User login
Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.
Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d
Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.
Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d
Key clinical point: Abatacept with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated better efficacy and favorable safety outcomes compared with placebo, csDMARD, or other biologic DMARD (bDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
Major finding: Patients treated with abatacept with or without csDMARD vs placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD were more likely to achieve American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 (relative risk [RR] 1.57; 95% CI 1.27-1.93), ACR50 (RR 1.84; 95% CI 1.38-2.44), and ACR70 (RR 2.36; 95% CI 1.60-3.47) responses, as well as were less likely to experience adverse events (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.84-1.03).
Study details: Findings are from a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials including 5978 patients with RA who were randomly assigned to receive abatacept alone, abatacept with csDMARD, placebo, csDMARD, or other bDMARD.
Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China. The authors did not report conflicts of interest.
Source: Ahamada MM and Wu X. Analysis of efficacy and safety of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2023 (Mar 7). Doi: 10.55563/clinexprheumatol/2xjg0d