Two-year treatment persistence with subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the French cohort of the ASCORE study.

IF 3.4 4区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
René-Marc Flipo, Arnaud Constantin, Philippe Goupille, Mélanie Chartier, Anaël Ohayon, Xavier Mariette
{"title":"Two-year treatment persistence with subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the French cohort of the ASCORE study.","authors":"René-Marc Flipo, Arnaud Constantin, Philippe Goupille, Mélanie Chartier, Anaël Ohayon, Xavier Mariette","doi":"10.55563/clinexprheumatol/ddx0fz","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>While multiple studies have investigated treatment persistence rates with intravenous abatacept, limited information is available about real-world treatment continuation with the subcutaneous form. The international ASCORE study described the characteristics and treatment persistence of real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving subcutaneous abatacept. This article presents the findings of the French cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was an observational study in French RA patients who initiated subcutaneous abatacept between August 2014 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was treatment maintenance at 2 years, analysed according to the number of previous biologic therapies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 546 evaluable patients, 281 (51.5%) were biologic-naive, 265 (48.5%) had experienced failure with 1 (n=134; 24.5%) or ≥2 (n=131; 24.0%) biologic therapies. At enrolment, patients who had experienced failure with ≥1 biologic therapy had more erosions and a longer duration of RA compared with biologic-naive patients, but had comparable mean disease activity scores. Overall, 43.0% of patients (95% confidence interval 38.6-47.2) were still taking subcutaneous abatacept at 2 years, which was comparable with that in other countries participating in ASCORE. The abatacept persistence rate was higher in biologic-naive patients (48.8%) than in those with 1 (40.9%) or ≥2 (32.8%) biologic therapy failures. The main reason for discontinuing abatacept was lack of efficacy (46.6%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In current practice in France, the rate of subcutaneous abatacept persistence at 2 years was comparable with that of the intravenous form. Treatment persistence was higher when abatacept was used as first-line versus later-line biologic therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":10274,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and experimental rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and experimental rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55563/clinexprheumatol/ddx0fz","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: While multiple studies have investigated treatment persistence rates with intravenous abatacept, limited information is available about real-world treatment continuation with the subcutaneous form. The international ASCORE study described the characteristics and treatment persistence of real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving subcutaneous abatacept. This article presents the findings of the French cohort.

Methods: This was an observational study in French RA patients who initiated subcutaneous abatacept between August 2014 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was treatment maintenance at 2 years, analysed according to the number of previous biologic therapies.

Results: Of 546 evaluable patients, 281 (51.5%) were biologic-naive, 265 (48.5%) had experienced failure with 1 (n=134; 24.5%) or ≥2 (n=131; 24.0%) biologic therapies. At enrolment, patients who had experienced failure with ≥1 biologic therapy had more erosions and a longer duration of RA compared with biologic-naive patients, but had comparable mean disease activity scores. Overall, 43.0% of patients (95% confidence interval 38.6-47.2) were still taking subcutaneous abatacept at 2 years, which was comparable with that in other countries participating in ASCORE. The abatacept persistence rate was higher in biologic-naive patients (48.8%) than in those with 1 (40.9%) or ≥2 (32.8%) biologic therapy failures. The main reason for discontinuing abatacept was lack of efficacy (46.6%).

Conclusions: In current practice in France, the rate of subcutaneous abatacept persistence at 2 years was comparable with that of the intravenous form. Treatment persistence was higher when abatacept was used as first-line versus later-line biologic therapy.

类风湿性关节炎患者皮下注射阿帕他赛两年后的持续治疗情况:ASCORE 研究法国队列的结果。
研究目的虽然多项研究对静脉注射阿帕他赛的治疗持续率进行了调查,但有关皮下注射阿帕他赛的实际治疗持续率的信息却很有限。国际 ASCORE 研究描述了现实世界中接受皮下注射阿帕他赛的类风湿关节炎(RA)患者的特征和治疗持续率。本文介绍了法国队列的研究结果:这是一项观察性研究,研究对象为2014年8月至2017年1月期间开始接受皮下注射阿巴他赛普的法国RA患者。主要终点是治疗维持2年,根据既往生物疗法的数量进行分析:在546名可评估的患者中,281人(51.5%)未接受过生物治疗,265人(48.5%)接受过1次(n=134;24.5%)或≥2次(n=131;24.0%)生物治疗失败。与未接受生物制剂治疗的患者相比,曾接受过≥1种生物制剂治疗失败的患者在入组时有更多的糜烂,RA病程更长,但平均疾病活动度评分相当。总体而言,43.0%的患者(95%置信区间为38.6-47.2)在2年后仍在服用皮下注射阿帕他赛,这一比例与参与ASCORE的其他国家相当。未接受过生物治疗的患者(48.8%)的阿巴他赛持续服用率高于接受过1次(40.9%)或≥2次(32.8%)生物治疗失败的患者。停用阿帕他赛的主要原因是缺乏疗效(46.6%):结论:在法国目前的临床实践中,皮下注射阿巴他赛普(abatacept)2年的持续治疗率与静脉注射阿巴他赛普(abatacept)相当。阿巴他赛普作为一线生物疗法比作为后线生物疗法的治疗持续率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
18.90%
发文量
377
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology is a bi-monthly international peer-reviewed journal which has been covering all clinical, experimental and translational aspects of musculoskeletal, arthritic and connective tissue diseases since 1983.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信