Postapproval Comparative Safety Study of Tofacitinib and Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs: 5-Year Results from a United States-Based Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared 5-year adverse event (AE) incidence rates (IRs) between patients initiating tofacitinib and those initiating new biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) within the United States (US) Corrona RA registry. METHODS: IRs (number of first events/100 patient-years) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), serious infection events (SIEs), herpes zoster (HZ), malignancies, and death were estimated among tofacitinib and bDMARD initiators, regardless of dose/schedule, between November 6, 2012 (US Food and Drug Administration tofacitinib approval), and July 31, 2018 (follow-up through January 31, 2019). Propensity score (PS) methods were used to control for nonrandom prescribing practices. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated to compare rates using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Different risk windows were used for acute (MACE, SIEs, HZ, and venous thromboembolic events [VTEs]) and long-term (malignancy and death) events. VTEs were assessed descriptively. RESULTS: For MACE, SIEs, and HZ, 1999 (3152.1 patient-years) and 8358 (12 869.4 years) tofacitinib and bDMARD initiators were included, respectively; for malignancy/death, 1999 (4505.6 patient-years) and 6354 (16 670.8 patient-years) initiators were included, respectively. AE rates were similar across cohorts, except for HZ, which was significantly higher with tofacitinib versus bDMARDs (PS-trimmed adjusted HR 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-3.75). There were 45 (zero serious) and 88 (five serious) HZ events with tofacitinib and bDMARDs, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated similar results. VTE IRs (95% CI) were 0.29 (0.13-0.54) and 0.33 (0.24-0.45) for tofacitinib and bDMARDs, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this registry analysis, both cohorts had similar MACE, SIE, malignancy, death, and VTE rates; HZ rates were higher for tofacitinib initaitors than for bDMARD initiators.

Longterm, Real-world Safety of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of a Prospective US-based Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To assess longterm safety in a US cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) in real-world clinical care settings. METHODS: This observational study analyzed the longterm incidence of safety outcomes among patients with RA initiating ADA, using data from the Corrona RA registry. Patients were adults (≥ 18 yrs) who initiated ADA treatment between January 2008 and June 2017, and who had at least 1 followup visit. RESULTS: In total, 2798 ADA initiators were available for analysis, with a mean age of 54.5 years, 77% female, and mean disease duration of 8.3 years. Nearly half (48%) were biologic-naive, and 9% were using prednisone ≥ 10 mg at ADA initiation. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for serious infections, congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), and all-cause mortality were 1.86, 0.15, 0.64, and 0.33, respectively. The incidence of serious infections was higher in the first year of therapy (3.44, 95% CI 2.45-4.84) than in subsequent years, while other measured adverse effects did not vary substantially by duration of exposure. The median time to ADA discontinuation was 11 months, while the median time to first serious infection among those experiencing a serious infection event was 12 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of longterm data from this prospective real-world registry demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous studies in patients with RA. This analysis did not identify any new safety signals associated with ADA treatment and provides guidance for physicians prescribing ADA for extended periods.

Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Behavioral Intervention to Incorporate a Treat-to-Target Approach to Care of US Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and efficacy of implementing a treat-to-target approach versus usual care in a US-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients. METHODS: In this behavioral intervention trial, rheumatology practices were cluster-randomized to provide treat-to-target care or usual care. Eligible patients with moderate/high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) were followed for 12 months. Both treat-to-target and usual care patients were seen every 3 months. Treat-to-target providers were to have monthly visits with treatment acceleration at a minimum of every 3 months in patients with CDAI score >10; additional visits and treatment acceleration were at the discretion of usual care providers and patients. Coprimary end points were feasibility, assessed by rate of treatment acceleration conditional on CDAI score >10, and achievement of low disease activity (LDA; CDAI score ≤10) by an intent-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: A total of 14 practice sites per study arm were included (246 patients receiving treat-to-target and 286 receiving usual care). The groups had similar baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Rates of treatment acceleration (treat-to-target 47% versus usual care 50%; odds ratio [OR] 0.92 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64, 1.34]) and achievement of LDA (treat-to-target 57% versus usual care 55%; OR 1.05 [95% CI 0.60, 1.84]) were similar between groups. Treat-to-target providers reported patient reluctance and medication lag time as common barriers to treatment acceleration. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to examine the feasibility and efficacy of a treat-to-target approach in typical US rheumatology practice. Treat-to-target care was not associated with increased likelihood of treatment acceleration or achievement of LDA, and barriers to treatment acceleration were identified.

The rheumatoid arthritis treat-to-target trial: a cluster randomized trial within the Corrona rheumatology network.

BACKGROUND: The treat-to-target (T2T) approach to the care of patients with rheumatoid arthritis involves using validated metrics to measure disease activity, frequent follow-up visits for patients with moderate to high disease activity, and escalation of therapy when patients have inadequate therapeutic response as assessed by standard disease activity scores. The study described is a newly launched cluster-randomized behavioral intervention to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the T2T approach in US rheumatology practices. It is designed to identify patient and provider barriers to implementing T2T management. This initial paper focuses on the novel study design and methods created to provide these insights. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial cluster-randomizes rheumatology practices from the existing Corrona network of private and academic sites rather than patients within sites or individual investigators to provide either T2T or usual care (UC) for qualified patients who meet the 2010 revised American College of Rheumatology criteria for the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and have moderate to high disease activity. Specific medication choices are left to the investigator and patient, rather than being specified in the protocol. Enrollment is expected to be completed by the end of 2013, with 30 practices randomized and enrolling a minimum of 530 patients. During the 12-month follow-up, visits are mandated as frequently as monthly in patients with active disease in the T2T group and every 3 months for the UC group. Safety data are collected at each visit. The coprimary endpoints include a comparison of the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity in the T2T and UC groups and assessment of the feasibility of implementing T2T in rheumatology practices, specifically assessment of the rates of treatment acceleration, frequency of visits, time to next visit conditional on disease activity, and probability of acceleration conditional on disease activity in the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: This cluster-randomized behavioral intervention study will provide valuable insights on the outcomes and feasibility of employing a T2T treatment approach in clinical practice in the United States. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01407419.