Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24410774›Full record

Observational studyBMC musculoskeletal disorders2014

Real-world effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in European and Canadian populations: a 6-month interim analysis of the 2-year, observational, prospective ACTION study.

Hubert G Nüßlein, Rieke Alten, Mauro Galeazzi, Hanns-Martin Lorenz, Dimitrios Boumpas, Michael T Nurmohamed, William G Bensen, Gerd R Burmester, Hans-Hartmut Peter, Franz Rainer and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CD4Epigenetics · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Observational
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Hubert G NüßleinUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany. nuesslein.hu@googlemail.com.
Rieke Alten
Mauro Galeazzi
Hanns-Martin Lorenz
Dimitrios Boumpas
Michael T Nurmohamed
William G Bensen
Gerd R Burmester
Hans-Hartmut Peter
Franz Rainer
Karel Pavelka
Melanie Chartier
Coralie Poncet
Christiane Rauch
Manuela Le Bars

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiscontinuation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment for lack or loss of initial response, tolerability issues, or development of antibodies against the therapeutic agent remains a challenge in clinical practice. Here we present a 6-month interim analysis of a 2-year prospective observational trial in Europe and Canada aiming to assess the real-world effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of intravenous abatacept for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA.

methodsACTION (AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice) is a prospective, observational study assessing effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of abatacept in patients with RA enrolled in Europe and Canada between May 2008 and January 2011. The patient population was divided into two groups: biologic naïve ('first-line') patients and patients who had previously failed treatment with at least one biologic agent ('second-line'). Retention rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier curve estimates. Effectiveness was measured using European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria, the 28-item Disease Activity Score, the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and physical function, as assessed by the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported for all enrolled patients.

resultsOf 1138 consecutively enrolled patients, 1114 and 1079 patients were evaluable for retention and effectiveness, respectively. Overall, retention rates were 88.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.4, 90.4); 67.4% of patients achieved good/moderate EULAR response; 32.8% had a CDAI Low Disease Activity State (LDAS); and 44.7% a HAQ-DI response. Retention rates among first- and second-line patients were 93.0% (95% CI: 85.9, 96.6) and 88.1% (95% CI: 85.7, 90.0), respectively. The percentage of patients achieving CDAI LDAS was 40.0% (95% CI: 26.4, 53.6) for first- and 32.2% (95% CI: 28.4, 36.0) for second-line patients and the proportion achieving a HAQ-DI response was 60.3% (95% CI: 47.8, 72.9) versus 43.1% (95% CI: 39.0, 47.2), respectively. The incidence of SAEs was 4.7%.

conclusionsEvidence from this 6-month interim analysis suggests that abatacept offers an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with RA, including those who have previously failed anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment. In addition, higher retention rates and effectiveness outcomes were observed when abatacept treatment was initiated earlier in the course of the disease.

Indexed as

AbataceptAdministration, IntravenousAdultAgedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidCanadaDisability EvaluationDrug SubstitutionEuropeFemaleHumansImmunoconjugatesKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedAbataceptAntirheumatic AgentsImmunoconjugatesTumor Necrosis Factor-alpha

Identifiers

PMID24410774
PMCPMC3898027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.