{"title":"非西替尼和阿巴接受治疗类风湿性关节炎的比较有效性和安全性:一项多中心逆概率加权分析。","authors":"Kento Ichikawa, Yosuke Kunishita, Satoru Shinoda, Kayo Harita, Chikara Honda, Naoki Suzuki, Kana Higashitani, Yuki Iizuka, Yuji Uzawa, Eriko Ohno, Chiharu Hidekawa, Takaaki Komiya, Natsuki Sakurai, Yuichiro Sato, Masaki Mitsuhashi, Naoki Hamada, Yuji Yoshioka, Naomi Tsuchida, Ayaka Maeda, Lisa Hirahara, Yutaro Soejima, Daiga Kishimoto, Hiroto Nakano, Kaoru Takase-Minegishi, Ryusuke Yoshimi, Yohei Kirino, Tadanobu Okubo, Shigeru Ohno, Shouhei Nagaoka, Hideaki Nakajima","doi":"10.1093/mr/roaf094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine the real-world effectiveness and safety of peficitinib (PEF) and abatacept (ABT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we examined patients who were administered PEF or ABT between July 2019 and July 2022. The primary endpoint was the one-year retention rate of PEF or ABT. The primary analyses were performed using treatment persistence, disease activity measurements, and safety parameters. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 219 patients were enrolled, with 64 receiving PEF and 155 receiving ABT. The one-year retention rates were 42.8% in the PEF group and 61.0% in the ABT group after IPTW (p = 0.0083). Two years following the initiation of treatment, the mean CDAI and SDAI showed comparable improvement in both groups after IPTW. Treatment discontinuation occurred primarily because of an inadequate therapeutic response (PEF: 41.3%, ABT: 28.1%) and adverse reactions (PEF: 11.1%, ABT: 3.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEF treatment resulted in lower retention rates compared with ABT, whereas both medications demonstrated effectiveness in controlling disease activity for patients who were able to continue treatment. Our findings contribute to informed decision-making in RA treatment in actual clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":18705,"journal":{"name":"Modern Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Peficitinib and Abatacept for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multicenter, Inverse Probability Weighting Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kento Ichikawa, Yosuke Kunishita, Satoru Shinoda, Kayo Harita, Chikara Honda, Naoki Suzuki, Kana Higashitani, Yuki Iizuka, Yuji Uzawa, Eriko Ohno, Chiharu Hidekawa, Takaaki Komiya, Natsuki Sakurai, Yuichiro Sato, Masaki Mitsuhashi, Naoki Hamada, Yuji Yoshioka, Naomi Tsuchida, Ayaka Maeda, Lisa Hirahara, Yutaro Soejima, Daiga Kishimoto, Hiroto Nakano, Kaoru Takase-Minegishi, Ryusuke Yoshimi, Yohei Kirino, Tadanobu Okubo, Shigeru Ohno, Shouhei Nagaoka, Hideaki Nakajima\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/mr/roaf094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine the real-world effectiveness and safety of peficitinib (PEF) and abatacept (ABT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we examined patients who were administered PEF or ABT between July 2019 and July 2022. The primary endpoint was the one-year retention rate of PEF or ABT. The primary analyses were performed using treatment persistence, disease activity measurements, and safety parameters. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 219 patients were enrolled, with 64 receiving PEF and 155 receiving ABT. The one-year retention rates were 42.8% in the PEF group and 61.0% in the ABT group after IPTW (p = 0.0083). Two years following the initiation of treatment, the mean CDAI and SDAI showed comparable improvement in both groups after IPTW. Treatment discontinuation occurred primarily because of an inadequate therapeutic response (PEF: 41.3%, ABT: 28.1%) and adverse reactions (PEF: 11.1%, ABT: 3.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PEF treatment resulted in lower retention rates compared with ABT, whereas both medications demonstrated effectiveness in controlling disease activity for patients who were able to continue treatment. Our findings contribute to informed decision-making in RA treatment in actual clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/mr/roaf094\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/mr/roaf094","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Peficitinib and Abatacept for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multicenter, Inverse Probability Weighting Analysis.
Objectives: To examine the real-world effectiveness and safety of peficitinib (PEF) and abatacept (ABT) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we examined patients who were administered PEF or ABT between July 2019 and July 2022. The primary endpoint was the one-year retention rate of PEF or ABT. The primary analyses were performed using treatment persistence, disease activity measurements, and safety parameters. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to adjust for confounding variables.
Results: A total of 219 patients were enrolled, with 64 receiving PEF and 155 receiving ABT. The one-year retention rates were 42.8% in the PEF group and 61.0% in the ABT group after IPTW (p = 0.0083). Two years following the initiation of treatment, the mean CDAI and SDAI showed comparable improvement in both groups after IPTW. Treatment discontinuation occurred primarily because of an inadequate therapeutic response (PEF: 41.3%, ABT: 28.1%) and adverse reactions (PEF: 11.1%, ABT: 3.8%).
Conclusions: PEF treatment resulted in lower retention rates compared with ABT, whereas both medications demonstrated effectiveness in controlling disease activity for patients who were able to continue treatment. Our findings contribute to informed decision-making in RA treatment in actual clinical practice.
期刊介绍:
Modern Rheumatology publishes original papers in English on research pertinent to rheumatology and associated areas such as pathology, physiology, clinical immunology, microbiology, biochemistry, experimental animal models, pharmacology, and orthopedic surgery.
Occasional reviews of topics which may be of wide interest to the readership will be accepted. In addition, concise papers of special scientific importance that represent definitive and original studies will be considered.
Modern Rheumatology is currently indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), Google Scholar, EBSCO, CSA, Academic OneFile, Current Abstracts, Elsevier Biobase, Gale, Health Reference Center Academic, OCLC, SCImago, Summon by Serial Solutions