Dataset Information

Comparative Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Biologic and Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi biologics, and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS:Using a systematic search through May 8, 2018, we included 14 observational studies in adults with RA treated with TNFi, non-TNFi biologics, tofacitinib, or csDMARDs, reporting the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or stroke. Only studies reporting active comparators were included. We performed random effects meta-analysis and estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS:As compared to TNFi, tocilizumab was associated with a decreased risk of MACE (OR 0.59 [95% CI 0.34-1.00]), whereas csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of MACE (csDMARDs including methotrexate OR 1.45 [95% CI 1.09-1.93]; without methotrexate OR 2.57 [95% CI 1.32-5.00]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%); there was no difference in risk of MACE between abatacept and TNFi (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.71-1.11]), or between tocilizumab and abatacept (OR 0.81 [0.57-1.16]). Based on 11 cohorts (n = 135,053 patients), as compared to TNFi, csDMARDs were associated with an increased risk of stroke (OR 1.17 [95% CI 1.01-1.36]); there was no difference in risk of stroke between different biologics (tocilizumab versus TNFi OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.59-1.61]; abatacept versus TNFi OR 1.08 [0.86-1.34]; tocilizumab versus abatacept OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.39-1.38]), without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). No comparative studies on cardiovascular risk with tofacitinib were identified. CONCLUSION:Based on meta-analysis, as compared to TNFi, tocilizumab may be associated with a reduced risk of MACE, whereas csDMARDs may be associated with an increased risk of MACE and stroke.

SUBMITTER: Singh S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6745288 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Biologic and Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Singh Siddharth S Fumery Mathurin M Singh Abha G AG Singh Namrata N Prokop Larry J LJ Dulai Parambir S PS Sandborn William J WJ Curtis Jeffrey R JR

Arthritis care & research 20200401 4

<h4>Objective</h4>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative effects of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi biologics, and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on cardiovascular risk in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).<h4>Methods</h4>Using a systematic search through May 8, 2018, we included 14 observational studies in adults with RA treated with TNFi, non-TNFi biologics, tofacitinib, or csDMARDs, reporting the risk o ...[more]

PMID: 30875456

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).MethodsWe analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD.ResultsA total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results.ConclusionThis multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent data are lacking regarding the risk of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) use on the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).ObjectiveTo determine the risk of developing ILD in patients with RA undergoing treatment with different b/tsDMARDs.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study using claims data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart between December 2003 and December 2019. Adult patients with RA, 1 year or more of continuous enrollment, treatment with a b/tsDMARD of interest, and without preexisting ILD were included. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to April 2022.ExposuresNew administration of adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib.Main outcomes and measuresCrude incidence rates (IRs) for the development of ILD were calculated. The risk of ILD across different b/tsDMARDs was compared using Cox-regression models. A sensitivity analysis using a prevalent new-user cohort design compared patients treated with tofacitinib and adalimumab.ResultsA total of 28 559 patients with RA (mean [SD] age 55.6 [13.7] years; 22 158 female [78%]) were treated with adalimumab (13 326 patients), abatacept (5676 patients), rituximab (5444 patients), tocilizumab (2548 patients), or tofacitinib (1565 patients). Crude IRs per 1000 person-years for ILD were 3.43 (95% CI 2.85-4.09) for adalimumab, 4.46 (95% CI 3.44-5.70) for abatacept, 6.15 (95% CI 4.76-7.84) for rituximab, 5.05 (95% CI 3.47-7.12) for tocilizumab, and 1.47 (95% CI 0.54-3.27) for tofacitinib. After multiple adjustments, compared with patients treated with adalimumab, patients treated with tofacitinib had a lower risk of ILD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78; P = .009). In a prevalent new-user cohort analysis, patients treated with tofacitinib had 68% reduced risk of ILD compared with adalimumab (aHR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13-0.82; P < .001). In an adjusted model, there was a 69% reduced risk of ILD in patients treated with tofacitinib compared with patients treated with adalimumab.Conclusions and relevanceIn this retrospective cohort of patients with RA, patients treated with tofacitinib had the lowest incidence of ILD compared with patients treated with all bDMARDs evaluated, and patients treated with tofacitinib had a reduced risk of ILD compared with patients treated with adalimumab after adjusting for important covariates. Additional prospective studies are needed to better understand the role tofacitinib may play in preventing ILD in patients with RA. These results, while significant, should be interpreted with caution given the fairly small sample size of the tofacitinib group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:To assess the risks of malignancies, infections and autoimmune diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept compared with other biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, in a US-wide observational RA cohort METHODS: Data were reviewed from patients (??18?years) with RA who were registered with FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and who initiated abatacept, other bDMARDs or csDMARDs between 2005 and 2015. Patients who switched treatment during the study could be allocated to more than one group. The incidence rates (IRs) by treatment were calculated for malignancies, hospitalized infections and autoimmune diseases identified by six monthly questionnaires and medical records. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for all outcomes with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs were determined using marginal structural models adjusted for clinical confounders. RESULTS:In the study sample, 1496 initiated abatacept, 3490 initiated another bDMARD and 1520 initiated a csDMARD. The risk of malignancies with abatacept was not statistically significant versus other bDMARDs (HR [95% CI)] 1.89 [0.93, 3.84]) or versus csDMARDs (HR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.20, 4.27]). Patients receiving abatacept versus other bDMARDs were at a lower risk of hospitalized infections (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.75]); the risk versus csDMARDs was lower with wide CIs (HR [95% CI] 0.31 [0.09, 1.05]). The relative risks for psoriasis were similar between treatment groups (HR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.76, 2.81] and HR [95% CI] 2.05 [0.59, 7.16] for abatacept versus other bDMARDs and versus csDMARDS, respectively). The IR (95% CI) of severe infusion/injection reactions was lower with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs (1.57 [1.11, 2.17] vs 2.31 [1.87, 2.82] per 100 patient-years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis, abatacept was well tolerated and did not result in an overall increased risk of malignancies, infections or autoimmune diseases compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs.

Project description:IntroductionSome patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experience inefficacy or lack of tolerability and hence switch to another TNFi (cycling) or to a therapy with another mode of action (switching). This study examined patient characteristics, prescribing patterns and treatment practice for RA in the United States.MethodsData were from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (Q2-Q3 2016). Rheumatologists completed a survey and patient record forms for adult patients with RA who had received ≥ 1 targeted therapy. Patients were grouped by class of first-used targeted therapy, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy. TNFi patients who received ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as cyclers or switchers. Univariate analyses compared patient characteristics and physician factors across the analysis groups.ResultsOverall, 631 patients received ≥ 1 targeted therapy; 535 were prescribed a TNFi as first targeted therapy, 53 a nonTNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and 43 tofacitinib. Of 577 patients with known conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD status, 18.7% were prescribed monotherapy and 81.3% combination therapy. Combination therapy patients received significantly more concomitant medications prior to initiation of first targeted therapy than monotherapy patients (P < 0.05). The top reason for physicians to prescribe first use targeted therapy was strong overall efficacy (79.9%). Of 163 patients who progressed to second targeted therapy, 60.7% were cyclers. A lower proportion of cyclers persisted on their first use targeted therapy versus switchers (P = 0.03). The main reason physicians gave for switching patients at this stage was worsening condition (46.6%).ConclusionsMost patients were prescribed a TNFi as their first targeted therapy; over half then cycled to another TNFi. This suggests other factors may influence second use targeted treatment choice and highlights the need for greater understanding of outcomes associated with subsequent treatment choices and potential benefits of switching.

Project description:In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at 3 months). Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, biosimilars), abatacept, tocilizumab and, under certain circumstances, rituximab are essentially considered to have similar efficacy and safety. If the first bDMARD strategy fails, any other bDMARD may be used. The recommendations also address tofacitinib as a targeted sDMARD (tsDMARD), which is recommended, where licensed, after use of at least one bDMARD. Biosimilars are also addressed. These recommendations are intended to inform rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies and other stakeholders about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA with sDMARDs, glucocorticoids and bDMARDs. They are based on evidence and expert opinion and intended to improve outcome in patients with RA.

Dataset Information

Comparative Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Biologic and Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparative Risk of Cardiovascular Events With Biologic and Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets