Infection rates in patients from five rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries: contextualising an RA clinical trial programme.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of serious infections. Comparing infection rates across RA populations is complicated by differences in background infection risk, population composition and study methodology. We measured infection rates from five RA registries globally, with the aim to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trials population. METHODS: We used data from Consortium of Rheumatology Research of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (UK), CORRONA International (multiple countries) and Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis (Japan) and an RA clinical trial programme (fostamatinib). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data. Infection definitions were harmonised across registries. Sensitivity analyses to address potential confounding explored subcohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change and/or prior comorbidities and restriction by calendar time or follow-up. Rates of infections were estimated and standardised to the trial population for age/sex and, in one sensitivity analysis also, for Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. RESULTS: Overall, age/sex-standardised rates of hospitalised infection were quite consistent across registries (range 1.14-1.62 per 100 patient-years). Higher and more consistent rates across registries and with the trial programme overall were seen when adding standardisation for HAQ score (registry range 1.86-2.18, trials rate 2.92) or restricting to a treatment initiation subcohort followed for 18 months (registry range 0.99-2.84, trials rate 2.74). CONCLUSION: This prospective, coordinated analysis of RA registries provided incidence rate estimates for infection events to contextualise infection rates from an RA clinical trial programme and demonstrated relative comparability of hospitalised infection rates across registries.

Can rheumatoid arthritis (RA) registries provide contextual safety data for modern RA clinical trials? The case for mortality and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: We implemented a novel method for providing contextual adverse event rates for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) programme through coordinated analyses of five RA registries, focusing here on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality. METHODS: Each participating registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (East Europe, Latin America, India) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan)) defined a main cohort from January 2000 onwards. To address comparability and potential bias, we harmonised event definitions and defined several subcohorts for sensitivity analyses based on disease activity, treatment, calendar time, duration of follow-up and RCT exclusions. Rates were standardised for age, sex and, in one sensitivity analysis, also HAQ. RESULTS: The combined registry cohorts included 57 251 patients with RA (234 089 person-years)-24.5% men, mean (SD) baseline age 58.2 (13.8) and RA duration 8.2 (11.7) years. Standardised registry mortality rates (per 100 person-years) varied from 0.42 (CORRONA) to 0.80 (NOAR), with 0.60 for RCT patients. Myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) rates ranged from 0.09 and 0.31 (IORRA) to 0.39 and 0.77 (SRR), with RCT rates intermediate (0.18 and 0.42), respectively. Additional subcohort analyses showed small and mostly consistent changes across registries, retaining reasonable consistency in rates across the Western registries. Additional standardisation for HAQ returned higher mortality and MACE registry rates. CONCLUSIONS: This coordinated approach to contextualising RA RCT safety data demonstrated reasonable differences and consistency in rates for mortality and CVD across registries, and comparable RCT rates, and may serve as a model method to supplement clinical trial analyses for drug development programmes.

How comparable are rates of malignancies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across the world? A comparison of cancer rates, and means to optimise their comparability, in five RA registries.

BACKGROUND: The overall incidence of cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is modestly elevated. The extent to which cancer rates in RA vary across clinical cohorts and patient subsets, as defined by disease activity or treatment is less known but critical for understanding the safety of existing and new antirheumatic therapies. We investigated comparability of, and means to harmonise, malignancy rates in five RA registries from four continents. METHODS: Participating RA registries were Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) (USA), Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register (SRR) (Sweden), Norfolk Arthritis Register (NOAR) (UK), CORRONA International (several countries) and Institute of Rheumatology, Rheumatoid Arthritis (IORRA) (Japan). Within each registry, we analysed a main cohort of all patients with RA from January 2000 to last available data, and sensitivity analyses of sub-cohorts defined by disease activity, treatment change, prior comorbidities and restricted by calendar time or follow-up, respectively. Malignancy rates with 95% CIs were estimated, and standardised for age and sex, based on the distributions from a typical RA clinical trial programme population (fostamatinib). RESULTS: There was a high consistency in rates for overall malignancy excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), for malignant lymphomas, but not for all skin cancers, across registries, in particular following age/sex standardisation. Standardised rates of overall malignancy excluding NMSC varied from 0.56 to 0.87 per 100 person-years. Within each registry, rates were generally consistent across sensitivity analyses, which differed little from the main analysis. CONCLUSION: In real-world RA populations, rates of both overall malignancy and of lymphomas are consistent.

Using epidemiological registry data to provide background rates as context for adverse events in a rheumatoid arthritis drug development program: a coordinated approach.

PURPOSE: Observational studies can provide context for adverse events observed in clinical trials, especially for infrequent events or long-term risks. We developed methods to improve safety contextualization for a rheumatoid arthritis drug development program through coordinated analyses of multiple registries. METHODS: We identified and characterized differences and similarities across five registries (Swedish Rheumatology Quality of Care Register, Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America [CORRONA], Norfolk Arthritis Register, Institute of Rheumatology Rheumatoid Arthritis, and the new CORRONA International), harmonized outcome definitions, and investigated whether restricted subcohorts improved comparability with trial populations. To address confounding, we identified risk predictors for outcomes of interest (mortality, cardiovascular disease, infection, and malignancy). We used patient-level analyses at each registry and central analysis of standardized group-level data. RESULTS: Despite data differences, the coordinated approach enabled consistent variable definitions for key baseline characteristics and outcomes. Selection of restricted subcohorts (e.g., using active joint count criteria) improved baseline comparability with trial patients for some rheumatoid arthritis disease activity measures, but less for other characteristics (e.g., age and comorbidity); however, such selection decreased sample size considerably. For most outcomes, age was the most important risk predictor, emphasizing the importance of age/sex standardization to address confounding. The prospective approach enabled use of recent relevant data; the distributed analysis safeguarded confidentiality of registry data. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with reliance on published data alone, a forward-looking coordinated approach across multiple observational data sources can improve comparability and consistency and better support sensitivity analyses and data interpretation, in contextualizing safety data from clinical trials. This approach may have utility to support safety assessments across diverse diseases and drug development programs and satisfy future regulatory requirements.