Dataset Information

Targets of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of multiple myeloma.

ABSTRACT: Several commonly used immune-suppressing biologic drugs target proteins and cytokines involved in myeloma pathogenesis. Our objective was to determine whether targeted biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are associated with risk of multiple myeloma (MM). We conducted a nested case-control study within a retrospective cohort of 56,886 commercially insured adults undergoing treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis between 2009 and 2015 using the Truven Health MarketScan Databases. MM cases (n = 287) were matched to up to 10 controls (n = 2,760) on age, sex and rheumatologic indication using incidence density sampling without replacement. Our exposures of interest were biologic DMARDs targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin 6, cytotoxic t-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 and depletion of B cells. Relative risks were estimated as adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using conditional logistic regression models. Cases and controls were similar with respect to use of prescription NSAIDs and concurrent conventional-synthetic DMARDs. Cases had slightly fewer etanercept users (4% vs. 7%) and slightly more tocilizumab users (1.4% vs. 0.4%). Compared to patients treated with only conventional-synthetic DMARDs, those receiving concomitant conventional-synthetic plus biologic DMARDs had lower risk of developing MM (OR = 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.88; p = 0.02). Risks differed by drug target with an inverse association observed with use of etanercept inhibiting tumor necrosis factor-alpha (OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.30-1.02; p = 0.06) and a positive association with tocilizumab inhibiting interleukin-6 (OR = 4.33; 95% CI 1.33-14.19; p = 0.02) compared to biologic DMARD-naïve patients. Further investigation is warranted to understand the roles of drugs suppressing tumor necrosis factor-alpha and interleukin-6 in myeloma pathogenesis.

SUBMITTER: Calip GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7426969 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:OBJECTIVE:Recent research showed an increased risk of high-grade cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to examine whether this risk was associated with the use of biologic versus nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). METHODS:We identified RA patients in the US Medicaid and commercial insurance databases (for the years 2000-2012) who were starting treatment with either a biologic or a nonbiologic DMARD. High-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer was identified with a validated claims-based algorithm, and we assessed utilization of gynecologic procedures. To control for potential confounders, those starting therapy with a biologic DMARD were matched 1:1 to those starting therapy with a nonbiologic DMARD according to the propensity score (PS). Hazard ratios (HRs) and rate ratios (RRs) in the PS-matched Medicaid and commercial insurance cohorts were pooled by an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects model. RESULTS:We included 14,729 pairs of patients initiating biologic and nonbiologic DMARDs from the Medicaid cohort and 7,538 pairs from the commercial insurance cohort. During 73,389 person-years of active treatment with either biologic or nonbiologic DMARDs, 95 cases of high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer occurred in the 2 cohorts. The HR for high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer associated with biologic DMARD use was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.78-2.01) in the Medicaid cohort and 1.63 (95% CI 0.62-4.27) in the commercial insurance cohort, with a pooled HR of 1.32 (95% CI 0.86-2.01). The rate of gynecologic procedures involving the uterine cervix was not different between the 2 groups (pooled RR 0.96 [95% CI 0.90-1.02]). CONCLUSION:Among women with RA, initiation of therapy with a biologic DMARD was associated with a numerically significant, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of high-grade cervical dysplasia or cervical cancer as compared to initiation of a nonbiologic DMARD.

Project description:BackgroundTofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals.ObjectiveTo perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naïve to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naïve) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR).MethodsA systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, ≥75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes.ResultsThe network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naïve patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naïve or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naïve patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable).ConclusionsTofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naïve to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX).

Dataset Information

Targets of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and risk of multiple myeloma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets