{"title":"类风湿性关节炎患者使用巴利替尼和阿巴他赛普的临床疗效。","authors":"Shuji Asai, Nobunori Takahashi, Kenya Terabe, Yutaka Yoshioka, Toshihisa Kojima, Tomonori Kobayakawa, Yasumori Sobue, Tatsuo Watanabe, Yuji Hirano, Yasuhide Kanayama, Takefumi Kato, Masahiro Hanabayashi, Mochihito Suzuki, Shiro Imagama","doi":"10.1111/1756-185X.15414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study included 274 patients treated with abatacept and 241 treated with baricitinib who were followed for >52 weeks. Potential treatment selection bias was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The paired <i>t</i>-test was used to assess differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score relative to baseline. A generalized estimating equation was used to compare the two treatment groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.2 at baseline and significantly decreased to 12.6 at 4 weeks, 8.9 at 12 weeks, 7.4 at 24 weeks, and 6.1 at 52 weeks in the abatacept group. The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.6 at baseline and significantly decreased to 9.5 at 4 weeks, 6.5 at 12 weeks, 5.7 at 24 weeks, and 5.5 at 52 weeks in the baricitinib group. The baricitinib group had significantly lower CDAI scores at 4, 12, and 24 weeks compared to the abatacept group. Subgroup analyses revealed that this difference was evident among patients with high disease activity and without concomitant use of methotrexate but was less pronounced among those with remission to moderate disease activity status with methotrexate use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Both baricitinib and abatacept were effective in reducing disease activity in patients with RA. Baricitinib demonstrated potential advantages over abatacept in terms of early disease control, particularly in patients with high disease activity and without methotrexate use.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14330,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis\",\"authors\":\"Shuji Asai, Nobunori Takahashi, Kenya Terabe, Yutaka Yoshioka, Toshihisa Kojima, Tomonori Kobayakawa, Yasumori Sobue, Tatsuo Watanabe, Yuji Hirano, Yasuhide Kanayama, Takefumi Kato, Masahiro Hanabayashi, Mochihito Suzuki, Shiro Imagama\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1756-185X.15414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study included 274 patients treated with abatacept and 241 treated with baricitinib who were followed for >52 weeks. Potential treatment selection bias was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The paired <i>t</i>-test was used to assess differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score relative to baseline. A generalized estimating equation was used to compare the two treatment groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.2 at baseline and significantly decreased to 12.6 at 4 weeks, 8.9 at 12 weeks, 7.4 at 24 weeks, and 6.1 at 52 weeks in the abatacept group. The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.6 at baseline and significantly decreased to 9.5 at 4 weeks, 6.5 at 12 weeks, 5.7 at 24 weeks, and 5.5 at 52 weeks in the baricitinib group. The baricitinib group had significantly lower CDAI scores at 4, 12, and 24 weeks compared to the abatacept group. Subgroup analyses revealed that this difference was evident among patients with high disease activity and without concomitant use of methotrexate but was less pronounced among those with remission to moderate disease activity status with methotrexate use.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Both baricitinib and abatacept were effective in reducing disease activity in patients with RA. Baricitinib demonstrated potential advantages over abatacept in terms of early disease control, particularly in patients with high disease activity and without methotrexate use.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1756-185X.15414\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1756-185X.15414","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Aim
The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of baricitinib and abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods
This study included 274 patients treated with abatacept and 241 treated with baricitinib who were followed for >52 weeks. Potential treatment selection bias was addressed by using inverse probability of treatment weighting. The paired t-test was used to assess differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score relative to baseline. A generalized estimating equation was used to compare the two treatment groups.
Results
The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.2 at baseline and significantly decreased to 12.6 at 4 weeks, 8.9 at 12 weeks, 7.4 at 24 weeks, and 6.1 at 52 weeks in the abatacept group. The estimated mean CDAI score was 18.6 at baseline and significantly decreased to 9.5 at 4 weeks, 6.5 at 12 weeks, 5.7 at 24 weeks, and 5.5 at 52 weeks in the baricitinib group. The baricitinib group had significantly lower CDAI scores at 4, 12, and 24 weeks compared to the abatacept group. Subgroup analyses revealed that this difference was evident among patients with high disease activity and without concomitant use of methotrexate but was less pronounced among those with remission to moderate disease activity status with methotrexate use.
Conclusion
Both baricitinib and abatacept were effective in reducing disease activity in patients with RA. Baricitinib demonstrated potential advantages over abatacept in terms of early disease control, particularly in patients with high disease activity and without methotrexate use.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Rheumatic Diseases (formerly APLAR Journal of Rheumatology) is the official journal of the Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology. The Journal accepts original articles on clinical or experimental research pertinent to the rheumatic diseases, work on connective tissue diseases and other immune and allergic disorders. The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality and originality of the research and its significance to our readership. Except where otherwise stated, manuscripts are peer reviewed by two anonymous reviewers and the Editor.