Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) ? inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. DESIGN:Population based prospective study. SETTING:53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France. PARTICIPANTS:3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society of Rheumatology registries; who had no severe cardiovascular disease, active or severe infections, or severe immunodeficiency, with follow-up of at least 24 months. INTERVENTION:Initiation of intravenous rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab for rheumatoid arthritis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:The primary outcome was drug retention without failure at 24 months. Failure was defined as all cause death; discontinuation of rituximab, abatacept, or tocilizumab; initiation of a new biologic or a combination of conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs; or increase in corticosteroid dose >10 mg/d compared with baseline at two successive visits. Because of non-proportional hazards, treatment effects are presented as life expectancy difference without failure (LEDwf), which measures the difference between average duration of survival without failure. RESULTS:Average durations of survival without failure were 19.8 months for rituximab, 15.6 months for abatacept, and 19.1 months for tocilizumab. Average durations were greater with rituximab (LEDwf 4.1, 95% confidence interval 3.1 to 5.2) and tocilizumab (3.5, 2.1 to 5.0) than with abatacept, and uncertainty about tocilizumab compared with rituximab was substantial (-0.7, -1.9 to 0.5). No evidence was found of difference between treatments for mean duration of survival without death, presence of cancer or serious infections, or major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION:Among adults with refractory rheumatoid arthritis followed-up in routine practice, rituximab and tocilizumab were associated with greater improvements in outcomes at two years compared with abatacept.

SUBMITTER: Gottenberg JE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6344892 | biostudies-other | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study.

Gottenberg Jacques-Eric JE Morel Jacques J Perrodeau Elodie E Bardin Thomas T Combe Bernard B Dougados Maxime M Flipo Rene-Marc RM Saraux Alain A Schaeverbeke Thierry T Sibilia Jean J Soubrier Martin M Vittecoq Olivier O Baron Gabriel G Constantin Arnaud A Ravaud Philippe P Mariette Xavier X

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20190124

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare the effectiveness and safety of three non-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors (rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.<h4>Design</h4>Population based prospective study.<h4>Setting</h4>53 university and 54 non-university clinical centres in France.<h4>Participants</h4>3162 adults (>18 years) with rheumatoid arthritis according to 1987 American College of Rheumatology criteria, enrolled in one of the three French Society o ...[more]

PMID: 30679233

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors as compared with rituximab in Finnish rheumatoid arthritis patients, who have previously been treated with TNF inhibitors.MethodsA patient-level simulation model was developed to predict costs and outcomes associated with four biological drugs (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab and TNF inhibitors) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Following lack of efficacy or adverse events, the patients were switched to another biological drug until all four options were exhausted. After that, the patients were assumed to receive a 6th line treatment until death. The patients' baseline characteristics and regression models used in the simulation were based on observational data from the National Register for Biological Treatments in Finland. Direct costs comprised drug costs, administration costs, costs of switching, and outpatient and inpatient care, while indirect costs included disability pension and sick leaves due to rheumatoid arthritis. Several subgroup and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsDrug costs were the lowest for rituximab, but when administration costs and costs of switching were included, drug costs were the lowest for TNF inhibitors. Abatacept was associated with the highest drug costs, whereas rituximab was associated with the highest healthcare costs. In total, TNF inhibitors had the lowest direct costs, while rituximab had the highest direct costs. The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained ranged from 9.405 for rituximab to 9.661 for TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab were dominant in comparison to RTX.ConclusionsTNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab had lower costs and higher QALYs than rituximab, and therefore, they were dominant in comparison to rituximab. As TNF inhibitors had the lowest costs and highest QALYs, they were the most cost-effective treatment option.

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:ImportanceConsidering the widespread and increasing use of biological immunomodulators (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs [bDMARDs]) to treat chronic inflammatory conditions, and the concern that immunomodulation may alter cancer risk and progression, the limited available data on use of these therapies as used in clinical practice and cancer risks are a concern.ObjectiveTo assess the risk of incident malignant neoplasms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with bDMARDs.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a national register-based prospective cohort study of the public health care system in Sweden from 2006 to 2015. Cohorts of patients with RA initiating treatment with tocilizumab (n?=?1798), abatacept (n?=?2021), and rituximab (n?=?3586), a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as first-ever (n?=?10?782) or second-ever (n?=?4347) bDMARD, a biologics-naive cohort treated with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (n?=?46?610), and a general population comparator cohort (n?=?107?491).ExposuresTreatment with tocilizumab, abatacept, rituximab, or TNFi.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included a first invasive solid or hematologic malignant neoplasm, or skin cancer. Hazard ratios were calculated using Cox-regression, adjusted for age, sex, disease and treatment characteristics, and educational level.ResultsWe identified a total of 15?129 initiations of TNFi as the first or second bDMARD, 7405 initiations of other bDMARDs, and 46?610 csDMARD users. The mean age varied from 58 to 64 years, and the proportion of female patients varied from 71% to 80%, across the 7 cohorts under study. The observed numbers of events (crude incidence per 100?000 person-years) for a first invasive solid or hematologic malignant neoplasm were 50 (959) for tocilizumab, 61 (1026) for abatacept, 141 (1074) for rituximab, 478 (978) for initiators of TNFi as first bDMARD, and 169 (917) for TNFi as second bDMARD. There were no statistically significant differences between initiators of a first or second TNFi, or other bDMARDs, and bDMARD-naive RA for any of a total of 25 drug- and outcome-specific comparisons, with 1 exception (abatacept and increased risk of squamous cell skin cancer).Conclusions and relevanceThe overall risk of cancer among patients with RA initiating TNFi as first or second bDMARD, tocilizumab, abatacept, or rituximab does not differ substantially from that of biologic drug-naive, csDMARD-treated patients with RA, although altered risks for specific cancer types, or those with longer latency, cannot be excluded.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study.

Publications

Comparative effectiveness of rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab in adults with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to TNF inhibitors: prospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets