Search

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs)., Results: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs., Conclusions: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TS was an employee of and shareholder in Bristol Myers Squibb (at the time of the analysis; former employee at present). LD, VK, AD and MAM are employees of and shareholders in Bristol Myers Squibb. SS reports advisory board involvement, speaker fees and grant/research support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. KM reports grant/research support from Rheumatology Research Foundation. MH is an employee of the University of Maryland School of Medicine (full time) and US Department of Veterans Affairs (part time); reports consultancy fees and advisory board involvement from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Kolon TissueGene, Inc, Novartis, Pfizer, Samumed and Theralogix; is a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Galapagos, Roche, and IQVIA; reports royalties from Elsevier and UpToDate; reports stock ownership in BriOri Biotech and Theralogix; and is president of Rheumcon. MB reports consultancy fees from Novartis. JA reports grant/research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi and UCB for ARTIS. AS reports speaker fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer and Roche., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A method was developed to monitor triazines in surface water using the combination of solid phase extraction (SPE) and high performance liquid chromatography. Four different SPE cartridges were tested for extracting six triazines, including atrazine (A), simazine (S), prometryn (P), desethylatrazine (DEA), 2-hydroxyatrazine (OHA) and desisopropylatrazine (DIA), and finally ENVI-18 was selected as optimal. The method for solid phase extraction was further systematically studied for details. Optimal results of orthogonal design were determined as follows: pH 6, 5 mL methanol as eluting solvent, and no methanol added into water sample before extraction. The detection limits of six triazines were 0.14 microg/L for P, 0.12 microg/L for A, 0.08 microg/L for S, 0.08 microg/L for DEA, 0.10 microg/L for OHA and 0.18 microg/L for DIA. This method was applied for environmental aquatic samples, and the results showed that the concentration of prometryn in a lake was detected as (9.33 +/- 0.27) microg/L, as well as the concentrations of atrazine and prometryn in a river were detected as (5.28 +/- 0.43) microg/L and (7.12 +/- 0.54) microg/L respectively.