Abatacept for the treatment of myositis-associated interstitial lung disease
Primary result · Change in %FVCResult — go to the resultBetween treatment difference −0.35 95% CI −6.91 to 6.21Authors' conclusion
Abatacept did not significantly improve %FVC at 24 weeks.
Study context
- Population
- Participants with active ASyS-ILD
- Participants
- 9 vs 11
- Comparison
- Abatacept vs placebo for 24 weeks, then open-label abatacept for all
- Abataceptn = 9
- Placebon = 11reference
- Primary endpoint
- Change in % predicted FVC (%FVC) from baseline
- Follow-up
- Week 24
Methodological detailsplacebo-controlled, pilot, 24-week open-label extension, not powered for primary or secondary endpoints, Analysed with a generalized linear mixed model
- Placebo-controlled
- Pilot
- 24-week open-label extension
- Not powered for primary or secondary endpoints
- Analysed with a generalized linear mixed model
Primary result
Change in %FVC
Between treatment difference
−0.35
95% CI −6.91 to 6.21
P = 0.914
Abataceptvs Placebo
between treatment difference −0.35 (95% CI −6.91 to 6.21); P = 0.914
As reported in the abstract
Secondary outcomes
Secondary endpoints (FVC ml, %DLCO, shortness of breath questionnaire (SOBQ), pulmonary disease activity visual analogue scale (VAS)) · week 24
- No significant difference in all secondary endpoints
%FVC, FVC (ml), %DLCO and SOBQ · week 48
- Trends favouring abatacept, without statistical significance
Pulmonary disease activity VAS; pre-post baseline slopes of %FVC and quantitative image analysis (QIA) scores
- Significant improvement in the abatacept arm
Original publication
Abatacept for the treatment of myositis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). Published 24 April 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →