Risk of Serious Infection Among Initiators of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors Plus Methotrexate Versus Triple Therapy for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cohort Study

Using pooled electronic health records data to conduct pharmacoepidemiology safety studies: Challenges and lessons learned

PURPOSE

We assessed the suitability of pooled electronic health record (EHR) data from clinical research networks (CRNs) of the patient-centered outcomes research network to conduct studies of the association between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and infections.

METHODS

EHR data from patients with one of seven autoimmune diseases were obtained from three CRNs and pooled. Person-level linkage of CRN data and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) fee-for-service claims data was performed where possible. Using filled prescriptions from CMS claims data as the gold standard, we assessed the misclassification of EHR-based new (incident) user definitions. Among new users of TNFi, we assessed subsequent rates of hospitalized infection in EHR and CMS data.

RESULTS

The study included 45 483 new users of TNFi, of whom 1416 were successfully linked to their CMS claims. Overall, 44% of new EHR TNFi prescriptions were not associated with medication claims. Our most specific new user definition had a misclassification rate of 3.5%-16.4% for prevalent use, depending on the medication. Greater than 80% of CRN prescriptions had either zero refills or missing refill data. Compared to using EHR data alone, there was a 2- to 8-fold increase in hospitalized infection rates when CMS claims data were added to the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

EHR data substantially misclassified TNFi exposure and underestimated the incidence of hospitalized infections compared to claims data. EHR-based new user definitions were reasonably accurate. Overall, using CRN data for pharmacoepidemiology studies is challenging, especially for biologics, and would benefit from supplementation by other sources.

Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) concerning the safety of synthetic(s) and biological (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to inform the 2022 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

SLR of observational studies comparing safety outcomes of any DMARD with another intervention in RA. A comparator group was required for inclusion. For treatments yet without, or limited, registry data, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were used.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine observational studies addressed the safety of DMARDs. Two studies (unclear risk of bias (RoB)) showed an increased risk of serious infections with bDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs. Herpes zoster infections occurred more with JAKi than csDMARDs (adjusted HR (aHR): 3.66) and bDMARDs (aHR: 1.9-2.3) (four studies, two low RoB). The risk of malignancies was similar across bDMARDs (five studies) and with tofacitinib compared with bDMARDs (one study, low RoB). The risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar with bDMARDs and tofacitinib (two studies, one low RoB). Thirty studies reported safety from RCTs, with one, designed to evaluate safety, showing that malignancies (HR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.04 to 2.09)) and MACE (HR (95% CI): 1.33 (0.91 to 1.94)) occurred numerically more frequently with tofacitinib (5 mg and 10 mg doses combined) than with TNFi in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. In this study, the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg than with TNFi.

CONCLUSION

The safety profile of bDMARDs was further demonstrated. Whether the difference in incidence of malignancies, MACE and VTE between tofacitinib and TNFi applies to other JAKi needs further evaluation.

Therapeutic Utility and Adverse Effects of Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Inflammatory Arthritis

Targeting specific pathologic pro-inflammatory cytokines or related molecules leads to excellent therapeutic effects in inflammatory arthritis, including rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis. Most of these agents, known as biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), are produced in live cell lines and are usually monoclonal antibodies. Several types of monoclonal antibodies target different pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-6, and IL-23/12. Some bDMARDs, such as rituximab and abatacept, target specific cell-surface molecules to control the inflammatory response. The therapeutic effects of these bDMARDs differ in different forms of inflammatory arthritis and are associated with different adverse events. In this article, we summarize the therapeutic utility and adverse effects of bDMARDs and suggest future research directions for developing bDMARDs.

Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of triple therapy in preventing relapse in rheumatoid arthritis: A randomized controlled trial (ESCoRT study)

BACKGROUND

Biological agents, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), have been widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and greatly improved goal achievement. The aim of this study was to investigate whether conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) combination was better in reducing relapse than methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, and more cost-effective than continuing TNFi plus MTX in RA patients who achieved low disease activity (LDA) with TNFi and MTX therapy.

METHODS

RA patients who failed to csDMARDs received an induction therapy of MTX plus TNFi for maximally 12 weeks. Those achieving LDA in 12 weeks were randomly assigned at a 1:1:1 ratio into three groups: (A) adding hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks; (B) maintaining TNFi and MTX for 60 weeks; and (C) maintaining TNFi and MTX for the first 12 weeks and then discontinuing TNFi for the following 48 weeks. The primary outcome was relapse.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients were enrolled for induction therapy and 67 patients who achieved LDA within 12 weeks were randomized, with 24, 21, and 22 patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The relapse rates of groups A and B during the entire 60 weeks were comparable [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 7/20 (35.0%), χ2 = 0.475, P = 0.491], however, significantly lower than that of group C [10/22 (45.5%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 5.517, P = 0.019; 7/20 (35.0%) vs. 17/20 (85.0%), χ2 = 11.035, P = 0.004, respectively]. Taking RMB 100,000 Yuan as the threshold of willingness to pay, compared to MTX monotherapy (group C), both TNFi maintenance and triple csDMARDs therapies were cost-effective, but triple csDMARDs therapy was better.

CONCLUSION

For RA patients who have achieved LDA with TNFi and MTX, csDMARDs triple therapy was a cost-effective option in favor of reducing relapse.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02320630.

Immunosuppressive treatment in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis is associated with an improved composite response index (CRISS)

Background

Outcomes of therapeutic studies in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) have mainly been measured for specific organs, particularly the skin and lungs. A new composite response index in dcSSc (CRISS) has been developed for clinical trials. The goal of this study was to determine whether, in an observational dcSSc cohort, immunosuppression was associated with global disease improvement measured with the CRISS.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a multi-centered SSc registry comparing 47 patients newly exposed to immunosuppression for ≥ 1 year to 254 unexposed patients. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to create comparable exposed and unexposed groups by balancing for age, sex, disease duration, modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), forced vital capacity, patient and physician global assessments, and Health Assessment Questionnaire score. A CRISS score ≥ 0.6 at 1 year was defined as improvement.

Results

Exposed patients had shorter disease duration (5.5 versus 11.7 years, p < 0.01), more interstitial lung disease (67.4% versus 40.3%, p < 0.01), and worse physician global severity scores (4.2 versus 2.5 points, p < 0.01) compared to unexposed patients. Improvement in CRISS scores was more common in exposed patients after IPTW (odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.11, 3.09). Of the individual CRISS variables, only mean patient global assessment scores were significantly better among exposed than unexposed patients (− 0.4 versus 0 points, p = 0.03) while other variables including mRSS were similar.

Conclusion

Using a composite response measure, immunosuppression was associated with better outcomes at 1 year in a dcSSc cohort. These results provide real-world data that align with clinical trials to support our current use of immunosuppression.

Safety and Tolerability of Subcutaneous Methotrexate in Routine Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To show the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) methotrexate (MTX) compared to oral MTX, alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) monotherapy, biologic monotherapy, and combinations (conventional and biologic combination groups) in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively analyzed for rheumatology clinic attendances at a large Northeast England hospital trust between January 2014 and January 2018. Rates of adverse events and stop events (transaminitis [serum alanine aminotransferase level of >80 units/liter] or neutropenia [neutrophil count of <2.0 × 10⁹ /liter]) were calculated, with adjustment for duration of DMARD exposure.

RESULTS

In the present study, 8,394 patients received DMARDs, with 2,093 patients receiving oral MTX and 949 patients receiving SC MTX. The median dose was 15 mg (interquartile range [IQR] 10-20 mg) for oral MTX, and 20 mg (IQR 15-25 mg) for SC MTX (P < 0.0001). Continuation rates were higher for SC MTX therapy when adjusted for follow-up duration, with a rate ratio (RR) of 1.54 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.40-1.70) (P < 0.0001). For the time period assessed, 2,382 patients experienced 4,358 adverse events, with 1,711 incidents of transaminitis and 2,647 incidents of neutropenia recorded. Significantly fewer adverse events were observed in patients who received SC MTX monotherapy versus those who received biologic and combination DMARD therapies (P < 0.01). Compared to oral MTX, SC MTX was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward lower rates of neutropenia, but only a slightly higher rate of transaminitis (RR 1.26 [95% CI 1.07-1.48]) (P = 0.006), despite significantly higher doses of MTX.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous MTX is safe in routine clinical practice. This is the largest study yet reported on SC MTX and provides observational data that SC MTX is continued longer and better tolerated in patients compared to other therapy groups, especially oral MTX.