Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA
dc.contributor.author | Harrold, Leslie R | |
dc.contributor.author | Connolly, Sean E | |
dc.contributor.author | Wittstock, Keith | |
dc.contributor.author | Zhuo, Joe | |
dc.contributor.author | Kelly, Sheila | |
dc.contributor.author | Lehman, Thomas | |
dc.contributor.author | Shan, Ying | |
dc.contributor.author | Rebello, Sabrina | |
dc.contributor.author | Guo, Lin | |
dc.contributor.author | Khaychuk, Vadim | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-25T18:41:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-04-25T18:41:28Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-12-23 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Harrold LR, Connolly SE, Wittstock K, Zhuo J, Kelly S, Lehman T, Shan Y, Rebello S, Guo L, Khaychuk V. Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA. Rheumatol Ther. 2022 Apr;9(2):465-480. doi: 10.1007/s40744-021-00401-0. Epub 2021 Dec 23. PMID: 34940957; PMCID: PMC8964884. | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 2198-6576 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s40744-021-00401-0 | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 34940957 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/51996 | |
dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Rheumatology and Therapy | en_US |
dc.relation.url | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40744-021-00401-0 | en_US |
dc.rights | Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non- Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis- sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. | en_US |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject | Anti-cyclic citrullinated antibodies | en_US |
dc.subject | Biological therapy | en_US |
dc.subject | Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs | en_US |
dc.subject | Outcome assessment | en_US |
dc.subject | Rheumatoid arthritis | en_US |
dc.title | Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA | en_US |
dc.type | Journal Article | en_US |
dc.source.journaltitle | Rheumatology and therapy | |
dc.source.volume | 9 | |
dc.source.issue | 2 | |
dc.source.beginpage | 465 | |
dc.source.endpage | 480 | |
dc.source.country | England | |
dc.identifier.journal | Rheumatology and therapy | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2023-04-25T18:41:29Z | |
dc.contributor.department | Medicine | en_US |