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

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.

Population characteristics, management, and survival outcomes in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma undergoing radical resection: the MINOTAUR study.

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence, management, and survival outcomes of patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma (MIUC) undergoing radical surgery (RS) in France. METHODS: We relied on a non-interventional real-world retrospective study based on French National Hospitalization Database. Adults with MIUC with a first RS between 2015 and 2020 were selected. Subpopulations of patients with RS performed in 2015 and 2019 (pre-COVID-19) were extracted, according to cancer site: muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) or upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC). Disease-free and overall survival (DFS, OS - Kaplan-Meier) were assessed on the 2015 subpopulation. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2020, 21,295 MIUC patients underwent a first RS. Of them, 68.9% had MIBC, 28.9% UTUC, and 2.2% both cancers. Apart from fewer men among UTUC (70.2%) than MIBC patients (90.1%), patients' demographic (mean age ~ 73 years) and clinical characteristics were similar whatever the cancer site or year of first RS. In 2019, RS alone was the most frequent treatment, occurring in 72.3% and 92.6% in MIBC and UTUC, respectively. Between 2015 and 2019, neoadjuvant use rate increased from 13.8% to 22.2% in MIBC, and adjuvant use rate increased from 3.7% to 6.3% in UTUC. Finally, median [95% confidence interval] DFS times were 16.0 [14.0-18.0] and 27.0 [23.0-32.0] months among MIBC and UTUC, respectively. CONCLUSION: Among patients with resected MIUC annually, RS alone remained the main treatment. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant use increased between 2015 and 2019. Nonetheless, MIUC remains of poor prognosis, highlighting an unmet medical need, notably among patients at high risk of recurrence.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in Austrian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the 2-year ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was a 2-year international observational study of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Baseline characteristics, abatacept retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the Austrian cohort of ACTION. RESULTS: Of 100 patients enrolled in Austria, 98 (98.0%) were evaluable: 33/98 (33.7%) biologic naïve and 65/98 (66.3%) with ≥1 prior biologic failure. At baseline, biologic-naïve patients had shorter disease duration and lower concomitant corticosteroid use than biologic-failure patients. Overall crude abatacept retention rate was 60.5% and retention rate was higher in biologic-naïve (65.1%) versus biologic-failure (58.0%) patients. Good/moderate EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response rates were 85.7% in biologic-naïve and 100% in biologic-failure patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the Austrian cohort of ACTION, overall abatacept retention at 2 years was high, with higher retention rates in patients receiving abatacept as an earlier treatment line. Good/moderate EULAR response rate was higher in biologic-failure than in biologic-naïve patients.

Efficacy and prognostic factors of treatment retention with intravenous abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: 24-month results from an international, prospective, real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate retention of abatacept over 24 months in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in routine clinical practice across Europe and Canada. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) was a prospective, observational, multicentre study of adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA who, at their physician's discretion, initiated treatment with intravenous abatacept. Enrolment occurred from May 2008 to December 2010, with up to 30 months of follow-up. The primary endpoint was the abatacept retention rate over 24 months. Crude abatacept retention rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors of abatacept retention in patients with ≥1 prior biologic failure were derived from a Cox proportional hazards regression model, accounting for clustered data. RESULTS: A total of 1137 patients were enrolled (1573 patient-years on abatacept); most (89.2%) had experienced prior biologic failure. The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 24 months was 54.4% (95% confidence interval: 51.3, 57.4). Positivity for both rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated antibody, previous exposure to one or no anti-tumour necrosis factor agents, and cardiovascular comorbidity were prognostic of higher abatacept retention. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥51 mm/hour and introduction of corticosteroid use at abatacept initiation were predictors of lower abatacept retention. Abatacept retention varied according to country. Abatacept was well tolerated without any unexpected safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, intravenous abatacept treatment retention was more than 50% at 24 months. The identification of prognostic factors of abatacept retention could support individualised biologic treatment strategies in patients with moderate-to-severe RA.

Prognostic factors for abatacept retention in patients who received at least one prior biologic agent: an interim analysis from the observational, prospective ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of new therapies for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the paucity of head-to-head studies, and the heterogeneous nature of responses to current biologics highlight the need for the identification of prognostic factors for treatment response and retention in clinical practice. Prognostic factors for patient retention have not been explored thoroughly despite data for abatacept and other biologics being available from national registries. Real-world data from the ACTION study may supplement the findings of randomized controlled trials and show how abatacept is used in clinical practice. The aim of this interim analysis was to identify prognostic factors for abatacept retention in patients with RA who received at least one prior biologic agent. METHODS: A large, international, non-interventional cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe RA who initiated intravenous abatacept in Canada and Europe (May 2008-January 2011) enrolled in the ACTION study. Potential prognostic factors for retention in this interim analysis (data cut-off February 2012; including patients from Canada, Germany, Greece, and Italy) were baseline demographics and disease characteristics, medical history, and previous and concomitant medication. Clinically relevant variables with p ≤ 0.20 in univariate analysis and no collinearity were entered into a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusted for clustered data. Variables with p ≤ 0.10 were retained in the final model (backward selection). RESULTS: The multivariate model included 834 patients. Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positivity (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.55 [0.40, 0.75], p < 0.001), failure of <2 prior anti-tumor necrosis factors (TNFs) (0.71 [0.56, 0.90], p = 0.005 versus ≥2 prior anti-TNFs), and cardiovascular comorbidity at abatacept initiation (0.48 [0.28, 0.83], p = 0.009) were associated with lower risk of abatacept discontinuation. Patients in Greece and Italy were less likely to discontinue abatacept than patients in Germany and Canada (Greece: 0.30 [0.16, 0.58]; Italy: 0.50 [0.33, 0.76]; Canada: 1.04 [0.78, 1.40], p < 0.001 versus Germany). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world prognostic factors for abatacept retention include anti-CCP positivity and fewer prior anti-TNF failures. Differences in retention rates between countries may reflect differences in healthcare systems. The finding that abatacept has potential advantages in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities needs to be confirmed in further research.

Real-world effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in European and Canadian populations: a 6-month interim analysis of the 2-year, observational, prospective ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: Discontinuation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment for lack or loss of initial response, tolerability issues, or development of antibodies against the therapeutic agent remains a challenge in clinical practice. Here we present a 6-month interim analysis of a 2-year prospective observational trial in Europe and Canada aiming to assess the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intravenous abatacept for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) is a prospective, observational study assessing effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of abatacept in patients with RA enrolled in Europe and Canada between May 2008 and January 2011. The patient population was divided into two groups: biologic naïve ('first-line') patients and patients who had previously failed treatment with at least one biologic agent ('second-line'). Retention rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curve estimates. Effectiveness was measured using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, the 28-item Disease Activity Score, the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and physical function, as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported for all enrolled patients. RESULTS: Of 1138 consecutively enrolled patients, 1114 and 1079 patients were evaluable for retention and effectiveness, respectively. Overall, retention rates were 88.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.4, 90.4); 67.4% of patients achieved good/moderate EULAR response; 32.8% had a CDAI Low Disease Activity State (LDAS); and 44.7% a HAQ-DI response. Retention rates among first- and second-line patients were 93.0% (95% CI: 85.9, 96.6) and 88.1% (95% CI: 85.7, 90.0), respectively. The percentage of patients achieving CDAI LDAS was 40.0% (95% CI: 26.4, 53.6) for first- and 32.2% (95% CI: 28.4, 36.0) for second-line patients and the proportion achieving a HAQ-DI response was 60.3% (95% CI: 47.8, 72.9) versus 43.1% (95% CI: 39.0, 47.2), respectively. The incidence of SAEs was 4.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this 6-month interim analysis suggests that abatacept offers an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with RA, including those who have previously failed anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment. In addition, higher retention rates and effectiveness outcomes were observed when abatacept treatment was initiated earlier in the course of the disease.

Rhinoviruses as an underestimated cause of influenza-like illness in pregnancy during the 2009-2010 influenza pandemic.

During the 2009-2010 influenza pandemic, pregnant women were identified at high risk for severe infection. In case of influenza-like illness they were systematically treated with oseltamivir. When performed, virological diagnosis showed that some of these women were not influenza-infected. The objectives of the study were to identify viruses which could induce an influenza-like illness in pregnant women during the 2009-2010 pandemic, then to establish possible links between detected viruses and symptoms, and then characterize human rhinoviruses (HRV) strains detected in some samples. Nasal swabs from 78 pregnant women presenting with influenza-like illness and previously tested for influenza virus by RT-PCR in 2009-2010 were further assayed by multiplex RespiFinder assay and bocavirus PCR to search for 13 other viruses. Genotyping of HRV strains was carried out using partial genomic sequencing in the VP4/VP2 region. Influenza A virus infection was confirmed in 33 women (42%). Non-influenza viruses were detected in 18 additional cases (23%). Rhinoviruses were the most numerous (13%) and belonged to 9 different genotypes distributed between the 3 genogroups. When comparing symptoms observed in influenza-infected women and women infected by other viruses, shivers were more frequent in the former group (P=0.02), and expectorations in the latter (P=0.03). During the influenza pandemic 2009-2010, non-influenza viruses and mostly rhinoviruses were an underestimated cause of influenza-like illness in pregnant women. Viral diagnosis should help to stop empiric oseltamivir therapy in influenza-negative patients and antibiotic treatment in patients infected with a non-influenza virus.

Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: 2-year retention and efficacy by treatment line and serostatus.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: The ASCORE study on treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) showed better retention and clinical response rates for abatacept as first-line versus later-line therapy. This post hoc analysis of ASCORE assessed 2-year retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. METHODS: Adults with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were assessed. Primary endpoint was abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportions of patients with low disease activity (LDA)/remission per Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (≤ 3.2), Simplified Disease Activity Index (≤ 11), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (≤ 10). Outcomes were analyzed by treatment line and serostatus. RESULTS: For the pooled cohort, the 2-year abatacept retention rate was 47.6%; retention was highest in biologic-naïve patients (50.5% [95% confidence interval 44.9, 55.9]). Patients seropositive for both anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF; + / +) at baseline had a higher 2-year abatacept retention rate than patients with single seropositivity for either APCA or RF or double-seronegativity (- / -), irrespective of treatment line. At 2 years, a higher proportion of patients who were biologic-naïve were in LDA/remission than patients with one or ≥ two prior biologics. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of patients with + / + RA (compared with - / - RA) had abatacept retention after 2 years. Early identification of patients with seropositive RA may facilitate a precision-medicine approach to RA treatment, leading to a higher proportion of patients in LDA/remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02090556; date registered: March 18, 2014 (retrospectively registered). Key Points • This post hoc analysis of a German-speaking subset of European patients with RA from the global ASCORE study (NCT02090556) showed that retention of SC abatacept within this subset was 47.6%, with good clinical outcomes after 2 years. • Patients with double-seropositive RA (ACPA and RF positive) had higher retention of abatacept than patients with double-seronegative RA (ACPA and RF negative). Retention and clinical responses were highest for patients who were biologic-naïve compared with patients who had one or ≥ two prior biologic treatments. • These real-world data may be useful for clinicians in informing individualized treatment pathways for patients with RA, and fostering superior disease control and clinical outcomes.

Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study. METHODS: Patients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc. RESULTS: Overall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced. CONCLUSIONS: In the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.

Survey of the therapeutic management of rheumatoid arthritis in France: the OPALE study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the therapeutic practice used in 2006 by French rheumatologists and hospital staff in RA patients, and to estimate the proportion of patients currently treated with DMARDs including biologics, and to estimate the ratio of patients treated according to the SFR national recommendations. METHODS: This multicentre cross-sectional study was performed in a random sample of rheumatologists selected from a comprehensive national database and stratified by setting and region. Each rheumatologist established a registry of subsequent RA patients (first step), and filled in a detailed questionnaire for the 10 first patients from the registry (second step). At the day of inclusion, RA characteristics and DMARD treatments over the past 12 months were recorded. RESULTS: The majority of the RA patients were women (mean age: 58 yrs). The mean DAS 28 score was 3.6, and RA was considered as clinically and radiologically severe in almost 27.0% of the cases. In the registry part, 89.9% of RA patients were currently treated with DMARDs, and 29.3% of them received a biologic DMARD alone or in combination. In 1610 patients with detailed questionnaire record, the efficacy of the current DMARD treatment was good in almost 60% of the patients. Finally, the physician's decision was to continue the ongoing treatment in 4/5 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, RA characteristics were similar to the typical RA observed in previous studies. Biologics were major drugs in DMARD treatments with 30.1% RA patients currently treated. Modification of treatments was essentially linked to a lack of therapeutic response.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries.

INTRODUCTION: AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries. METHOD: Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries. RESULTS: In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort. KEY POINTS: • Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Two-year abatacept retention rate in clinical practice in the French ACTION cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Abatacept retention rates were evaluated in the French cohort in the prospective ACTION study (2010-2013), which included patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis managed in everyday clinical practice and started on intravenous abatacept therapy. METHODS: Two-year abatacept retention rates were evaluated in 455 patients classified according to treatment line, body mass index (BMI), and status for rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA). RESULTS: After 2 years, the overall abatacept retention rate was 44%. The retention rate was non-significantly higher in the patients with vs. without a history of unresponsiveness to at least one biologic (48.1% vs. 41.8%, respectively). No significant retention rate differences were found across BMI categories (444 patients; <25, 45.5%; ≥25 to <30, 48.9%; and ≥30, 36.6%). Neither were any significant differences demonstrated according to RF and ACPA status (RF+ and ACPA+, 45.7%; RF+ or ACPA+, 43.8%; and FR- and ACPA-, 39.1%). CONCLUSION: The 44% 2-year retention rate in the French ACTION cohort supports the usefulness of abatacept therapy. In this study, retention was not associated with treatment line, BMI, or antibody status.

Correction to: Predictors of abatacept retention over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the real-world ACTION study.

The article listed above was initially published with incorrect copyright information. Upon publication of this Correction, the copyright of this article changed to "The Author(s)". The original article has been corrected.

Predictors of abatacept retention over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the real-world ACTION study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate abatacept retention over 2 years in the AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study. METHOD: ACTION was an international, observational study of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated intravenous abatacept. Crude abatacept retention rates over 2 years were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses in biologic-naive and -failure patients. Clinically relevant risk factors and significant prognostic factors for retention were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards multivariable model. RESULTS: Overall, 2350/2364 enrolled patients were evaluable; 673 (28.6%) were biologic naive and 1677 (71.4%) had prior biologic failure (1 biologic, 728/1677 [43.4%]; ≥ 2 biologics, 949/1677 [56.6%]). Abatacept retention rate (95% confidence interval [CI]) at 2 years was 47.9% (45.7, 50.0): 54.5% (50.4, 58.3) for biologic-naive vs 45.2% (42.7, 47.7) for biologic-failure patients (log-rank P < 0.001). For patients with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures, respectively, retention rates (95% CI) were 50.2% (46.3, 53.9) vs 41.3% (38.0, 44.6; log-rank P < 0.001). Main reasons for discontinuation (biologic-naive vs biologic-failure, respectively) were lack of efficacy (61.4 vs 67.7%) and safety (21.3 vs 21.2%). Rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) double positivity versus negativity were predictive of higher retention in both biologic-naive (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] 0.71 [0.53, 0.96]; P = 0.019) and biologic-failure patients (HR [95% CI] 0.76 [0.62, 0.94]; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept initiation as earlier vs later line of therapy in RA may achieve higher 2-year retention rates. RF and anti-CCP seropositivity could predict increased abatacept retention, irrespective of treatment line. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02109666.

Baseline autoantibodies preferentially impact abatacept efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are biologic naïve: 6-month results from a real-world, international, prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of baseline rheumatoid factor (RF) and anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) status on the clinical efficacy of intravenous abatacept in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in the real-world ACTION study. METHODS: Clinical outcomes (European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, mean Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Boolean remission) at 6 months were compared by baseline RF and anti-CCP status. RESULTS: Of 672 biologic-naïve patients, RF status was reported in 577 (86%) (412 (71%) positive) and anti-CCP status in 552 (82%) (364 (66%) positive); of 511 patients for whom data were available, 308/511 (60%) were double positive and 127/511 (25%) were double negative. Clinical outcomes were improved with RF-positive or anti-CCP-positive versus RF-negative/anti-CCP-negative status-good or moderate EULAR response: RF: 84.6 vs 72.9%, p=0.012; anti-CCP: 85.2 vs 74.2%, p=0.015; mean CDAI (calculated): RF: 10.8 vs 15.3, p<0.001; anti-CCP: 10.9 vs 14.3, p=0.002; and Boolean remission: RF: 13.3 vs 4.0%, p=0.008; anti-CCP: 12.5 vs 6.3%, p=0.096. Clinical outcomes were also improved with single or double RF-positive/anti-CCP-positive versus double-negative status. CONCLUSIONS: In biologic-naïve patients with RA, RF-positive and/or anti-CCP-positive status is associated with greater efficacy of intravenous abatacept than seronegative status. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02109666.

Real-world predictors of 12-month intravenous abatacept retention in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ACTION observational study.

INTRODUCTION: An understanding of real-world predictors of abatacept retention is limited. We analysed retention rates and predictors of abatacept retention in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in a 12-month interim analysis of the 2-yearAbataCepTIn rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study. METHODS: ACTION was an international, observational study of patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated intravenous abatacept. In this 12-month interim analysis, crude abatacept retention rates, predictors of retention and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response were evaluated in both biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Retention by rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) status was also assessed, in patients with or without baseline radiographic erosions, and by body mass index (BMI). RESULTS: Overall, 2350/2364 enrolled patients were evaluable (674 biologic naїve; 1676 biologic failure). Baseline characteristics were largely similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure groups. Crude retention rates (95% CI) at 12 months were significantly higher in biologic-naїve (78.1%(74.7% to 81.2%)) versus biologic-failure patients (69.9%(67.6% to 72.1%); P<0.001). RF/anti-CCP double positivity predicted higher retention in both patient groups, and remained associated with higher retention in patients with erosive disease. BMI did not impact abatacept retention in either patient group, irrespective of RF/anti-CCP serostatus. Good/moderate EULAR response rate at 12 months was numerically higher in biologic-naїve (83.8%) versus biologic-failure (73.3%) patients. There were no new safety signals. CONCLUSION: High levels of intravenous abatacept retention in clinical practice were confirmed, particularly in biologic-naïve patients, including in those with poor RA prognostic factors. Retention was unaffected by BMI, regardless of RF/anti-CCP serostatus. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02109666; retrospectively registered 8 April 2014.

The effect of body mass index on clinical response to abatacept as a first-line biologic for rheumatoid arthritis: 6-month results from the 2-year, observational, prospective ACTION study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of baseline body mass index (BMI) on the efficacy and retention of intravenous abatacept at 6 months in biologic-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This was a 6-month analysis of a 2-year, non-interventional, international, prospective study. Baseline characteristics, clinical response and retention rates were compared by BMI subgroup: underweight/normal, overweight and obese (<25, 25 to <30 and ≥30kg/m2, respectively). RESULTS: BMI was reported in 643/672 (96%) patients: 264 (41%) were underweight/normal, 224 (35%) overweight and 155 (24%) obese. At baseline, the obese group had more active disease (mean [95% confidence intervals] 28-joint Disease Activity Score [C-reactive protein; derived] 4.6 [4.5, 4.7], 4.8 [4.7, 5.0] and 5.1 [4.9, 5.2] for underweight/normal, overweight and obese groups, respectively), a higher prevalence of metabolic disorders, a greater proportion of women and a lower proportion of patients with rheumatoid factor positivity. There were no significant differences in the percentages of patients achieving a good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism response by BMI group (80.7, 86.1 and 77.0% for underweight/normal, overweight and obese groups, respectively; P=0.178). Overall retention rates at 6 months did not differ across groups (89, 92 and 89% for underweight/normal, overweight and obese groups, respectively; log-rank P=0.382). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, BMI was not significantly associated with risk of discontinuation (reference BMI<25kg/m2; hazard ratio [95% confidence intervals] 0.46 [0.22, 0.99] and 0.69 [0.34, 1.41] for overweight and obese patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: BMI does not impact abatacept clinical response or retention in biologic-naïve patients with RA.

Decreased use of glucocorticoids in biological-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept: results from the 2-year ACTION study.

INTRODUCTION: Prolonged glucocorticoid use may increase the risk of adverse safety outcomes, including cardiovascular events. The European League Against Rheumatism and the Canadian Rheumatology Association advise tapering glucocorticoid dose as rapidly as clinically feasible. There is a paucity of published data on RA that adequately describe concomitant treatment patterns. METHODS: ACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) is a non-interventional cohort study of patients from Europe and Canada that investigated the long-term retention of intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We assessed concomitant glucocorticoids in patients with established RA who had participated in ACTION and received ≥1 biological agent prior to abatacept initiation. RESULTS: The analysis included 1009 patients. Glucocorticoids were prescribed at abatacept initiation in 734 (72.7%) patients at a median 7.5 mg/day dose (n=692). Of the patients who remained on abatacept at 24 months, 40.7% were able to decrease their dose of glucocorticoids, including 26.9% who decreased their dose from >5 mg/day to ≤5 mg/day. CONCLUSION: Reduction and/or cessation of glucocorticoid therapy is possible with intravenous abatacept in clinical practice.