Two-year treatment persistence with subcutaneous abatacept in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the French cohort of the ASCORE study. 2024

René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
Rheumatology Department, Hôpital Salengro, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Lille, Université de Lille, France.

OBJECTIVE While multiple studies have investigated treatment persistence rates with intravenous abatacept, limited information is available about real-world treatment continuation with the subcutaneous form. The international ASCORE study described the characteristics and treatment persistence of real-world patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving subcutaneous abatacept. This article presents the findings of the French cohort. METHODS This was an observational study in French RA patients who initiated subcutaneous abatacept between August 2014 and January 2017. The primary endpoint was treatment maintenance at 2 years, analysed according to the number of previous biologic therapies. RESULTS Of 546 evaluable patients, 281 (51.5%) were biologic-naive, 265 (48.5%) had experienced failure with 1 (n=134; 24.5%) or ≥2 (n=131; 24.0%) biologic therapies. At enrolment, patients who had experienced failure with ≥1 biologic therapy had more erosions and a longer duration of RA compared with biologic-naive patients, but had comparable mean disease activity scores. Overall, 43.0% of patients (95% confidence interval 38.6-47.2) were still taking subcutaneous abatacept at 2 years, which was comparable with that in other countries participating in ASCORE. The abatacept persistence rate was higher in biologic-naive patients (48.8%) than in those with 1 (40.9%) or ≥2 (32.8%) biologic therapy failures. The main reason for discontinuing abatacept was lack of efficacy (46.6%). CONCLUSIONS In current practice in France, the rate of subcutaneous abatacept persistence at 2 years was comparable with that of the intravenous form. Treatment persistence was higher when abatacept was used as first-line versus later-line biologic therapy.

UI MeSH Term Description Entries

Related Publications

René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
August 2022, Clinical rheumatology,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
May 2020, Journal of clinical medicine,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
June 2013, Rheumatology (Oxford, England),
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
January 2015, Expert opinion on biological therapy,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
August 2018, The Journal of rheumatology,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
April 2014, The Journal of rheumatology,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
July 2016, Arthritis care & research,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
October 2022, Journal of clinical medicine,
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
April 2017, Rheumatology (Oxford, England),
René-Marc Flipo, and Arnaud Constantin, and Philippe Goupille, and Mélanie Chartier, and Anaël Ohayon, and Xavier Mariette
December 2019, Journal of translational autoimmunity,
Copied contents to your clipboard!