Trial reportArthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Abatacept Plus Standard Treatment for Active Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy: Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Abatacept for the treatment of myositis-associated interstitial lung disease.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2025Trial
- Emerging therapies in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2026Review
- Early detection and intervention in dermatomyositis: current evidence and clinical implications.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Review
- Autoimmune Neuromuscular Disorders at a Molecular Crossroad: Linking Pathogenesis to Targeted Immunotherapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- An Update on Dermatomyositis and Related Inflammatory Myopathies: Cutaneous Clues, Skeletal Muscle Involvement, and Advances in Pathogenesis and Treatment.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Targeted Therapy for Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2025Review
- Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathy-Molecular Mechanisms Underlying Its Pathogenesis and Physical Therapy Effects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Advances in the Regulation by Immune Cells of Skeletal Myositis Outcomes.Aging and disease · 2025Review
- Abatacept for myositis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2025Article
- Treatment Algorithms for Inflammatory Myopathies in Adults: from Guidelines to Clinical Practice.Current treatment options in rheumatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept and standard of care (SOC) for the treatment of idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) over 52 weeks.
methodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, patients with treatment-refractory IIM received SC abatacept (at 125 mg weekly) with SOC (abatacept group) or a placebo with SOC (placebo group). A 24-week double-blind period was followed by an open-label period to assess outcomes from continued therapy with abatacept and initiation with abatacept (placebo-to-abatacept switch group) from 24 to 52 weeks. The primary end point was International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies definition of improvement (IMACS DOI) at week 24. Secondary efficacy and safety end points were assessed.
resultsOverall, 148 (double-blind) and 133 (open-label) patients were treated. Baseline demographics were well-balanced between treatment groups and disease subtypes. At 24 weeks, improvement per IMACS DOI was 56.0% for the abatacept group and 42.5% for the placebo group (P = 0.083); at 52 weeks, improvement was 69.8% (continued abatacept) and 69.0% (placebo-to-abatacept switch). The IMACS DOI rate at 24 weeks was greater in the nondermatomyositis (non-DM) group (abatacept: 57.1%; placebo: 32.3%; P = 0.040) than the DM group (abatacept: 55.0%; placebo: 50.0%; P = 0.679). The observed safety profile was similar in both groups.
conclusionThe proportion of patients who met improvement criteria after 24 weeks was similar between abatacept and placebo groups. However, analysis by IIM subtype suggested there may be a sustained benefit of SC abatacept for patients with non-DM subtypes.
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.