ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2024
Anti-citrullinated protein antibody profiles predict changes in disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating biologics.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autoantibodies and T Cells Target Citrullinated and Homocitrullinated Antigens in Rheumatoid Arthritis.Immunological reviews · 2026Review
- NLRP3 inflammasome promotes PAD2/PAD4 release and protein citrullination in rheumatoid arthritis.Communications biology · 2026Article
- 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
- Antibodies to Malondialdehyde-Acetaldehyde Adduct Are Associated With Prevalent and Incident Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease in US Veterans.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether an expanded antigen-specific ACPA profile predicts changes in disease activity in patients with RA initiating biologics.
methodsThe study included participants from a prospective, non-randomized, observational RA cohort. For this sub-study, treatment groups of interest included biologic-naïve initiating anti-TNF, biologic-exposed initiating non-TNF, and biologic-naïve initiating abatacept. ACPAs to 25 citrullinated peptides were measured using banked enrolment serum. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed and associations of resulting principal component (PC) scores (in quartiles) and anti-CCP3 antibody (≤15, 16-250 or >250 U/ml) with EULAR (good/moderate/none) treatment response at 6 months were examined using adjusted ordinal regression models.
resultsParticipants (n = 1092) had a mean age of 57 (13) years and 79% were women. At 6 months, 68.5% achieved a moderate/good EULAR response. There were three PCs that cumulatively explained 70% of variation in ACPA values. In models including the three components and anti-CCP3 antibody category, only PC1 and PC2 were associated with treatment response. The highest quartile for PC1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.76; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.53) and for PC2 (OR 1.74; 95% CI: 1.23, 2.46) were associated with treatment response after multivariable adjustment. There was no evidence of interaction between PCs and treatment group in EULAR responses (P-value for interaction >0.1).
conclusionAn expanded ACPA profile appears to be more strongly associated with biologic treatment response in RA than commercially available anti-CCP3 antibody levels. However, further enhancements to PCA will be needed to effectively prioritize between different biologics available for the treatment of RA.
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.