Distinct impact of RF and ACPA titre on the effectiveness and persistency of biologics and JAK inhibitors: The ANSWER cohort study
Résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify the impact of rheumatoid factor (RF) or anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) titres on the retention of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 5312 courses of bDMARDs or JAKis from the ANSWER cohort. To calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for treatment discontinuation, we used multivariate Cox proportional hazards modelling, adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: HRs for discontinuation due to ineffectiveness were calculated based on RF classification, revealing that anti-interleukin-6 receptor (aIL-6R) antibodies exhibited the highest retention rates regardless of RF titre. In the RF-positive group, tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) showed lower retention rates, whereas cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4-Ig (CTLA4-Ig) and JAKis followed aIL-6R in the retention rates. When classified based on ACPA, aIL-6R also exhibited the highest retention rates across all ACPA groups. TNFis showed lower retention rates compared with other agents in the ACPA-positive group, whereas CTLA4-Ig showed lower retention rates in the ACPA-negative group compared with other agents. CONCLUSIONS: Considering effectiveness, aIL-6R showed the highest retention rates regardless of seropositivity. Although CTLA4-Ig and JAKis followed aIL-6R in RF or ACPA-positive cases, CTLA4-Ig showed the lowest retention rates in ACPA-negative cases.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Distinct impact of RF and ACPA titre on the effectiveness and persistency of biologics and JAK inhibitors: The ANSWER cohort study
- Date Crossref
- 19/03/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.