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。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
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
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:研究非西替尼(PEF)和阿巴接受(ABT)治疗类风湿性关节炎(RA)的实际有效性和安全性。方法:在这项多中心、回顾性队列研究中,我们调查了2019年7月至2022年7月期间接受PEF或ABT治疗的患者。主要终点是PEF或ABT的1年保留率,主要分析使用治疗持续性、疾病活动性测量和安全性参数进行。使用处理加权逆概率(IPTW)来调整混杂变量。结果:共纳入219例患者,其中PEF组64例,ABT组155例,IPTW术后PEF组1年保留率为42.8%,ABT组为61.0% (p = 0.0083)。开始治疗两年后,IPTW后两组的平均CDAI和SDAI均有相当的改善。停药的主要原因是治疗反应不足(PEF: 41.3%, ABT: 28.1%)和不良反应(PEF: 11.1%, ABT: 3.8%)。结论:与ABT相比,PEF治疗导致更低的滞留率,而两种药物在能够继续治疗的患者中都显示出控制疾病活动的有效性。我们的研究结果有助于在实际临床实践中对RA的治疗做出明智的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Modern Rheumatology
Modern Rheumatology RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
146
审稿时长
1.5 months
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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信