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 ABA was withdrawn in 62 (23.6%) patients due to adverse events (n = 30), articular inefficacy (n = 27), ILD worsening (n = 3) and other causes (n = 2).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.

Subcutaneous vs intravenous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis-interstitial lung disease. National multicentre study of 397 patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on abatacept (ABA) utility for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) - associated interstitial lung disease (ILD) is growing. Clinical trials have shown equivalence in subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) administration of ABA for articular manifestations. However, this has not been studied in respiratory outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of ABA in RA-ILD patients according to the route of administration. METHODS: National retrospective multicentre study of RA-ILD patients on treatment with ABA. They were divided into 2 groups: a) IV, and b) SC. The following outcomes were analysed from baseline to final follow-up using linear mixed models: a) forced vital capacity (FVC), b) diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), c) chest high resolution computed tomography (HRCT), d) dyspnoea, e) RA activity, and f) sparing corticosteroids effect. RESULTS: A total of 397 patients were included (94 IV-ABA and 303 SC-ABA), median follow-up of 24 [10-48] months. After adjustment for possible confounders, FVC and DLCO remained stable during the first 24 months without differences between IV-ABA and SC-ABA (p = 0.6304 and 0.5337). Improvement/ stability of lung lesions in HRCT was observed in 67 % of patients (75 % IV-ABA, 64 % SC-ABA; p = 0.07). Dyspnoea stabilized/ improved in 84 % of patients (90 % IV-ABA, 82 % SC-ABA; p = 0.09). RA - disease activity improved in both groups. No statistically significant differences regarding any of the variables studied between the two groups were found. ABA was withdrawn in 87 patients (21.9 %), 45 % IV-ABA and 37 % SC-ABA (p = 0.29). ILD worsening and articular inefficacy were the most common reasons for ABA discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In patients with RA-ILD, ABA seems to be equally effective regardless of the route of administration.