Abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: survival on drug, clinical outcomes, and their predictors-data from a large national quality register.
Abatacept
Response predictors
Rheumatoid arthritis
Survival on drug
Treatment outcome
Journal
Arthritis research & therapy
ISSN: 1478-6362
Titre abrégé: Arthritis Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101154438
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 01 2020
22 01 2020
Historique:
received:
02
10
2019
accepted:
09
01
2020
entrez:
24
1
2020
pubmed:
24
1
2020
medline:
25
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31969172
doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-2100-y
pii: 10.1186/s13075-020-2100-y
pmc: PMC6977240
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antirheumatic Agents
0
Abatacept
7D0YB67S97
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
15Références
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Aug;67(8):1096-103
pubmed: 18055472
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2019 Jan 21;:
pubmed: 30668875
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jul;70(7):1216-22
pubmed: 21551512
Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Jan;66(1):46-52
pubmed: 17158139
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jun;68(6):1346-52
pubmed: 26815727
RMD Open. 2017 Dec 29;3(2):e000538
pubmed: 29435360
Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 Jul;67(7):1052-3
pubmed: 18556449
Ann Rheum Dis. 2014 Mar;73(3):492-509
pubmed: 24161836
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2014 Sep-Oct;32(5 Suppl 85):S-147-9
pubmed: 25365105
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006 Jun;1069:212-22
pubmed: 16855148
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Dec;56(12):3928-39
pubmed: 18050208
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2015 Apr;44(5):499-505
pubmed: 25440158
BMJ Open. 2018 Sep 11;8(9):e021447
pubmed: 30206082
J Rheumatol. 1993 Mar;20(3):557-60
pubmed: 8478873
Arthritis Rheum. 1980 Feb;23(2):137-45
pubmed: 7362664
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Jan 11;15:14
pubmed: 24410774
N Engl J Med. 1999 Jan 28;340(4):253-9
pubmed: 9920948
EBioMedicine. 2016 Sep;11:302-306
pubmed: 27558858
Int J Rheum Dis. 2018 Aug;21(8):1581-1590
pubmed: 29205926
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Mar;71(3):374-7
pubmed: 21972242
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Feb;54(2):600-6
pubmed: 16447237
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Mar;55(3):523-34
pubmed: 26490106
J Rheumatol. 2012 Jan;39(1):46-53
pubmed: 22089458
Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;36(4):773-779
pubmed: 27966068
J Rheumatol. 2007 Aug;34(8):1670-3
pubmed: 17611987
Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Jan;39(1):34-40
pubmed: 8546736
N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 15;353(11):1114-23
pubmed: 16162882
J Rheumatol. 2010 Nov;37(11):2216-20
pubmed: 20843902
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Dec;45(12):1558-65
pubmed: 16705046
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Apr;69(4):631-7
pubmed: 20215140
J Rheumatol. 2015 May;42(5):786-93
pubmed: 25834204
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2015 Jul;54(7):1186-93
pubmed: 25505001
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Mar;71(3):382-5
pubmed: 21998116
Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Oct;41(10):1845-50
pubmed: 9778226
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011 Jan-Feb;29(1):96-103
pubmed: 21269578
Lancet. 2004 Feb 28;363(9410):675-81
pubmed: 15001324
Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 May;74(5):890-6
pubmed: 24431398
Arthritis Rheum. 2006 Jan;54(1):26-37
pubmed: 16385520
Arthritis Rheum. 2000 Jul;43(7):1478-87
pubmed: 10902749
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan 15;59(1):32-41
pubmed: 18163417
RMD Open. 2015 Apr 30;1(1):e000040
pubmed: 26509062
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Sep;69(9):1596-602
pubmed: 20525843
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Mar;70(3):516-9
pubmed: 21081525
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Jun;71(6):997-9
pubmed: 22294628
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Nov;71(11):1861-4
pubmed: 22736086
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Jun 20;144(12):865-76
pubmed: 16785475
RMD Open. 2017 Nov 01;3(2):e000515
pubmed: 29177081
Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Jan;35(1):219-25
pubmed: 26631102
Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Jul;71(7):1134-42
pubmed: 22294625
N Engl J Med. 2000 Nov 30;343(22):1594-602
pubmed: 11096166