Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM.

Results

Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Harrold LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10140197 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

Harrold Leslie R LR Wittstock Keith K Kelly Sheila S Han Xue X Shan Ying Y Guo Lin L Moore Page C PC Khaychuk Vadim V

Rheumatology and therapy 20230207 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cycl ...[more]

PMID: 36749478

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere is a need for observational studies to supplement evidence from clinical trials, and the target trial emulation (TTE) framework can help avoid biases that can be introduced when treatments are compared crudely using observational data by applying design principles for randomized clinical trials. Adalimumab (ADA) and tofacitinib (TOF) were shown to be equivalent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized clinical trial, but to our knowledge, these drugs have not been compared head-to-head using routinely collected clinical data and the TTE framework.ObjectiveTo emulate a randomized clinical trial comparing ADA vs TOF in patients with RA who were new users of a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD).Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study emulating a randomized clinical trial of ADA vs TOF included Australian adults aged 18 years or older with RA in the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology (OPAL) data set. Patients were included if they initiated ADA or TOF between October 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021; were new b/tsDMARD users; and had at least 1 component of the disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) recorded at baseline or during follow-up.InterventionTreatment with either ADA (40 mg every 14 days) or TOF (10 mg daily).Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the estimated average treatment effect, defined as the difference in mean DAS28-CRP among patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA at 3 and 9 months after initiating treatment. Missing DAS28-CRP data were multiply imputed. Stable balancing weights were used to account for nonrandomized treatment assignment.ResultsA total of 842 patients were identified, including 569 treated with ADA (387 [68.0%] female; median age, 56 years [IQR, 47-66 years]) and 273 treated with TOF (201 [73.6%] female; median age, 59 years [IQR, 51-68 years]). After applying stable balancing weights, mean DAS28-CRP in the ADA group was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4) at 9 months; in the TOF group, it was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.5) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.1-2.4) at 9 months. The estimated average treatment effect was -0.2 (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.03; P = .02) at 3 months and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1; P = .60) at 9 months.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, there was a modest but statistically significant reduction in DAS28-CRP at 3 months for patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA and no difference between treatment groups at 9 months. Three months of treatment with either drug led to clinically relevant average reductions in mean DAS28-CRP, consistent with remission.

Project description:IntroductionAnti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) are highly specific serological biomarkers that are indicative of a poor prognosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with different mechanisms of action may vary, based on patients' serostatus. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in patients with RA who were anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody positive (anti-CCP+).MethodsAbatacept or TNFi initiators with anti-CCP+ status (≥ 20 U/ml) at or prior to treatment initiation were identified from a large observational US cohort (1 December 2005-31 August 2016). Using propensity score matching (1:1), stratified by prior TNFi use (0, 1 and ≥ 2), effectiveness at 6 months after initiation was evaluated. Primary outcome was mean change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. Secondary outcomes included achievement of remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), low disease activity/remission (CDAI ≤ 10), modified American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 responses and mean change in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire score.ResultsAfter propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between 330 pairs of abatacept and TNFi initiators (biologic naïve, n = 97; TNFi experienced, n = 233) were well balanced with absolute value standardized differences of ≤ 0.1. Both overall, and in the biologic-naïve cohort, there were no significant differences in mean change in CDAI score at 6 months. However, in the TNFi-experienced cohort, there was a significantly greater improvement in CDAI score at 6 months with abatacept versus TNFi initiators (p = 0.033). Secondary outcomes showed similar trends.ConclusionsImprovements in clinical disease activity were seen in anti-CCP+ abatacept and TNFi initiators. TNFi-experienced anti-CCP+ patients with RA had more improvement in disease activity with abatacept versus TNFis, whereas outcomes were similar between treatments in the overall population and in biologic-naïve patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01625650.FundingThis study is sponsored by Corrona, LLC and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the publication of this manuscript.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of tofacitinib and abatacept and clarify the impact of the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) on responses to these treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsAfter adjustments by propensity score matching, 70 out of 161 patients receiving tofacitinib and 70 out of 131 receiving abatacept were extracted. The clinical effectiveness of both drugs over 24 weeks and the impact of the copy numbers of SE on effectiveness outcomes were investigated.ResultsThe percentage of patients in remission in the 28-joint count disease activity score using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) did not significantly differ between patients receiving tofacitinib and abatacept at week 24 (32% vs 37%, p = 0.359). The mean change at week 4 in DAS28-ESR from baseline was significantly greater in patients receiving tofacitinib than in those receiving abatacept (- 1.516 vs - 0.827, p = 0.0003). The percentage of patients in remission at week 4 was 30% with tofacitinib and 15% with abatacept (p = 0.016). When patients were stratified by the copy numbers of SE alleles, differences in these numbers did not affect DAS28-ESR scores of patients receiving tofacitinib. However, among patients receiving abatacept, DAS28-ESR scores were significantly lower in patients carrying 2 copies of SE alleles than in those carrying 0 copies at each time point throughout the 24-week period. Furthermore, the percentage of patients in remission with DAS28-ESR at week 24 was not affected by the copy numbers of SE alleles in patients receiving tofacitinib (p = 0.947), whereas it significantly increased as the copy numbers became higher in patients receiving abatacept (p = 0.00309). Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed a correlation between the presence of SE and DAS28-ESR remission in patients receiving abatacept (OR = 25.881, 95% CI = 3.140-213.351, p = 0.0025), but not in those receiving tofacitinib (OR = 1.473, 95% CI = 0.291-7.446, p = 0.639).ConclusionsAlthough the clinical effectiveness of tofacitinib and abatacept was similar at week 24, tofacitinib was superior to abatacept for changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR and the achievement of remission at week 4. SE positivity was associated with the achievement of DAS28-ESR remission by week 24 in patients receiving abatacept, but not in those receiving tofacitinib.

Project description:ImportanceAmong patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate, a treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) provides better clinical efficacy compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs recommended by current treatment guidelines; but its cost-effectiveness evidence remains unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide and inform formulary listing decisions.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation's cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a Hong Kong public institution using the Markov disease transition model to simulate the lifetime disease progression and cost for patients with RA, using monetary value in 2022. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the internal validity of the modeling conclusion. Participants included patients diagnosed with RA from 2000 to 2021 who were retrieved retrospectively from local electronic medical records to generate model input parameters. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2023 to March 2024.InterventionsThe model assesses 3 competing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), and leflunomide; all used in combination with methotrexate.Main outcomes and measuresLifetime health care cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the simulated cohort.ResultsIn total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years; 19 469 [72.7%] women). In the base-case analysis, the lifetime health care cost and QALYs for the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively; and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively. Both biosimilar sequences presented lower costs and greater QALYs than the leflunomide sequence. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/QALY) comparing biosimilar infliximab sequence vs leflunomide sequence and biosimilar adalimumab sequence vs leflunomide sequence ranged from -15 797 to -8615 and -9088 to 10 238, respectively, all below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold (US $48 555/QALY gain). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosmilar adalimumab being cost-effective out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91%, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation study, the treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide in managing patients with RA who experienced failure with the initial methotrexate treatment. These results suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with RA.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets