OBJECTIVE: To examine the comparative effects of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and tofacitinib against conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: RA patients with ≥ 1 year of participation in the FORWARD study, from 1998 through 2017, were assessed for incident composite CVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and CVD-related death validated from hospital/death records). DMARD were categorized into 7 mutually exclusive groups: (1) csDMARD-referent; (2) tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi); (3) abatacept (ABA); (4) rituximab; (5) tocilizumab; (6) anakinra; and (7) tofacitinib. Glucocorticoids (GC) were assessed using a weighted cumulative exposure model, which combines information about duration, intensity, and timing of exposure into a summary measure by using the weighted sum of past oral doses (prednisolone equivalent). Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounders.
RESULTS: During median (IQR) 4.0 (1.7-8.0) years of follow-up, 1801 CVD events were identified in 18,754 RA patients. The adjusted model showed CVD risk reduction with TNFi (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93) and ABA (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.83) compared to csDMARD. While higher GC exposure as weighted cumulative exposure was associated with increased CVD risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11-1.19), methotrexate (MTX) use was associated with CVD risk reduction [use vs nonuse HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.90, and high dose (> 15 mg/week) vs low dose (≤ 15 mg/week) HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99].
CONCLUSION: ABA and TNFi were associated with decreased risk of CVD compared to csDMARD. Minimizing GC use and optimizing MTX dose may improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: We conducted a nationwide, population-based, case-control study using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database for 2003-2013. From 2004 to 2012, we identified 108,319 newly diagnosed RA patients without previous MACEs, of whom 7,580 patients (7.0%) developed MACEs during follow-up. From these incident RA patients, we included 5,994 MACE cases and 1:4 matched 23,976 non-MACE controls for analysis. The associations of MACEs with comorbidities and use of anti-rheumatic medications within 1 year before the index date were examined using conditional logistic regression analyses.
RESULTS: Using multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis, the risk of MACE in RA patients was associated with use of golimumab [odd's ratio (OR), 0.09; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.01-0.67], abatacept (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.93), hydroxychloroquine (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99), methotrexate (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.81), cyclosporin (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.07-1.91), nonsteroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs) (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.46), antiplatelet agent (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.31-2.63), hypertension (without anti-hypertensive agents: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.12; with anti-hypertensive agents: OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.36-1.59), diabetes (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37), hyperlipidemia without lipid-lowering agents (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17), ischemic heart disease (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.31), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23) in the parsimonious model. The risk of MACE in RA patients also increased markedly in participants younger than 65 years with some comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This population-based case-control study revealed that the use of golimumab, abatacept, hydroxychloroquine, and methotrexate were associated with a decreased risk of MACE development in newly diagnosed RA patients, while the use of cyclosporin, NSAIDs, and antiplatelet agents, and comorbidities, including hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia without lipid-lowering agent therapy, ischemic heart disease, and COPD, were associated with an increased risk of MACE development in RA patients.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated infection-related hospitalization risk and cost in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced and targeted DMARD (tDMARD) naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients that were treated with abatacept, TNFi, or other non-TNFi.
METHODS: This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Fee-for-Service claims to identify patients ≥65 age, diagnosed with RA, and were either 1) TNFi-experienced, who switched from a TNFi to another tDMARD (subsequent tDMARD claim served as index), or 2) tDMARD naïve (first therapy claim served as index), who initiated either abatacept, TNFi, or non-TNFi as their first tDMARD, between 2010 and 2017. Follow-up ended at the date of disenrollment, death, end of study period, or end of index treatment, whichever occurred first. Infection-related hospitalizations included pneumonia, bacterial respiratory, sepsis, skin and soft tissue, joint or genitourinary infections. A Cox proportional hazard model and two part generalized linear model were developed to estimate adjusted infection-related hospitalization risk and costs. Costs were normalized to per-patient-per-month (PPPM) and inflated to 2019 US$.
RESULTS: The infection-related hospitalizations rate was lower during follow-up than during baseline periods for abatacept users, but was reversed for both TNFi and other non-TNFi users in both TNFi-experience and tDMARD naïve (p value < .001 based on Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odds ratios). Infection-related hospitalization PPPM cost was significantly lower in abatacept treated patients compared to TNFi (TNFi-experienced: by $74; tDMARD naïve: $42) and other non-TNFi (TNFi-experienced: by $68; tDMARD naïve: $60). The adjusted infection-related hospitalization risk was significantly higher for RA patients treated with TNFi (TNFi-experienced HR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.26-1.75, p < .0001; tDMARD naïve HR:1.59; 95% CI: 1.43-1.77, p < .0001) and other non-TNFi (TNFi-experienced HR:1.46; CI:1.28-1.66; tDMARD naïve HR:1.63; 95% CI: 1.44-1.83) than with abatacept.
CONCLUSION: RA Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries who either switched or initiated abatacept have a lower infection-related hospitalization risk and cost compared to patients who switched to or initiated other tDMARDs.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the association between biological DMARDs (bDMARDs; overall and by drug) as used in RA and the risk of malignant lymphomas including subtypes.
METHODS: By linking nationwide Swedish registers we identified cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with a bDMARD (n = 16 392), bDMARD-naïve (n = 55 253), an age- and sex-matched general population comparator cohort (n = 229 047), and all incident lymphomas 2001-16. We used Cox regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) of lymphoma taking calendar period and other factors into account.
RESULTS: There were 82 lymphomas among the bDMARD-treated patients with RA, crude incidence rate 76/100 000 person-years, and 310 lymphomas among the bDMARD-naïve patients with RA, crude incidence rate 90/100 000 person-years. This resulted in an adjusted HR (aHR) associated with bDMARD treatment (vs not) of 1.08 (95% CI: 0.83, 1.41). The corresponding aHR for bDMARD-treated and bDMARD-naïve vs the general population was 1.65 (95% CI: 1.31, 2.08) and 1.56 (95% CI: 1.37, 1.78) respectively. Restricting follow-up period to after 2006, the aHR of lymphoma for patients with RA starting a first bDMARD vs bDMARD-naïve was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.47, 1.00), and for bDMARD treated vs patients with RA switching from one conventional synthetic DMARDs to another, aHR was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.28, 0.73). There were no signals of different risks with any particular TNF inhibitor (TNFi) agent. We found no different lymphoma subtype pattern following bDMARD therapy.
CONCLUSION: Treatment with bDMARDs, including both TNFi and non-TNFi bDMARDs, does not further increase the lymphoma risk in RA; instead, bDMARD treatment may actually reduce the excess lymphoma risk in RA.
Background: Long-term clinical registries are essential tools to evaluate new therapies in a patient population that differs from those in randomized clinical trials. The objectives are to describe the profile of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with anti-TNF agents in Canadian routine care. Methods: RA patients eligible for treatment with Infliximab (IFX), golimumab (GLM) or intravenous golimumab (GLM-IV) as per their respective Canadian product monographs were enrolled into the BioTRAC registry between 2002 and 2017. Study visits occurred at baseline and every 6 months thereafter. Effectiveness was assessed by changes in disease activity. Safety was evaluated by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and drug survival. Results: Of the 890 IFX-, 530 GLM- and 157 GLM-IV-treated patients, the proportion of females ranged from 77.0-86.6%, the mean ages from 55.8-57.7 and the mean disease duration from 6.5-8.6 years. A significant decrease in baseline disease duration and disease activity parameters (DAS, TJC, SJC, HAQ, AM stiffness, MDGA, PtGA, CRP, ESR) was observed over time. Treatment with IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV significantly improved all disease parameters over time. The incidence of AEs was 105, 113 and 82.6 /100 PYs and the incidence of SAEs was 11.7, 11.2 and 4.68 /100 PYs for IFX, GLM- and GLM-IV-treated patients, respectively. Conclusion: Differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated with an anti-TNFs over time shows the evolution of treatment modalities over time. All treatments significantly reduced disease activity and improved functionality in a similar fashion. The incidence of adverse events was consistent with the safety profiles of IFX and GLM. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00741793 (Retrospectively registered on August 26, 2008).
There has been some debate between biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) treatment and hypertension (HTN) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to determine the effect of bDMARDs on the development of HTN in patients with RA.A total of 996 patients eligible for analysis were recruited from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics & Targeted Therapy (KOBIO) registry from 2012 to 2018. The bDMARDs were tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab. The cDMARDs included methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, and leflunomide. The incidence rate and 95% confidence interval of HTN were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratio (HR) of risk factors associated with hypertension was assessed by cox proportional hazard model analysis.Among the 996 patients, 62 patients (6.2%) were newly diagnosed with HTN. There were differences in incidence rate of HTN among conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs), TNF inhibitors, tocilizumab, and abatacept during the follow-up period (P = .015). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that there was a significant difference in incident HTN only between cDMARDs and tocilizumab (P = .001). Systolic blood pressure and positive rheumatoid factor were associated with development of HTN (HR = 1.049, P = .016 and HR = 1.386, P = .010, respectively). Cox proportional hazard model analysis showed no difference in the development of HTN between bDMARDs and cDMARDs in RA.This study showed that bDMARDs treatment might not increase risk of incident HTN in patients with RA, compared to cDMARDs.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).
METHODS: Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection.
RESULTS: We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes.
CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
OBJECTIVES: Most infections in patients with RA are treated in primary care with antibiotics. A small fraction require hospitalization. Only a few studies exist regarding the overall risk of infection (i.e. prescription of antibiotics or hospitalization due to infection) in patients initiating non-TNF-inhibitor therapy. In Danish RA patients initiating abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab treatment in routine care, the aims were to compare adjusted incidence rates (IR) of infections and to estimate relative risk of infections across the drugs during 0-12 and 0-24 months.
METHODS: This was an observational cohort study including all RA patients in the DANBIO registry starting a non-TNF-inhibitor from 2010 to 2017. Infections were defined as a prescription of antibiotics or hospitalization due to infection. Prescriptions, comorbidities and infections were captured through linkage to national registries. IRs of infections (age, gender adjusted) and rate ratios (as estimates of RR (relative risk)), adjusted for additional covariates) (Poisson regression) were calculated.
RESULTS: We identified 3696 treatment episodes (abatacept 1115, rituximab 1017, tocilizumab 1564). At baseline, rituximab users were older and had more previous cancer. During 0-12 months, 1747 infections occurred. Age and gender-adjusted IRs per 100 person-years were as follows: abatacept: 76 (95% CI: 69, 84); rituximab: 87 (95% CI: 79, 96); tocilizumab: 77 (95% CI: 71, 84). Adjusted RRs were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.08) for abatacept and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) for tocilizumab compared with rituximab and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.14) for abatacept compared with tocilizumab. RRs around 1 were observed after 24 months. Switchers and ever smokers had higher risk compared with biologic-naïve and never smokers, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Overall infections were common in non-TNF-inhibitor-treated RA patients, with a tendency towards rituximab having the highest risk, but CIs were wide in all analyses. Confounding by indication may at least partly explain any differences.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate whether abatacept used in patients for RA was associated with an increased risk of reporting overall cancer and specific cancers, including breast, lung, lymphoma, melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer when compared with other biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).
METHODS: We performed an observational study within VigiBase, the World Health Organization's global database of individual case safety reports, from 2007 to 2017 to compare the cases of cancer reported in RA patients exposed to abatacept with those reported in RA patients exposed to other bDMARDs. We conducted disproportionality analyses allowing the estimation of reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% CIs of the exposure odds among spontaneous reporting of cancers to the exposure odds among other reported adverse effects.
RESULTS: We identified 15 846 adverse effects reported in RA patients who received abatacept and 290 568 adverse effects reported in RA patients treated with other bDMARDs. Compared with other bDMARDs, the use of abatacept was not associated with an increased risk of reporting cancer overall [ROR 0.98 (95% CI 0.91, 1.05)]. Analyses by specific cancer sites showed a significantly increased ROR for melanoma [1.58 (95% CI 1.17, 2.08)], but not for other specific cancer sites.
CONCLUSION: Compared with other bDMARDs, exposure to abatacept in RA patients was only significantly associated with an increased risk of reporting melanoma. This increased risk is consistent with the properties of abatacept (CTLA-4 agonist) since it has an opposite action than ipilimumab, an antibody that blocks CTLA-4 and is approved for the treatment of malignant melanoma.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT03980639.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the rate of tuberculosis (TB) in biologic users for rheumatic diseases in South Africa, the effectiveness of our latent TB infection (LTBI) programme, risk factors and outcome.
METHODS: TB cases were collected from the South African Biologics Registry (SABIO), rheumatologists and pharmaceutical companies. Demographics, LTBI screening and treatment, biological and disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapies, TB diagnosis and outcomes were recorded.
RESULTS: 96 TB cases were collected from 1999 to June 2017: rheumatoid arthritis 55, ankylosing spondylitis 27, psoriatic arthritis 4, and juvenile inflammatory arthritis 10. The TB rate was 1240/100 000 person years for biologic users (n=96) versus the biologic naive cohort of 0/100 000 years with an incidence rate difference of 0.0124 (p<0.0001). 60/96 had pulmonary and 36/96 had extra-pulmonary TB. Reactivation TB occurred in 45/96 cases. TB occurred in all biologics licenced in South Africa, the majority in monoclonal inhibitors (1683/100 000 person years) compared with etanercept (861/100 000 person years) and non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (681/100 000 person years). The incidence rate ratio for monoclonal inhibitors compared with etanercept was 1.96 (p=0.005) and 2.47 (p=0.002) compared with non-TNF inhibitors with no significant difference between non-TNF inhibitors and etanercept (p=0.336). From those (12.9%) who screened LTBI positive, 14 developed TB, while the majority (77) screened LTBI negative. Black race, male sex, younger age and residence in the Western Cape were statistical risk factors. Two drug resistant TB cases and six deaths occurred.
CONCLUSION: Reactivation and new onset TB is a significant risk for all biologics users in SA. Screening for LTBI is an imperative preventative strategy.
To examine the comparative effects of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) and tofacitinib against conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) on incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS:
RA patients with ≥ 1 year of participation in the FORWARD study, from 1998 through 2017, were assessed for incident composite CVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and CVD-related death validated from hospital/death records). DMARD were categorized into 7 mutually exclusive groups: (1) csDMARD-referent; (2) tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi); (3) abatacept (ABA); (4) rituximab; (5) tocilizumab; (6) anakinra; and (7) tofacitinib. Glucocorticoids (GC) were assessed using a weighted cumulative exposure model, which combines information about duration, intensity, and timing of exposure into a summary measure by using the weighted sum of past oral doses (prednisolone equivalent). Cox proportional hazard models were used to adjust for confounders.
RESULTS:
During median (IQR) 4.0 (1.7-8.0) years of follow-up, 1801 CVD events were identified in 18,754 RA patients. The adjusted model showed CVD risk reduction with TNFi (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.93) and ABA (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30-0.83) compared to csDMARD. While higher GC exposure as weighted cumulative exposure was associated with increased CVD risk (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11-1.19), methotrexate (MTX) use was associated with CVD risk reduction [use vs nonuse HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.90, and high dose (> 15 mg/week) vs low dose (≤ 15 mg/week) HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99].
CONCLUSION:
ABA and TNFi were associated with decreased risk of CVD compared to csDMARD. Minimizing GC use and optimizing MTX dose may improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with RA.
