ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Actual Persistence of Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results of the French-Ric Network.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retention rate of subcutaneous TNF inhibitors in axial spondyloarthritis in a multicentre study from the RIC-FRANCE network.Scientific reports · 2024Observational
- Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Observational
- Differential retention of adalimumab and etanercept biosimilars compared to originator treatments: Results of a retrospective French multicenter study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Therapeutic Maintenance of Baricitinib and Tofacitinib in Real Life.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesData on abatacept (ABA) persistence in routine practice are limited. We aimed to study ABA persistence rates at 12 months, according to the date of initiation, and to analyze the factors associated with persistence at 12 months.
methodsWe performed an observational, ambispective, multi-center study from January 2008 to July 2016, based on the French-RIC Network. We defined three groups of patients followed up for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), according to the date of initiation of ABA therapy: Group 1 (from 2007 to 31 July 2010: ABA indicated after anti-TNF failure); Group 2 (from 1 August 2010 to 31 March 2014: ABA indicated after conventional antirheumatic drugs failure); Group 3 (from 1 April 2014 to 1 July 2016: ABA available by the subcutaneous injection).
resultsAmong 517 patients who initiated ABA, drug persistence at 12 months was 68%. The only factor significantly associated with persistence rate at 12 months was C-reactive protein (CRP) < 10 mg/L at ABA initiation (odds ratio (OR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval 0.3-0.9;
conclusionsIn routine practice, over time, ABA has come to be initiated earlier in the course of therapy for RA in France. Abatacept persistence is similar to that reported in the Orencia Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORA) registry, and does not differ according to the date of initiation. The only factor found to be associated with the persistence rate at 12 months was CRP < 10 mg/L at ABA initiation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.