Dataset Information

Adverse Events and Resource Use Before and After Treat-to-Target in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Treat-to-target (TTT) is an accepted paradigm for care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because TTT can be associated with more medication switches, concerns arise regarding whether implementing TTT may increase adverse events and/or resource use. The aim of this study was to examine adverse events and resource use during the preintervention and intervention periods of the TTT intervention trial.

Methods

We used data from 6 practices enrolled in an 18-month cluster-randomized controlled trial to compare adverse events and resource use before (months 1-9) and during (months 10-18) a TTT intervention. The outcomes of interest, adverse events and resource use, were based on medical record review of all rheumatology visits for RA patients before and during the intervention.

Results

We examined records for 321 patients before the intervention and 315 during the intervention. An adverse event was recorded in 10.2% of visits before the intervention and 8.8% of visits during the intervention (P = 0.41). Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were taken by 53.6% of patients before the intervention and 49.8% of patients during the intervention (P = 0.73). Rheumatology visits were more frequent before the intervention (mean ± SD 4.0 ± 1.4) than during the intervention (mean ± SD 3.6 ± 1.2; P = 0.02). More visits were accompanied by monitoring laboratory tests before the intervention (90.0%) compared with during the intervention (52.7%; P < 0.001). A greater percentage of visits before the intervention included diagnostic imaging (15.4%) versus during the intervention (8.9%; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

We observed similar rates of adverse events before and during the implementation of TTT for RA. Rheumatology visits, use of laboratory monitoring, and diagnostic imaging did not increase during the TTT intervention.

SUBMITTER: Solomon DH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6421109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol may be associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was undertaken to determine whether the complex relationship between levels of LDL and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and CV risk is different in RA patients as compared to non-RA controls.Using data from a US health insurance plan (2003-2012), we conducted a cohort study that included patients with RA and non-RA control subjects matched with regard to age, sex, and index date. The nonlinearity of associations between lipid levels and incidence of major adverse CV events (MACE) was tested. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to examine for an interaction between lipid levels and RA status in relation to the risk of MACE, after adjustment for CV risk factors.In total, 16,085 RA patients and 48,499 non-RA controls were studied. The mean age was 52.6 years and 78.6% were women. The relationship between LDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.72). No significant increase in CV risk was observed between the lowest quintile of LDL cholesterol levels (?91.0 mg/dl) and the second, third, or fourth quintiles, whereas the highest quintile (>190.0 mg/dl) conveyed a 40% increase in risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.17-1.68). The relationship between HDL cholesterol levels and incidence of MACE was also nonlinear and similar between RA patients and non-RA controls (P for interaction?=?0.39). Compared to the lowest quintile of HDL cholesterol levels, each successive quintile was associated with a reduced risk of MACE (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.48-0.72 for lowest quintile [?43.0 mg/dl] versus highest quintile [>71.0 mg/dl]).The complex relationship between LDL cholesterol levels, HDL cholesterol levels, and risk of MACE was nonlinear in RA patients and also not statistically significantly different from that in an age- and sex-matched non-RA cohort.

Project description:IntroductionPatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have decreased survival because of increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population, and treatment with tocilizumab (TCZ) has been shown to increase lipid levels; however, the relationship between lipids and cardiovascular risk is unknown. This post hoc analysis expanded on previously reported 24-week results by characterizing statin use and subsequent changes in lipid parameters in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous TCZ (TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC) over 2 years of treatment.MethodsData were collected from patients with moderate to severe active RA who received ≥1 dose of the study drug in seven international, randomized, double-blind, controlled phase 3 and 4 clinical trials of TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. Lipid levels and safety events were assessed over 2 years of treatment. Data were summarized for all pooled treatment groups of the intention-to-treat populations in the TCZ-IV and TCZ-SC studies, and results were stratified by concomitant statin use.ResultsData from this descriptive, retrospective, pooled analysis indicated that statins can stabilize lipid levels without a clinically significant increase in adverse events. Approximately 30% of patients in the TCZ treatment arms who never received a statin demonstrated a shift in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from <130 mg/dl at baseline to ≥130 mg/dl at 2 years. However, despite the increased potential cardiovascular risk, <15% of patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dl and <35% of patients with a total cholesterol:high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol ratio >5 at 2 years were receiving concomitant statins.ConclusionConcomitant statin use attenuated TCZ-mediated lipid increases; however, a large proportion of TCZ-treated patients potentially at risk of cardiovascular disease were untreated. These findings highlight the need for better understanding of potential risk associated with TCZ-mediated lipid elevations as well as implementation of RA-specific guidelines on the recognition and management of elevated risk of cardiovascular events in patients with RA.FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:While dose escalation of golimumab has been used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who demonstrate an inadequate response to the standard dose, its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome observed by dose escalation of golimumab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the daily clinical setting. METHODS:A post hoc analysis was performed of data from the 24-week post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan (n?=?5154). A total of 301 patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline who underwent dose escalation of golimumab were assessed for effectiveness at 24 weeks based on several variables, such as DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI, as well as for medication persistence through 24 weeks. In addition, the study population was stratified by the time to dose escalation, and effectiveness was likewise evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a moderate/good EULAR response to golimumab at 24 weeks. RESULTS:Patients with golimumab dose escalation showed significant improvement of the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by reduction of the DAS28-CRP (?0.89), SDAI (?8.64), and CDAI (?8.28) scores. This result was relatively consistent across the subgroups stratified by the timing of dose escalation. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, 78.1% of the patients continued to receive golimumab at 24 weeks, and this was also similar among the subgroups stratified by the time to dose escalation. Multivariate analysis identified male sex and previous biologic therapy as factors that were significantly associated with the clinical response at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION:In real-world clinical practice, improvement of disease activity was observed after uptitration of golimumab from 50 to 100 mg regardless of the timing. Male patients and biologic-naive patients were more likely to respond to dose escalation of golimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION:UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000015895.

Project description:IntroductionThis post hoc analysis evaluated influenza adverse events (AEs) across rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ulcerative colitis (UC), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) tofacitinib clinical programs.MethodsAvailable data from phase 1, randomized phase 2/3/3b/4 clinical trials (completed by 2018), and long-term extension (LTE) studies (up to May 2019) in patients with RA, UC, and PsA were included [randomized or Overall (phase 1-3b/4 and LTE studies) tofacitinib cohorts]. Incidence rates (IRs; events per 100 patient-years) of combined influenza AEs (seasons 2004/2005 to 2018/2019) were analyzed, including by tofacitinib dose [5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID)] and age (< 65 versus ≥ 65 years). Logistic regression models evaluated risk factors for influenza AEs in the RA Overall tofacitinib cohort.ResultsIn randomized cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib, adalimumab, methotrexate, and placebo groups, across indications. Among Overall tofacitinib cohorts, combined influenza AE IRs with tofacitinib 5/10 mg BID, respectively, were higher in the UC (3.66/5.09) versus RA (2.38/2.19) and PsA (1.74/1.29) cohorts. IRs were generally similar across tofacitinib dose and age groups. Most influenza AEs were nonserious and did not require changes to tofacitinib treatment. Significant risk factors for influenza AEs in patients with RA were geographic region, baseline oral corticosteroid and methotrexate use, and tofacitinib dose.ConclusionsIn the RA, UC, and PsA clinical programs, combined influenza AE IRs were highest in UC, while in each indication they were generally similar across tofacitinib, placebo, and comparator groups. Influenza AEs were predominantly nonserious and not associated with changes to tofacitinib treatment.Trial registration numbersNCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.