ArticleArthritis research & therapy2025
The role of Anti-PAD4, Anti-CarP, and Anti-RA33 antibodies combined with RF and ACPA in predicting abatacept response in rheumatoid arthritis.
Article in Arthritis research & therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of anti-carbamylated protein antibodies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Rheumatology international · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic biomarkers in rheumatoid arthritis.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2026Review
- Seronegative Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Distinct Immunopathological Entity with Erosive Potential.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Citrullinated peptides as drug candidates for rheumatoid arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Neutrophil extracellular traps in rheumatoid arthritis: pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the role of newly emerging autoantibodies (AAbs) - peptidyl-arginine deiminase 4 (aPAD4), carbamylated proteins (aCarP), and anti-RA33 (aRA33) - alongside the traditionally assessed rheumatoid factor (RF) and anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA), in predicting the response to abatacept (ABT) and its retention rate in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.
methodsData from 121 consecutive ABT-treated RA patients were recorded. The RF and ACPA status were retrospectively assessed by reviewing the patients' clinical records. Positivity for aPAD4, aCarP and aRA33 were determined by Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The achievement of a moderate or good EULAR response at 6 months and the 3-years retention were analyzed as treatment outcomes. Multiple logistic regression models and Cox regression hazard analysis models were built to identify the association between such outcomes and the different AAbs, after adjustment for different confounders. The AAbs were assessed both individually and in different combinations to identify the most robust predictive model.
resultsIn the studied cohort, RF, ACPA, aPAD4, aCarP and aRA33-Ab tested positive in 74.4%, 69.4%, 43.8%, 23.9%, 14.9% patients, respectively. A moderate or good EULAR response at 6 months was achieved by 64.5% of subjects and the cumulative 3-years retention rate was 56.6%. A higher EULAR response rate was recorded in patient with positivity for RF (67% in subjects tested positive vs. 58% in negative), ACPA (68% vs. 57%), aPAD4 (68% vs. 62%), and aCarP (72% vs. 62%), although statistical significance was not reached likely due to sample size limitations. Similarly, ACPA, aPAD4, aCarP were associated with higher 3-year retention rates, though not statistically significant individually. The combined analysis revealed that positivity for ACPA and/or aPAD4 predicted a significantly higher EULAR response rate at 6 months compared with double negativity (adjusted OR 2.7, p 0.026). Furthermore, positivity for at least one of ACPA, aPAD4, or aCarP predicted a significantly higher 3-year ABT retention rate compared to triple negativity (62.1% single or double positive vs. 33.5% triple negative, adjusted HR 0.48, p 0.022).
conclusionThis study highlights the potential benefits of using a combined assessment of ACPA aPAD4 and aCarP in predicting effectiveness of ABT in 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.