Subcutaneous vs intravenous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis-interstitial lung disease. National multicentre study of 397 patients
Authors' conclusion
In patients with RA-ILD, ABA seems to be equally effective regardless of the route of administration.
Study context
- Population
- RA-ILD patients on treatment with abataceptmedian follow-up 24 [10–48] months
- Participants
- 397 patients
- Exposure
- Intravenous vs subcutaneous abatacept
- IV-ABAn = 94
- SC-ABAn = 303
- Outcome
- FVC and DLCO from baseline to final follow-up (also HRCT, dyspnoea, RA activity, corticosteroid sparing)
Methodological detailsnational, multicentre, linear mixed models, adjusted for possible confounders
- National
- Multicentre
- Linear mixed models
- Adjusted for possible confounders
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
first 24 months
- Forced vital capacity (FVC) and DLCO remained stable without differences between IV-ABA and SC-ABA
- IV-ABA vs SC-ABA: P = 0.6304
- IV-ABA vs SC-ABA: 0.5337
- After adjustment for possible confounders
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Improvement/stability of lung lesions on HRCT
P = 0.07
Dyspnoea stabilized/improved
P = 0.09
%
- Improvement/stability of lung lesions on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) — Overall
- 67
- Dyspnoea stabilized/improved — Overall
- 84
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity
- Improved in both groups
- No statistically significant differences regarding any of the variables studied between the two groups
Safety
ABA withdrawal
P = 0.29
- ABA withdrawal — Overall withdrawn
- 87 patients (21.9 %)
- ABA withdrawal: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) worsening and articular inefficacy were the most common reasons for discontinuation
Original publication
Subcutaneous vs intravenous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis-interstitial lung disease. National multicentre study of 397 patients. Semin Arthritis Rheum. Published 18 July 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →