Abatacept in monotherapy vs combined in interstitial lung disease of rheumatoid arthritis-multicentre study of 263 Caucasian patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept (ABA) in monotherapy (ABAMONO) vs combined ABA [ABA plus MTX (ABAMTX) or ABA plus non-MTX conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) (ABANON-MTX)] in RA patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (RA-ILD). METHODS: This was a restrospective multicentre study of RA-ILD Caucasian patients treated with ABA. We analysed in the three groups (ABAMONO, ABAMTX, ABANON-MTX) the following outcome variables: (i) dyspnoea; (ii) forced vital capacity (FVC) and diffusion capacity of the lung for the carbon monoxide (DLCO); (iii) chest high-resolution CT (HRCT); (iv) DAS28-ESR; (v) CS-sparing effect; and (vi) ABA retention and side-effects. Differences between basal and final follow-up were evaluated. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the differences between the three groups. RESULTS: We studied 263 RA-ILD patients (mean ± s.d. age 64.6 ± 10 years) [ABAMONO (n = 111), ABAMTX (n = 46) and ABANON-MTX (n = 106)]. At baseline, ABAMONO patients were older (67 ± 10 years) and took higher prednisone dose [10 (interquartile range 5-15) mg/day]. At that time, there were no statistically significant differences in sex, seropositivity, ILD patterns, FVC and DLCO, or disease duration. Following treatment, in all groups, most patients experienced stabilization or improvement in FVC, DLCO, dyspnoea and chest HRCT as well as improvement in DAS28-ESR. A statistically significant difference between basal and final follow-up was only found in CS-sparing effect in the group on combined ABA (ABAMTX or ABANON-MTX). However, in the multivariable analysis, there were no differences in any outcome variables between the three groups. CONCLUSION: In Caucasian individuals with RA-ILD, ABA in monotherapy or combined with MTX or with other conventional-DMARDs seems to be equally effective and safe. However, a CS-sparing effect is only observed with combined ABA.

Abatacept in interstitial lung disease associated with rheumatoid arthritis: national multicenter study of 263 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of abatacept (ABA) in RA patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (RA-ILD). METHODS: This was an observational, multicentre study of RA-ILD patients treated with at least one dose of ABA. ILD was diagnosed by high-resolution CT (HRCT). We analysed the following variables at baseline (ABA initiation), 12 months and at the end of the follow-up: Modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) scale (1-point change), forced vital capacity (FVC) or diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (improvement or worsening ≥10%), HRCT, DAS on 28 joints evaluated using the ESR (DAS28ESR) and CS-sparing effect. RESULTS: We studied 263 RA-ILD patients [150 women/113 men; mean (s.d.) age 64.6 (10) years]. At baseline, they had a median duration of ILD of 1 (interquartile range 0.25-3.44) years, moderate or severe degree of dyspnoea (MMRC grade 2, 3 or 4) (40.3%), FVC (% of the predicted) mean (s.d.) 85.9 (21.8)%, DLCO (% of the predicted) 65.7 (18.3) and DAS28ESR 4.5 (1.5). The ILD patterns were: usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) (40.3%), non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) (31.9%) and others (27.8%). ABA was prescribed at standard dose, i.v. (25.5%) or s.c. (74.5%). After a median follow-up of 12 (6-36) months the following variables did not show worsening: dyspnoea (MMRC) (91.9%); FVC (87.7%); DLCO (90.6%); and chest HRCT (76.6%). A significant improvement of DAS28ESR from 4.5 (1.5) to 3.1 (1.3) at the end of follow-up (P < 0.001) and a CS-sparing effect from a median 7.5 (5-10) to 5 (2.5-7.5) mg/day at the end of follow-up (P < 0.001) was also observed. ABA was withdrawn in 62 (23.6%) patients due to adverse events (n = 30), articular inefficacy (n = 27), ILD worsening (n = 3) and other causes (n = 2). CONCLUSION: ABA may be an effective and safe treatment for patients with RA-ILD.