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.

Executive Summary of the Consensus Document on the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Primary Immunodeficiencies.

Primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are rare, undiagnosed and potentially fatal diseases. Clinical manifestations of PID can be fatal or leave sequelae that worsen the quality of life of patients. Traditionally, the treatment of PIDs has been largely supportive, with the exception of bone marrow transplantation and, more recently, gene therapy. The discovering of new affected pathways, the development of new molecules and biologics, and the increasing understanding of the molecular basis of these disorders have created opportunities in PIDs therapy. This document aims to review current knowledge and to provide recommendations about the diagnosis and clinical management of adults and children with PIDs based on the available scientific evidence taking in to account current practice and future challenges. A systematic review was conducted, and evidence levels based on the available literature are given for each recommendation where available.

Executive Summary of the Consensus Document on the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Primary Immunodeficiencies.

Primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) are rare, undiagnosed and potentially fatal diseases. Clinical manifestations of PID can be fatal or leave sequelae that worsen the quality of life of patients. Traditionally, the treatment of PIDs has been largely supportive, with the exception of bone marrow transplantation and, more recently, gene therapy. The discovering of new affected pathways, the development of new molecules and biologics, and the increasing understanding of the molecular basis of these disorders have created opportunities in PIDs therapy. This document aims to review current knowledge and to provide recommendations about the diagnosis and clinical management of adults and children with PIDs based on the available scientific evidence taking in to account current practice and future challenges. A systematic review was conducted, and evidence levels based on the available literature are given for each recommendation where available.

Abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and interstitial lung disease: A national multicenter study of 63 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is one of the most serious complications of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the present study, we aimed to assess the efficacy of abatacept (ABA) in patients with ILD associated to RA. METHODS: National multicenter, non-controlled, open-label registry study of RA patients with ILD treated with ABA. RESULTS: 63 patients (36 women) with RA-associated ILD undergoing ABA therapy were studied. The mean ± standard deviation age at the time of the study was 63.2 ± 9.8 years. The median duration of RA and ILD from diagnosis were 6.8 and 1 year, respectively. RA was seropositive in 55 patients (87.3%). In 15 (23.8%) of 63 patients the development of ILD was closely related to the administration of synthetic or biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. After a follow-up of 9.4 ± 3.2 months, two-thirds of patients remained stable whereas one-quarter experienced improvement in the Modified Medical Research Council scale. At that time forced vital capacity remained stable in almost two-thirds of patents and improved in one out of five patients assessed. Also, diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide remained stable in almost two-thirds and showed improvement in a quarter of the patients assessed. At 12 months, 50% of the 22 patients in whom chest HRCT scan was performed due persistence of respiratory symptoms showed stabilization, 8 (36.4%) improvement and 3 worsening of the HRCT scan pattern. Eleven of 63 patients had to discontinue ABA, mainly due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: ABA appears to be an effective in RA-associated ILD.