-to-severe RA who started intravenous abatacept treatment as first- or second/further-line biologic therapy in routine clinical practice. Between October 2010 and December 2012, 141 patients were enrolled in this cohort, of whom 135 evaluable patients (6 biologic-naïve; 129 previously exposed to ≥ 1 prior biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) were eligible for the descriptive analysis; 131/135 were included in the effectiveness analysis. Mean disease duration was 10.5 years (standard deviation 9.7) before abatacept initiation. RA patients presented with high disease activity and comorbidity rate, having failed multiple previous treatment options. In this cohort, the 5-year abatacept retention rate was 34% (95% confidence interval, 23-45%) per protocol, and 51% (95% confidence interval, 40-61%) when temporary discontinuations of abatacept > 84 days (n = 24) were not considered as treatment discontinuations. After 5 years of abatacept treatment, clinical outcomes were favorable [good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses in 91.7% patients]. No new safety signals were detected for abatacept in routine clinical practice. In this difficult-to-treat Belgian RA population, high retention rates, good clinical outcomes and favorable safety profile were observed with abatacept.

Actual Persistence of Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of the French-Ric Network

OBJECTIVES

Data on abatacept (ABA) persistence in routine practice are limited. We aimed to study ABA persistence rates at 12 months, according to the date of initiation, and to analyze the factors associated with persistence at 12 months.

METHODS

We performed an observational, ambispective, multi-center study from January 2008 to July 2016, based on the French-RIC Network. We defined three groups of patients followed up for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), according to the date of initiation of ABA therapy: Group 1 (from 2007 to 31 July 2010: ABA indicated after anti-TNF failure); Group 2 (from 1 August 2010 to 31 March 2014: ABA indicated after conventional antirheumatic drugs failure); Group 3 (from 1 April 2014 to 1 July 2016: ABA available by the subcutaneous injection).

RESULTS

Among 517 patients who initiated ABA, drug persistence at 12 months was 68%. The only factor significantly associated with persistence rate at 12 months was C-reactive protein (CRP) < 10 mg/L at ABA initiation (odds ratio (OR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.3-0.9; p = 0.0016). There was no significant difference in drug persistence according to date of initiation, the line of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) therapy or the route of administration.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine practice, over time, ABA has come to be initiated earlier in the course of therapy for RA in France. Abatacept persistence is similar to that reported in the Orencia Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORA) registry, and does not differ according to the date of initiation. The only factor found to be associated with the persistence rate at 12 months was CRP < 10 mg/L at ABA initiation.

Drug retention of secondary biologics or JAK inhibitors after tocilizumab or abatacept failure as first biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis -the ANSWER cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this multicenter, retrospective study was to clarify the retention of secondary biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were primarily treated by tocilizumab (TCZ) or abatacept (ABT) as first bDMARDs.

METHOD

Patients who were treated by either TCZ (n = 145) or ABT (n = 76) and then switched to either tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), TCZ, ABT, or JAKi (including only cases switched from TCZ) from 2001 to 2019 (female 81.0%, age 59.5 years, disease duration 8.8 years; rheumatoid factor positivity 75.4%; Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein 3.7; concomitant prednisolone (PSL) dose 6.0 mg/day (51.8%) and methotrexate (MTX) dose 8.0 mg/week (56.1%); 81.9% discontinued first bDMARDs due to lack of effectiveness) were included. Drug retention and discontinuation reasons were estimated at 24 months using the Kaplan-Meier method and adjusted for potential confounders by Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

Drug retentions for each of the reasons for discontinuation were as follows: lack of effectiveness in TCZ-switched group (TNFi (59.5%), ABT (82.2%), and JAKi (84.3%); TNFi vs. ABT; P = 0.009) and ABT-switched group (TNFi (79.6%) and TCZ (92.6%); P = 0.053). Overall retention excluding non-toxic reasons and remission for discontinuation were TNFi (49.9%), ABT (72.7%), and JAKi (72.6%) (TNFi vs. ABT; P = 0.017) in the TCZ-switched group and TNFi (69.6%) and TCZ (72.4%) (P = 0.44) in the ABT-switched group.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to ABT in TCZ-treated patients led to higher retention as compared with TNFi. Switching to TCZ in ABT-treated patients tended to lead to higher retention due to effectiveness, although total retention was similar as compared with TNFi. Key Point • This is the first retrospective, multi-center study aimed to clarify the retention rates of secondary bDMARDs or JAKi in patients with RA who were primarily being treated by TCZ or ABT as the first bDMARDs.

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Systemic Sclerosis: Review of Current Status

Three prospective controlled clinical trials and numerous small series and case reports have confirmed that durable, drug-free remission in systemic sclerosis is possible via an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Similar results have been seen in other autoimmune diseases. The exact mechanism by which this immune "reset" was achieved in some but not all cases remains elusive, but includes major reduction of autoreactive immune competent cells, re-establishment of T- and B cell regulatory networks and normalization of tissue niche function, particularly vascular. Some aspects regarding mobilization, conditioning and graft manipulation still remain open, but clearly a significant toxicity is associated with all effective regimens at present, and therefore patient selection remains a key issue. In the hematology/oncology arena, major efforts are being made to reduce genotoxic and other collateral toxicity induced by current mobilization and conditioning protocols, which may also translate to autoimmune disease. These include developments in rapid mobilization and antibody drug conjugate conditioning technology. If effective, such low-toxicity regimens might be applied to autoimmune disease at an earlier stage before chronicity of autoimmunity has been established, thus changing the therapeutic paradigm.

Two-year abatacept retention rate in clinical practice in the French ACTION cohort

OBJECTIVES

Abatacept retention rates were evaluated in the French cohort in the prospective ACTION study (2010-2013), which included patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis managed in everyday clinical practice and started on intravenous abatacept therapy.

METHODS

Two-year abatacept retention rates were evaluated in 455 patients classified according to treatment line, body mass index (BMI), and status for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA).

RESULTS

After 2 years, the overall abatacept retention rate was 44%. The retention rate was non-significantly higher in the patients with vs. without a history of unresponsiveness to at least one biologic (48.1% vs. 41.8%, respectively). No significant retention rate differences were found across BMI categories (444 patients; <25, 45.5%; ≥25 to <30, 48.9%; and ≥30, 36.6%). Neither were any significant differences demonstrated according to RF and ACPA status (RF+ and ACPA+, 45.7%; RF+ or ACPA+, 43.8%; and FR- and ACPA-, 39.1%).

CONCLUSION

The 44% 2-year retention rate in the French ACTION cohort supports the usefulness of abatacept therapy. In this study, retention was not associated with treatment line, BMI, or antibody status.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries

INTRODUCTION

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries.

METHOD

Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries.

RESULTS

In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163).

CONCLUSIONS

In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort.

KEY POINTS

• Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.