Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Are Anti-CCP Positive in the United States Corrona Registry.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Anti-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+).

Methods

Abatacept 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.

Results

After 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.

Conclusions

Improvements 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 registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01625650.

Funding

This study is sponsored by Corrona, LLC and funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Bristol-Myers Squibb funded the publication of this manuscript.

SUBMITTER: Harrold LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6513934 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti-tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF-experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry.Rituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ?1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs. ??2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index??10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (?0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported.Estimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups.In anti-TNF-experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661 . Registered 25 July 2011.

Project description:IntroductionCurrently 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).MethodsCorEvitas (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.ResultsFollowing 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundPhysician reporting is commonly used to ascertain adverse events or outcomes measured in epidemiologic studies. However, little is known on the accuracy of physician reported malignancies compared to pertinent medical record review in large cohort studies.MethodsThe Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry gathers physician-completed questionnaires for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, including request for information on incident malignancies, approximately every three months. For incident malignancies reported from October 1st, 2001, through December 31st, 2007, we retrospectively requested completion of a Targeted Adverse Event (TAE) form for additional information as well as primary source documents to adjudicate the malignancy reports. CORRONA has employed a prospective request for source documentation for these events since 2008. We classified each malignancy as definite, probable, possible, or not a malignancy.ResultsFrom 20,837 RA patients enrolled in CORRONA, 461 incident malignancies were initially reported on physician questionnaires. After review of returned source documents with adjudication, 234 were deemed definite, 69 probable, 101 possible, and 57 not an incident malignancy. The positive predictive value (PPV) of initial physician report of a malignancy versus "definite or probable" malignancy based on adjudication was 0.66 (95% CI 0.61 - 0.70). The PPV was 0.68 (95% CI 0.63 - 0.72) when the subsequent TAE form also confirmed the presence of malignancy. When possible malignancies were included, the PPV of physician-reported malignancies without a subsequent TAE form increased to 0.86 (0.83 - 0.89), and with a subsequent TAE form, 0.89 (0.85-0.91).ConclusionTwelve percent of initial physician reports of incident malignancy could not be confirmed with review of source documents. The most common reason for lack of confirmation was inability to obtain documents or insufficient data in source materials. These results suggest that timely collection of relevant medical records and an adjudication process are required to improve the accuracy of cancer reporting in epidemiologic studies.

Project description:IntroductionUnderstanding the durability of response to treatment and factors associated with failure to maintain response in a real-world setting can inform treatment decisions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to analyze durability of response to tocilizumab (TCZ) and factors associated with durability among US patients with RA in routine clinical practice.MethodsTCZ initiators in the Corrona RA Registry were included. Durability of response was defined as maintaining continuous TCZ treatment and either an improvement of at least minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score or low disease activity (LDA). Secondary analyses included patients treated with intravenous (IV) TCZ and excluded those who discontinued TCZ without reporting reasons for discontinuation. Durability was calculated with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards modeling identified factors associated with durability.ResultsAmong 1789 TCZ initiators, 466, 272, and 162 were persistent (with or without durable response) with follow-up visits at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. Median MCID durability of response in CDAI was > 50% after 36 months overall, 26 months for TCZ-IV, and > 50% after 36 months for those with known reasons for discontinuation; longer durability was associated with increased duration of RA and higher baseline CDAI score and shorter durability with history of malignancy and history of diabetes. Median LDA durability of response was 13.0 months overall, for TCZ-IV, and for those with known reasons for discontinuation; shorter durability was associated with history of malignancy, history of diabetes, and higher baseline CDAI score.ConclusionsMedian durability of response to TCZ in RA was > 3 years when defined as maintenance of MCID in CDAI score and > 1 year with the more stringent criteria of maintenance of LDA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01402661.

Project description:BackgroundThe implementation of treat-to-target principles in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been fully investigated in patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor treatment.ObjectivesTo evaluate the prevalence of an inadequate response to initial TNF inhibitor treatment at 6 and 12 months among patients with RA in a real-world patient registry, as well as the delay in therapy adjustment and its impact on disease activity and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.MethodsThis analysis is based on data of patients with moderate or severe disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) who were included in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA registry, a prospective, observational database. The patients had never received treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and had initiated treatment with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between October 2001 and December 2014. We evaluated treatment response (CDAI score ≤10), select PRO measures, and treatment changes at 6 months. Patients who had an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 months and continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor were evaluated again at 12 months.ResultsThis retrospective analysis included 2282 patients. At 6 months, 1732 (75.9%) of the patients continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor; of these, 803 (46.4%) patients had an inadequate response to treatment. Of the 803 patients who had an inadequate response at 6 months, 488 (60.8%) continued their initial treatment at 12 months. Of these 488 patients, 315 (64.5%) had an inadequate response at 12 months, and 173 (35.5%) had a response. Numerically greater improvements in all PRO measures were observed for patients who responded to therapy compared with patients with an inadequate response.ConclusionsIn this real-world analysis of data from the Corrona RA registry, a considerable proportion of patients with RA had an inadequate response to the initial TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 and 12 months. Many patients continued to have moderate or high disease activity, without accelerating treatment (eg, addition or increase in the dose of concurrent conventional synthetic DMARDs or a TNF inhibitor), contrary to treat-to-target principles, thus remaining at risk for accumulating joint damage and disability.