Observational studyClinical rheumatology2022
Retention of subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-world results from the ASCORE study: an international 2-year observational study.
Observational study in Clinical rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02090556 (Long-term Experience With Abatacept SC in Routine Clinical Practice), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Long-term Experience With Abatacept SC in Routine Clinical Practice
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with moderate to severely active rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept.Arthritis research & therapy · 2023Trial
- CDAI trajectories in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept in real-world.Advances in rheumatology (London, England) · 2026Article
- First-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitor versus abatacept treatment choice in real-world patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody- and rheumatoid factor-positive rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Article
- Impact of Seropositivity on Mortality and Extra-Articular Manifestations in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of clinical profile, therapeutic management, and clinical prognosis of patients with seropositive or seronegative rheumatoid arthritis following the introduction of a first targeted therapy in a real-life setting.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Predicting abatacept retention using machine learning.Arthritis research & therapy · 2025Observational
- Real-world clinical outcomes and rationale for initiating abatacept as a first-line biologic for patients with anticitrullinated protein antibody- and rheumatoid factor-positive rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Subsequent biologic and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti rheumatic drugs after fulfilling difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis criteria: a survival analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
- Real-World Treatment Effectiveness of Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs by Serostatus Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2023Article
- When Autoantibodies Are Missing: The Challenge of Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis.Antibodies (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Subcutaneous abatacept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: 2-year retention and efficacy by treatment line and serostatus.Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Analysis of Risk Factors and Surgical Strategy of Knee Traumatic Arthritis after Internal Plate Fixation in the Treatment of Tibial Plateau Fracture.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 14 institutions in 9 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate retention, efficacy, and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept over 2 years in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in the Abatacept SubCutaneOus in Routine clinical practicE (ASCORE) study.
methodsPatients with RA who initiated SC abatacept 125 mg once weekly were enrolled in the international, observational, prospective multicentre ASCORE study into biologic-naïve or ≥ 1 prior biologic failure cohorts. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: abatacept retention rate at 2 years. Secondary endpoints: proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response rates based on DAS28 (ESR), low disease activity and/or remission according to DAS28 (ESR; ≤ 3.2/ < 2.6), SDAI (≤ 11/ ≤ 3.3), CDAI (≤ 10/ ≤ 2.8), and Boolean criteria. Retention rate by baseline serostatus was evaluated post hoc.
resultsOverall, 47% of patients remained on abatacept for 2 years, irrespective of treatment line. Higher abatacept retention rates were associated with lower prior biologic exposure. Generally, clinical outcomes showed that the proportion of patients with low disease activity/remission was higher in biologic-naïve patients (vs biologic-failure) and similar in those with 1 and ≥ 2 prior biologic failures. In patients on treatment at 2 years, good/moderate EULAR response rates of ~ 80% were consistently noted irrespective of prior biologic exposure. Across treatment lines, retention was greater in patients with seropositive (vs seronegative) RA. Patients with rheumatoid factor/anti-citrullinated protein antibody single-positive RA who were bio-naïve had higher retention than patients who were bio-experienced.
conclusionsIn the ASCORE study, SC abatacept retention was 47% at 2 years with good clinical outcomes and was well-tolerated in the real-world setting. Abatacept retention and clinical response rates were higher in patients who received abatacept as an earlier- versus later-line biologic drug treatment and in those with seropositive RA.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02090556.
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.