Search

Introduction: The efficacy of abatacept is enhanced in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive versus -negative patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Four early RA abatacept trials were analyzed to understand the differential impact of abatacept among patients with SeroPositive Early and Active RA (SPEAR) compared to non-SPEAR patients. Methods: Pooled patient-level data from AGREE, AMPLE, AVERT, and AVERT-2 were analyzed. Patients were classified as SPEAR if they were ACPA +, RF +, disease duration < 1 year, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥ 3.2 at baseline; non-SPEAR otherwise. Outcomes included: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 at week 24; mean change from baseline to week 24 for DAS28 (CRP), Simple Disease Activity Index (SDAI), ACR core components; DAS28 (CRP) and SDAI remission. Adjusted regression analyses among abatacept-treated patients compared SPEAR and non-SPEAR patients, and in full trial population estimating how the efficacy of abatacept versus comparators [adalimumab + methotrexate, methotrexate] was modified by SPEAR status. Results: The study included 1400 SPEAR and 673 non-SPEAR patients; most were female (79.35%), white (77.38%), and with a mean age 49.26 (SD 12.86) years old. Around half with non-SPEAR were RF + and three-quarters ACPA +. Stronger improvements from baseline to week 24 were observed in almost all outcomes for abatacept-treated SPEAR versus non-SPEAR patients or versus SPEAR patients treated with comparators. Larger improvements were observed for SPEAR patients among the abatacept-treated population, and more strongly improved efficacy among SPEAR patients for abatacept than comparators. Conclusions: This analysis, including large patient numbers of early-RA abatacept trials, confirmed beneficial treatment effects of abatacept in patients with SPEAR versus non-SPEAR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM. Results: Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes. Conclusions: In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond to treatments differently based on their underlying serology and biomarker status, but real-world data comparing treatment responses to abatacept versus other non-TNFi biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs by anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status remain limited. We assessed the association between ACPA status and response to treatment in patients with RA. Methods: Adults from CorEvitas' RA Registry were identified who initiated abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, and had ACPA measured at/prior to treatment initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit. Three cohorts were included: abatacept/rituximab (2006–2019), abatacept/tocilizumab (2010–2019), and abatacept/tofacitinib (2012–2019). Patient characteristics at initiation were compared by ACPA status (positive [+], anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 [anti-CCP2] ≥ 20 U/ml; negative [−], anti-CCP2 < 20 U/ml). Outcomes over 6 months: changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and proportion of patients achieving a clinical response. Adjusted mean differences and odds ratios were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression models. Results: Overall, 982 abatacept, 246 rituximab, 404 tocilizumab, and 429 tofacitinib initiators were identified. ACPA+ (vs. ACPA−) patients had longer disease duration and more erosive disease. During most time periods adjusted mean changes in CDAI, mHAQ, and PGA scores and the proportion of patients achieving a clinical response were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA− patients initiating abatacept. Adjusted mean change in PGA score and patient fatigue were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA− patients initiating rituximab. No significant differences were seen by ACPA status for patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. Conclusions: Patients who initiated abatacept or rituximab and were ACPA+ had a greater clinical response at 6-month follow-up post index compared to patients who were ACPA– treated with the same biologic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]