Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31300979›Full record

Observational studyClinical rheumatology2019

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries.

Rieke Alten, Eugen Feist, Hanns-Martin Lorenz, Hubert Nüßlein, Reinhard E Voll, Melanie Chartier, Yedid Elbez, Christiane Rauch

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02109666 (Long Term Experience With Abatacept in Routine Clinical Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT02109666 completednot on this map

Long Term Experience With Abatacept in Routine Clinical Practice

TypeobservationalSponsorBristol-Myers SquibbRan2008 to 2016Enrolled2,364ConditionsRheumatoid ArthritisArmsAbatacept
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Rieke AltenDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology and Osteology, Schlosspark-Klinik University Medicine Berlin, Heubnerweg 2, 14059, Berlin, Germany. rieke.alten@schlosspark-klinik.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3395-4412
Eugen FeistCharité Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Hanns-Martin LorenzUniversity Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hubert NüßleinUniversity of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Reinhard E VollMedical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Melanie ChartierBristol-Myers Squibb, Rueil-Malmaison, France.
Yedid ElbezExcelya, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Christiane RauchBristol-Myers Squibb, Munich, Germany.

Funding

Bristol-Myers Squibb N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries.

methodBaseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries.

resultsIn the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163).

conclusionsIn the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort. KEY POINTS: • Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Indexed as

Drug MonitoringAbataceptAdultAgedAntirheumatic AgentsArthritis, RheumatoidCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetention in CareTreatment FailureAbataceptAntirheumatic AgentsBiologic-failure patientsBiologic-naïve patientsClinical practiceGermanyRheumatoid arthritis

Identifiers

PMID31300979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.