ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0814

“I Want to Switch Back”: Real-world Experience of Switching Intravenous Abatacept and Tocilizumab to Subcutaneous Injection During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Rishi Gupta1, Muhammad Shipa2, Su-Ann Yeoh2, Pauline Buck1 and Michael Ehrenstein2, 1University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom, 2University College London, LONDON, United Kingdom

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Biologicals, COVID-19, Patient reported outcomes, rheumatoid arthritis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 7, 2020

Title: RA – Treatments Poster II: Comparative Effectiveness, Biosimilars, Adherence & the Real World

Session Type: Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom[1] recommended consideration of switching from intravenous (IV) treatment to subcutaneous (SQ) form to minimise the risk of exposure. The aim of this study is to assess patient-reported outcomes of those who have been switched to SQ form from IV abatacept (ABT) and tocilizumab (TCZ).

Methods: We analysed RA patients at a large rheumatology centre fulfilling the 2010 ACR/EULAR classification criteria who were switched from IV to SQ ABT and TCZ. Patients who have not responded to the SQ form in the past were not switched. We compared Multi-Dimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MD-HAQ) scores immediately before and 3 months after the IV to SQ switch. RAPID3 was calculated using three components of MD-HAQ (functional status, pain, and global health). Patients were also asked whether they would prefer their current SQ regimen to continue or whether they would like to revert to IV. Reasons for patient preference to revert to IV were also captured.

Results: 32 patients were switched from IV to SQ [14 (43.7%) ABT and 18 (56.3%) TCZ]. Of the 32 patients who switched, 29 responded to our questionnaires. The majority of patients were in DAS28-ESR clinical remission or low disease activity prior to the switch (mean DAS28-ESR 3.00 for ABT, 2.15 for TCZ).

Unexpectedly, 77% (10/13) in the ABT group and 88% (14/16) in the TCZ group, expressed a preference to return to their IV regimen (Fig. 1). In the ABT group, patient preference to revert to IV was primarily due to worsening symptoms of joint pain/stiffness since the switch to SQ (symptom recurrence described in the last 2 days of weekly injection) (Table 1). This, in turn, is associated with a negative impact on function, represented by the statistically significant increase in MD-HAQ functional status score from 3.662 to 4.408 (p= 0.042), with higher values reflecting negative patient experiences (Fig. 2). We did not find any significant differences in the other 2 components of MD-HAQ and RAPID3.

In the TCZ group however, although the majority expressed a preference to revert to IV, no statistically significant differences were noted in MD-HAQ and RAPID3. 50% (7/14) preferred to revert to IV due to worsening of symptoms, whilst 35.7% (5/14) requested to revert to IV as they preferred the face-to-face interaction with a healthcare professional.

Conclusion: This was a small study but nevertheless indicates that the vast majority of RA patients who switched from IV to SQ ABT and TCZ expressed a preference to switch back. For ABT, this decision was associated with worsening of their functional status whereas for TCZ, although we did not find any statistical significant difference in MD-HAQ and RAPID3, the most commonly reported reasons for request to revert to IV were either worsening of symptoms or the benefit of interaction with a healthcare professional with the IV route of administration. These results suggest that IV and SQ formulations should not be considered as equivalent medications for RA.

  1. COVID-19 rapid guideline: rheumatological autoimmune, inflammatory and metabolic bone disorders. Published: 3 April 2020 www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng167.

Figure 1. The majority of the patients in the abatacept (ABT) and tocilizumab (TCZ) groups preferred to switch back from subcutaneous (SQ) to intravenous (IV) form. In ABT group, 10/13 wanted to switch back (χ2 3.77, p = 0.052). In the TCZ group, 14/16 would like to switch (χ2 9, p = 0.003).

Figure 2. Switching Abatacept (ABT) to subcutaneous (SQ) form, resulted increase in mean score to 4.408 from 3.66 (p = 0.042).

Table 1. Reasons for wanting to switch back from SQ to IV.


Disclosure: R. Gupta, None; M. Shipa, None; S. Yeoh, None; P. Buck, None; M. Ehrenstein, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Gupta R, Shipa M, Yeoh S, Buck P, Ehrenstein M. “I Want to Switch Back”: Real-world Experience of Switching Intravenous Abatacept and Tocilizumab to Subcutaneous Injection During the COVID-19 Pandemic [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/i-want-to-switch-back-real-world-experience-of-switching-intravenous-abatacept-and-tocilizumab-to-subcutaneous-injection-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/i-want-to-switch-back-real-world-experience-of-switching-intravenous-abatacept-and-tocilizumab-to-subcutaneous-injection-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology