Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025
Association of Abatacept With Lower Mortality Risk Compared to Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease: An Emulated Target Trial.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shih Po-Cheng, Wang Shiow-Ing, Wei James Cheng Chung
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The optimal treatment strategy for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) remains uncertain, and direct comparative data between biologics are limited. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of abatacept compared with rituximab in patients with RA-ILD.
METHODS: An emulated target trial was designed using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network database, including patients with RA-ILD, diagnosed between 2007 and 2024. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between the two treatment groups (abatacept and rituximab). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included respiratory events, medical utilization, and infection-related adverse events. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to use Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: In total, 1,615 patients per group were identified after matching for analysis. Abatacept was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with rituximab (HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.581-0.818) and a reduced risk of mechanical ventilation (HR, 0.698; 95% CI, 0.521-0.934). The subgroup analyses yielded consistent findings. Sensitivity analyses excluding patients with concomitant connective tissue diseases also demonstrated consistent results (mortality: HR, 0.679; 95% CI, 0.570-0.810), reinforcing the robustness of the findings.
CONCLUSION: Abatacept was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with rituximab in patients with RA-ILD. Because clinicians may preferentially reserve abatacept for less aggressive RA-ILD, residual confounding by indication cannot be excluded; thus, the association should not be interpreted as proof of causality. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm whether abatacept confers a true survival advantage.
METHODS: An emulated target trial was designed using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network database, including patients with RA-ILD, diagnosed between 2007 and 2024. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between the two treatment groups (abatacept and rituximab). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included respiratory events, medical utilization, and infection-related adverse events. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to use Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: In total, 1,615 patients per group were identified after matching for analysis. Abatacept was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with rituximab (HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.581-0.818) and a reduced risk of mechanical ventilation (HR, 0.698; 95% CI, 0.521-0.934). The subgroup analyses yielded consistent findings. Sensitivity analyses excluding patients with concomitant connective tissue diseases also demonstrated consistent results (mortality: HR, 0.679; 95% CI, 0.570-0.810), reinforcing the robustness of the findings.
CONCLUSION: Abatacept was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared with rituximab in patients with RA-ILD. Because clinicians may preferentially reserve abatacept for less aggressive RA-ILD, residual confounding by indication cannot be excluded; thus, the association should not be interpreted as proof of causality. Prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm whether abatacept confers a true survival advantage.