Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA
Open Access
- 23 December 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Nature in Rheumatology and Therapy
- Vol. 9 (2) , 465-480
Abstract
Introduction Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond to treatments differently based on their underlying serology and biomarker status, but real-world data comparing treatment responses to abatacept versus other non-TNFi biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs by anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status remain limited. We assessed the association between ACPA status and response to treatment in patients with RA. Methods Adults from CorEvitas’ RA Registry were identified who initiated abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, and had ACPA measured at/prior to treatment initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit. Three cohorts were included: abatacept/rituximab (2006–2019), abatacept/tocilizumab (2010–2019), and abatacept/tofacitinib (2012–2019). Patient characteristics at initiation were compared by ACPA status (positive [+], anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 [anti-CCP2] ≥ 20 U/ml; negative [−], anti-CCP2 < 20 U/ml). Outcomes over 6 months: changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and proportion of patients achieving a clinical response. Adjusted mean differences and odds ratios were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression models. Results Overall, 982 abatacept, 246 rituximab, 404 tocilizumab, and 429 tofacitinib initiators were identified. ACPA+ (vs. ACPA−) patients had longer disease duration and more erosive disease. During most time periods adjusted mean changes in CDAI, mHAQ, and PGA scores and the proportion of patients achieving a clinical response were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA− patients initiating abatacept. Adjusted mean change in PGA score and patient fatigue were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA− patients initiating rituximab. No significant differences were seen by ACPA status for patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. Conclusions Patients who initiated abatacept or rituximab and were ACPA+ had a greater clinical response at 6-month follow-up post index compared to patients who were ACPA– treated with the same biologic.Keywords
Funding Information
- Bristol-Myers Squibb
- CorEvitas, LLC
This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit:
- Additive effect of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and rheumatoid factor on bone erosions in patients with RAAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2015
- Associations of rheumatoid factor and anti-citrullinated peptide antibody with disease progression and treatment outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritisRheumatology International, 2015
- Anti-citrullinated protein antibodies acquire a pro-inflammatory Fc glycosylation phenotype prior to the onset of rheumatoid arthritisAnnals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2015
- High anti-CCP antibody titres predict good response to rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritisJoint Bone Spine, 2014
- Seronegative rheumatoid arthritis: Pathogenetic and therapeutic aspectsBest Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology, 2014
- Linkage of a De‐Identified United States Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry With Administrative Data to Facilitate Comparative Effectiveness ResearchArthritis Care & Research, 2014
- The Status of Rheumatoid Factor and Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide Antibody Are Not Associated with the Effect of Anti-TNFα Agent Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-AnalysisPLOS ONE, 2014
- Serum levels of anti-CCP antibodies, anti-MCV antibodies and RF IgA in the follow-up of patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with rituximabAutoimmunity Highlights, 2010
- Isotype distribution of ANTI–CYCLIC citrullinated peptide antibodies in undifferentiated arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis reflects an ongoing immune responseArthritis & Rheumatism, 2006
- The american college of rheumatology 1991 revised criteria for the classification of global functional status in rheumatoid arthritisArthritis & Rheumatism, 1992