Real-world predictors of 12-month intravenous abatacept retention in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ACTION observational study

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.

Effect of body mass index on treatment response of biologic-/targeted synthetic-DMARDs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis. A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overweight and/or obese patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) have higher disease activity and lower chances of achieving and/or maintaining the treatment targets. Weight/obesity also appears to negatively affect the response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in patients with IA, including rheumatoid arthritis -RA, psoriatic arthritis -PsA, axial spondyloarthritis -AxSpA. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) for the effect of weight/body-mass-index (BMI) in the efficacy of all approved b- and targeted-synthetic (ts)- DMARDs for the treatment of IA.

METHODS

For this PROSPERO-registered SLR, we searched PubMed, Scopus and Cohrane-Library from inception up to June 21st 2022. Clinical-trials (randomized and non-randomized) and observational studies of RA, PsA or AxSpA patients that reported the effect of weight/BMI on response (all possible outcomes) to b/ts-DMARDs were included. Risk-of-bias was assessed via RoB2-Cochrane-tool and Newcastle-Ottawa-scale for randomized and non-randomized studies, respectively.

FINDINGS

Out of 996 references, 75 eventually fulfilled the inclusion criteria (of which 10 studies were retrieved through manual-search). Among the included studies (TNF-inhibitors: 34, IL-12/23 inhibitors: 4, IL-23 inhibitor: 1, IL-17 inhibitors: 7, tocilizumab: 18, abatacept: 8, rituximab: 3, JAK-inhibitors: 5), most had medium RoB. Efficacy of TNF-inhibitors was affected by BMI in all forms of IA. Data are not robust to compare the effect among various TNF-inhibitors. In contrast, favorable results of IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors did not appear to be influenced by increased BMI in PsA or AxSpA patients. Similar evidence exists for tocilizumab (in RA) and for abatacept (in RA and PsA), while no conclusion can be drawn for rituximab. More data are needed for JAK-inhibitors, although the effect of weight/BMI does not seem to be significant so far.

INTERPRETATION

Weight/BMI should be considered in the treatment-plan of patients with IA, with its effect being more pronounced for TNF-inhibitors compared to other b/ts-DMARDs.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib and baricitinib in patients with RA in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A total of 242 patients with RA who were treated with tofacitinib (n = 161) or baricitinib (n = 81) were enrolled. We evaluated efficacy and safety between tofacitinib and baricitinib using multivariable analyses to avoid confounding. Their clinical disease activity and AEs were evaluated for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) DAS28-ESR change from baseline to 24 weeks was 1.57 (1.55) (tofacitinib) and 1.46 (1.36) (baricitinib). There was no significant difference in the clinical response between the two groups (adjusted mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.28). The efficacy was not significantly changed in the patients without concomitant MTX use in both groups, but the concomitant MTX use showed better clinical efficacy in the cases of baricitinib treatment. In both groups, the most common AE was herpes zoster infection, and the AE rates were similar between the two groups. However, the predictive factors contributing to clinical response as revealed by a multivariable logistic analysis differed. The concomitant oral steroid use was independently associated with the achievement of DAS-low disease activity in the tofacitinib group, whereas in the baricitinib group, the number of biological and/or targeted synthetic DMARDs previously used was associated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that tofacitinib and baricitinib had comparable continuing efficacies and safety profiles. However, there is a possibility that the influence of clinical characteristics on the treatment response differs. The comparison provides useful information to the optimal use of JAK inhibitors in real-world settings.

Influence of the FCGR2A rs1801274 and FCGR3A rs396991 Polymorphisms on Response to Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abatacept (ABA) is an immunosuppressant indicated for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Effectiveness might be influenced by clinical RA variants and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding protein FCGR2A (His131Arg) and FCGR3A (Phe158Val) involved in pharmacokinetics of ABA. An observational cohort study was conducted in 120 RA Caucasian patients treated with ABA for 6 and 12 months. Patients with the FCGR2A rs1801274-AA genotype (FCGR2A-p.131His) showed a better EULAR response (OR = 2.43; 95% CI = 1.01-5.92) at 12 months and low disease activity (LDA) at 6 months (OR = 3.16; 95% CI = 1.19-8.66) and 12 months (OR = 6.62; 95% CI = 1.25-46.89) of treatment with ABA. A tendency was observed towards an association between the FCGR3A rs396991-A allele (FCGR3A-p.158Phe) and better therapeutic response to ABA after 12 months of treatment (p = 0.078). Moreover, we found a significant association between the low-affinity FCGR2A/FCGR3A haplotypes variable and LDA after 12 months of ABA treatment (OR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.01-2.58). The clinical variables associated with better response to ABA were lower age at starting ABA (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 1.02-1.11) and greater duration of ABA treatment (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 1.01-1.04), lower duration of previous biological therapies (OR = 0.99; 95% CI = 0.98-0.99), non-administration of concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (OR = 24.53; 95% CI = 3.46-523.80), non-use of concomitant glucocorticoids (OR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.02-0.47), monotherapy (OR = 19.22; 95% CI = 2.05-343.00), lower initial patient's visual analogue scale (PVAS) value (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.92-0.97), and lower baseline ESR (OR = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.87-0.97). This study showed that high-affinity FCGR2A-p.131His variant, low-affinity FCGR3A-p.158Phe variant, and combined use of FCGR2A/FCGR3A genetic variations could affect ABA effectiveness. Further studies will be required to confirm these results.

Impact of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms of CTLA-4, CD80 and CD86 on the Effectiveness of Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Abatacept (ABA) is used as a first-line treatment in patients diagnosed with moderate and severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The interindividual response to ABA therapy is very variable in these patients. The objective of our study was therefore to investigate the role of polymorphisms of the CTLA-4, CD80 and CD86 genes, as well as that of clinical factors of the disease, in the response to ABA in patients with RA. A retrospective cohort study was carried out in 109 patients receiving treatment with ABA and diagnosed with RA. The genetic variables were analyzed using real-time PCR with TaqMan^® probes. The patients were classified according to the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria at 6 and 12 months from start of treatment. The independent variables associated with higher EULAR response were lower duration of previous biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and lower baseline values of the disease activity score 28 after 6 months of ABA treatment; and lower baseline patient’s visual analogue scale (PVAS) after 12 months. In addition, a significant association was found between duration of ABA treatment, non-administration of concomitant glucocorticoids and lower baseline values of the number of inflamed joints and erythrocyte sedimentation rate clinical variables, with remission of the disease after 6 months’ treatment with ABA. Finally, remission of the disease after 12 months’ treatment with ABA was associated with earlier age at start of ABA therapy and lower number of previous biologic therapies (BTs). The CTLA-4rs5742909-T allele and the CTLA-4rs231775-G allele were found to be associated with satisfactory EULAR response and low disease activity (LDA) after 12 months’ treatment with ABA (CTLA-4rs5742909 T vs. CC; OR = 5.88; CI_95% = 1.48–23.29 and OR = 4.75; CI_95% = 1.35–17.94, respectively, and CTLA-4rs231775 G vs. AA, OR = 3.48; CI_95% = 1.20–10.09 and OR = 4.68; CI_95% = 1.49–17.94, respectively). In conclusion, patients with RA treated with ABA showed better EULAR response and LDA rate when they had the CTLA-4 rs5742909-T or CTLA-4 rs231775-G polymorphisms; furthermore, this remission rate increased in patients that began ABA treatment earlier, those with a lower number of previous BTs and those with a lower PVAS value.

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.

Abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: survival on drug, clinical outcomes, and their predictors-data from a large national quality register

BACKGROUND

There are limited data regarding efficacy of abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) outside clinical trials. Quality registers have been useful for observational studies on tumor necrosis factor inhibition in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical efficacy and tolerability of abatacept in RA, using a national register.

METHODS

RA patients that started abatacept between 2006 and 2017 and were included in the Swedish Rheumatology Quality register (N = 2716) were investigated. Survival on drug was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. The European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good response and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) response (improvement of ≥ 0.3) rates (LUNDEX corrected for drug survival) at 6 and at 12 months were assessed. Predictors of discontinuation were investigated by Cox regression analyses, and predictors of clinical response by logistic regression. Significance-based backward stepwise selection of variables was used for the final multivariate models.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in drug survival by previous biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) exposure (p < 0.001), with longer survival in bionaïve patients. Men (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-0.98) and methotrexate users (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.95) were less likely to discontinue abatacept, whereas a high pain score predicted discontinuation (HR 1.14 per standard deviation, 95% CI 1.07-1.20). The absence of previous bDMARD exposure, male sex, and a low HAQ score were independently associated with LUNDEX-corrected EULAR good response. The absence of previous bDMARD exposure also predicted LUNDEX-corrected HAQ response.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study of RA, bDMARD naïve patients and male patients were more likely to remain on abatacept with a major clinical response.

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.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in Austrian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the 2-year ACTION study

BACKGROUND

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was a 2-year international observational study of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, abatacept retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the Austrian cohort of ACTION.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients enrolled in Austria, 98 (98.0%) were evaluable: 33/98 (33.7%) biologic naïve and 65/98 (66.3%) with ≥1 prior biologic failure. At baseline, biologic-naïve patients had shorter disease duration and lower concomitant corticosteroid use than biologic-failure patients. Overall crude abatacept retention rate was 60.5% and retention rate was higher in biologic-naïve (65.1%) versus biologic-failure (58.0%) patients. Good/moderate EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response rates were 85.7% in biologic-naïve and 100% in biologic-failure patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Austrian cohort of ACTION, overall abatacept retention at 2 years was high, with higher retention rates in patients receiving abatacept as an earlier treatment line. Good/moderate EULAR response rate was higher in biologic-failure than in biologic-naïve patients.

Using the Immunophenotype to Predict Response to Biologic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α is a key mediator of inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis, and its discovery led to the development of highly successful anti-TNF therapy. Subsequently, other biologic drugs targeting immune pathways, namely interleukin-6 blockade, B cell depletion, and T cell co-stimulation blockade, have been developed. Not all patients respond to a biologic drug, leading to a knowledge gap between biologic therapies available and the confident prediction of response. So far, genetic studies have failed to uncover clinically informative biomarkers to predict response. Given that the targets of biologics are immune pathways, immunological study has become all the more pertinent. Furthermore, advances in single-cell technology have enabled the characterization of many leucocyte subsets. Studying the blood immunophenotype may therefore, define biomarker profiles relevant to each individual patient's disease and treatment outcome. This review summarises our current understanding of how immune biomarkers might be able to predict treatment response to biologic drugs.

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.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry

Background

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent).

Methods

Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

Multicenter, observational clinical study of abatacept in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis

The aim of this study was to assess abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient. Patients (20 men, 89 women, aged 61.9 ± 10.4 y) who responded inadequately to conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug were treated with abatacept for 24-months. Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28-CRP) was evaluated. Of 109 patients, 82 (75.2%) were on methotrexate (MTX; mean dosage 9.0 ± 2.7 mg/week); 48 (44.0%) were naive to biologics and 61 (56.0%) had failed biologics. The 1- and 2-year retention rates were 77% and 53%, respectively. At 24-months, the DAS28-CRP remission rates were 54.5% in the biologic-naïve patients, and 28.2% in the biologic-failure patients (p < .01), while the structural remission rates were 83.9% and 73.1%, respectively (p = .461). Abatacept was equally effective in RA patients who were and were not on concomitant MTX. Biologic-naïve was associated with better clinical outcome. Abatacept was effective in patients who showed decreasing anti-CCP antibody titers or serum MMP-3 levels during treatment. Infection was the most frequent adverse effect of abatacept therapy. In conclusion, abatacept is more effective in biologic-naïve than in biologic-failure RA patients with or without concomitant use of MTX. Abatacept is more effective in RA patients with than without decreasing serum MMP-3 or anti-CCP antibody titers during treatment.