Cardiovascular and Cancer Risk with Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Increases in lipid levels and cancers with tofacitinib prompted a trial of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and cancers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib as compared with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, noninferiority, postauthorization, safety end-point trial involving patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment who were 50 years of age or older and had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily or a TNF inhibitor. The coprimary end points were adjudicated MACE and cancers, excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The noninferiority of tofacitinib would be shown if the upper boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio was less than 1.8 for the combined tofacitinib doses as compared with a TNF inhibitor. RESULTS: A total of 1455 patients received tofacitinib at a dose of 5 mg twice daily, 1456 received tofacitinib at a dose of 10 mg twice daily, and 1451 received a TNF inhibitor. During a median follow-up of 4.0 years, the incidences of MACE and cancer were higher with the combined tofacitinib doses (3.4% [98 patients] and 4.2% [122 patients], respectively) than with a TNF inhibitor (2.5% [37 patients] and 2.9% [42 patients]). The hazard ratios were 1.33 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.94) for MACE and 1.48 (95% CI, 1.04 to 2.09) for cancers; the noninferiority of tofacitinib was not shown. The incidences of adjudicated opportunistic infections (including herpes zoster and tuberculosis), all herpes zoster (nonserious and serious), and adjudicated nonmelanoma skin cancer were higher with tofacitinib than with a TNF inhibitor. Efficacy was similar in all three groups, with improvements from month 2 that were sustained through trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial comparing the combined tofacitinib doses with a TNF inhibitor in a cardiovascular risk-enriched population, risks of MACE and cancers were higher with tofacitinib and did not meet noninferiority criteria. Several adverse events were more common with tofacitinib. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Surveillance ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02092467.).

Assessing the Performance of a Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire With a Low Socioeconomic Status Population Using Rasch Analysis.

Parents and preschool teachers play a key role in shaping children's dietary behaviors. Knowledge of nutrition and healthy dietary choices is a key component to improve dietary habits and reduce the prevalence of obesity and associated co-morbidities. Using valid and reliable instruments is necessary for accurate assessment of knowledge to tailor interventions and measure effectiveness specific to the population of interest. The objectives of this paper are to (1) identify potential gaps in the baseline nutrition knowledge among parents and teachers using a previously validated questionnaire prior to a preschool obesity prevention intervention; and (2) assess the instrument's reliability and construct validity for a low socioeconomic status population using a post hoc Rasch analysis. Participants included 177 parents and 75 teachers who participated in a Head Start intervention study. Knowledge scores, instrument reliability, and item fit and difficulty were assessed using a Rasch analysis; t-tests were used to determine differences in scores between parents and teachers. Parents answered 38% of questions correctly while teachers correctly answered 46% of the questions. Adequate item fit and reliability were indicated for Sections 1 and 2 of the Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire (NKQ). Section 3 demonstrated less adequate reliability. The items were found to adequately and reliably define the unidimensional measures of the three components of knowledge represented in this instrument, providing evidence of construct validity. However, Rasch measures indicated the NKQ overall was difficult for participants. Recommendations for improving the instrument for nutrition education/intervention and research practice areas related to obesity and obesity-related conditions are addressed.

Malignancy risk with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate malignancies and their associations with baseline risk factors and cardiovascular risk scores with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In an open-label, randomised controlled trial (ORAL Surveillance; NCT02092467), 4362 patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 (N=1455) or 10 mg two times per day (N=1456) or TNFi (N=1451). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and HRs were calculated for adjudicated malignancies excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), NMSC and subtypes. Post hoc analyses for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC included risk factors identified via simple/multivariable Cox models and IRs/HRs categorised by baseline risk factors, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (HxASCVD) and cardiovascular risk scores. RESULTS: IRs for malignancies excluding NMSC and NMSC were higher with tofacitinib (combined and individual doses) versus TNFi. Risk of lung cancer (most common subtype with tofacitinib) was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi. In the overall study population, the risk of malignancies excluding NMSC was similar between both tofacitinib doses and TNFi until month 18 and diverged from month 18 onwards (HR (95% CIs) for combined tofacitinib doses: 0.93 (0.53 to 1.62) from baseline to month 18 vs 1.93 (1.22 to 3.06) from month 18 onwards, interaction p=0.0469). Cox analyses identified baseline risk factors across treatment groups for malignancies excluding NMSC, lung cancer and NMSC; interaction analyses generally did not show statistical evidence of interaction between treatment groups and risk factors. HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk scores were associated with higher malignancy IRs across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of malignancies was increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi, and incidence was highest in patients with HxASCVD or increasing cardiovascular risk. This may be due to shared risk factors for cardiovascular risk and cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02092467, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT02147587, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02281552, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00661661.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a post hoc analysis from ORAL Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with or without a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with RA aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. Hazard rations (HRs) were evaluated for the overall population and by history of ASCVD (exploratory analysis). RESULTS: Risk of MACE, myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death were increased with tofacitinib versus TNFi in ORAL Surveillance. In patients with history of ASCVD (14.7%; 640/4362), MACE incidence was higher with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (8.3%; 17/204) and 10 mg two times per day (7.7%; 17/222) versus TNFi (4.2%; 9/214). HR (combined tofacitinib doses vs TNFi) was 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 4.14; interaction p values: 0.196 (for HR)/0.059 (for incidence rate difference)). In patients without history of ASCVD, MACE HRs for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day (2.4%; 30/1251) and 10 mg two times per day (2.8%; 34/1234) versus TNFi (2.3%; 28/1237) were, respectively, 1.03 (0.62 to 1.73) and 1.25 (0.76 to 2.07). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis observed higher MACE risk with tofacitinib versus TNFi in patients with RA and history of ASCVD. Among patients without history of ASCVD, all with prevalent CV risk factors, MACE risk did not appear different with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi. Due to the exploratory nature of this analysis and low statistical power, we cannot exclude differential MACE risk for tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi among patients without history of ASCVD, but any absolute risk excess is likely low. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors: results from the open-label, randomised controlled ORAL Surveillance trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, patients with RA aged≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times per day or a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). Incidence rates (IRs; patients with first events/100 patient-years) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for infections, overall and by age (50-<65 years; ≥65 years). Probabilities of infections were obtained (Kaplan-Meier estimates). Cox modelling identified infection risk factors. RESULTS: IRs/HRs for all infections, serious infection events (SIEs) and non-serious infections (NSIs) were higher with tofacitinib (10>5 mg two times per day) versus TNFi. For SIEs, HR (95% CI) for tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively, were 1.17 (0.92 to 1.50) and 1.48 (1.17 to 1.87). Increased IRs/HRs for all infections and SIEs with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi were more pronounced in patients aged≥65 vs 50-<65 years. SIE probability increased from month 18 and before month 6 with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, respectively. NSI probability increased before month 6 with both tofacitinib doses versus TNFi. Across treatments, the most predictive risk factors for SIEs were increasing age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use, and, for NSIs, female sex, history of chronic lung disease/infections, past smoking and time-dependent Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Infections were higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi. Findings may inform future treatment decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Incidence of venous and arterial thromboembolic events reported in the tofacitinib rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis development programmes and from real-world data.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and ulcerative colitis, and has been investigated in psoriasis (PsO). Routine pharmacovigilance of an ongoing, open-label, blinded-endpoint, tofacitinib RA trial (Study A3921133; NCT02092467) in patients aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor identified a higher frequency of pulmonary embolism (PE) and all-cause mortality for patients receiving tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus those receiving tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and resulted in identification of a safety signal for tofacitinib. Here, we report the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, venous thromboembolism (VTE; DVT or PE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) from the tofacitinib RA (excluding Study A3921133), PsA and PsO development programmes and observational studies. Data from an ad hoc safety analysis of Study A3921133 are reported separately within. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from separate tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes. Incidence rates (IRs; patients with events per 100 patient-years' exposure) were calculated for DVT, PE, VTE and ATE, including for populations stratified by defined baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. Observational data from the US Corrona registries (including cardiovascular risk factor stratification), IBM MarketScan research database and the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database were analysed. RESULTS: 12 410 tofacitinib-treated patients from the development programmes (RA: n=7964; PsO: n=3663; PsA: n=783) were included. IRs (95% CI) of thromboembolic events among the all tofacitinib cohorts' average tofacitinib 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily treated patients for RA, respectively, were: DVT (0.17 (0.09-0.27) and 0.15 (0.09-0.22)); PE (0.12 (0.06-0.22) and 0.13 (0.08-0.21)); ATE (0.32 (0.22-0.46) and 0.38 (0.28-0.49)). Among PsO patients, IRs were: DVT (0.06 (0.00-0.36) and 0.06 (0.02-0.15)); PE (0.13 (0.02-0.47) and 0.09 (0.04-0.19)); ATE (0.52 (0.22-1.02) and 0.22 (0.13-0.35)). Among PsA patients, IRs were: DVT (0.00 (0.00-0.28) and 0.13 (0.00-0.70)); PE (0.08 (0.00-0.43) and 0.00 (0.00-0.46)); ATE (0.31 (0.08-0.79) and 0.38 (0.08-1.11)). IRs were similar between tofacitinib doses and generally higher in patients with baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors. IRs from the overall Corrona populations and in Corrona RA patients (including tofacitinib-naïve/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-treated and tofacitinib-treated) with baseline cardiovascular risk factors were similar to IRs observed among the corresponding patients in the tofacitinib development programme. No signals of disproportionate reporting of DVT, PE or ATE with tofacitinib were identified in the FAERS database. CONCLUSIONS: DVT, PE and ATE IRs in the tofacitinib RA, PsO and PsA programmes were similar across tofacitinib doses, and generally consistent with observational data and published IRs of other treatments. As expected, IRs of thromboembolic events were elevated in patients with versus without baseline cardiovascular or VTE risk factors, and were broadly consistent with those observed in the Study A3921133 ad hoc safety analysis data, although the IR (95% CI) for PE was greater in patients treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in Study A3921133 (0.54 (0.32-0.87)), versus patients with baseline cardiovascular risk factors treated with tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily in the RA programme (0.24 (0.13-0.41)).

Tofacitinib in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: patient-reported outcomes from the 24-month Phase 3 ORAL Scan study.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). METHODS: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep. RESULTS: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Barriers to Healthcare Seeking and Provision Among African American Adults in the Rural Mississippi Delta Region: Community and Provider Perspectives.

Barriers to health care access and utilization are likely to be perceived differently for receivers and providers of health care. This paper compares and contrasts perspectives of lay community members, volunteer community health advisors (CHA), and health care providers related to structural and interpersonal barriers to health care seeking and provision among African American adults experiencing health disparities in the rural Mississippi Delta. Sixty-four Delta residents (24 males, 40 females) participated in nine focus groups organized by role and gender. The constant comparative method was used to identify themes and subthemes from the focus group transcripts. Barriers were broadly categorized as structural and interpersonal with all groups noting structural barriers including poverty, lack of health insurance, and rurality. All groups identified common interpersonal barriers of gender socialization of African American males, and prevention being a low priority. Differences emerged in perceptions of interpersonal barriers between community members and healthcare providers. Community members and CHA fears of serious medical diagnosis, stigma, medical distrust, and racism emerged as factors inhibiting health care utilization. All groups were critical of insurance/regulatory constraints with providers viewing medical guidelines at times restricting their ability to provide quality treatment while community members and CHA viewed providers as receiving compensation for prescribing medications without regard to potential side-effects. These findings shed light on barriers perceived similarly and differently across these stakeholder groups, and offer directions for ongoing research, outreach, clinical work, and health care policy.

Commentary: The Broader Context of Long-Term Care Ethics.

Ethical issues in long-term care settings, although having received attention in the literature, have not in our opinion received the appropriate level they require. Thus, we applaud the Cambridge Quarterly for publishing this case. We can attest to the significance of ethical issues arising in long-term care facilities, as Mr. Hope's case is all too familiar to those practicing in these settings. What is unique about this case is that an actual ethics consult was made in a long-term care setting. We have seen very little in the published literature on the use of ethics structures in long-term care populations. Our experience is that these healthcare settings are ripe for ethical concerns and that providers, patients, families, and staff need/desire ethics resources to actively and preventively address ethical concerns. The popular press has begun to recognize the ethical issues involved in long-term care settings and the need for ethics structures. Recently, in California a nurse refused to initiate CPR for an elderly patient in a senior residence. In that case, the nurse was quoted as saying that the facility had a policy that nurses were not to start CPR for elderly patients. 1 Although this case is not exactly the same as that of Mr. Hope, it highlights the need for developing robust ethics program infrastructures in long-term care settings that work toward addressing ethical issues through policy, education, and active consultation.

Placebo-controlled trial of tofacitinib monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) is a novel oral Janus kinase inhibitor that is being investigated as a targeted immunomodulator and disease-modifying therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 6-month study, 611 patients were randomly assigned, in a 4:4:1:1 ratio, to 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, placebo for 3 months followed by 5 mg of tofacitinib twice daily, or placebo for 3 months followed by 10 mg of tofacitinib twice daily. The primary end points, assessed at month 3, were the percentage of patients with at least a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology scale (ACR 20), the change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores (which range from 0 to 3, with higher scores indicating greater disability), and the percentage of patients with a Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-4[ESR]) of less than 2.6 (with scores ranging from 0 to 9.4 and higher scores indicating more disease activity). RESULTS: At month 3, a higher percentage of patients in the tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups met the criteria for an ACR 20 response (59.8% in the 5-mg tofacitinib group and 65.7% in the 10-mg tofacitinib group vs. 26.7% in the combined placebo groups, P<0.001 for both comparisons). The reductions from baseline in HAQ-DI scores were greater in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups than in the placebo groups (-0.50 and -0.57 points, respectively, vs. -0.19 points; P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a DAS28-4(ESR) of less than 2.6 was not significantly higher with tofacitinib than with placebo (5.6% and 8.7% in the 5-mg and 10-mg tofacitinib groups, respectively, and 4.4% with placebo; P=0.62 and P=0.10 for the two comparisons). Serious infections developed in six patients who were receiving tofacitinib. Common adverse events were headache and upper respiratory tract infection. Tofacitinib treatment was associated with elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and reductions in neutrophil counts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis, tofacitinib monotherapy was associated with reductions in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and improvement in physical function. (Funded by Pfizer; ORAL Solo ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00814307.).

A randomized trial using motivational interviewing for maintenance of blood pressure improvements in a community-engaged lifestyle intervention: HUB city steps.

Little is known about the effective dose of motivational interviewing for maintaining intervention-induced health outcome improvements. The purpose of this study was to compare effects of two doses of motivational interviewing for maintaining blood pressure improvements in a community-engaged lifestyle intervention conducted with African-Americans. Participants were tracked through a 12-month maintenance phase following a 6-month intervention targeting physical activity and diet. For the maintenance phase, participants were randomized to receive a low (4) or high (10) dose of motivational interviewing delivered via telephone by trained research staff. Generalized linear models were used to test for group differences in blood pressure. Blood pressure significantly increased during the maintenance phase. No differences were apparent between randomized groups. Results suggest that 10 or fewer motivational interviewing calls over a 12-month period may be insufficient to maintain post-intervention improvements in blood pressure. Further research is needed to determine optimal strategies for maintaining changes.

Psychosocial constructs and postintervention changes in physical activity and dietary outcomes in a lifestyle intervention, HUB City Steps, 2010.

INTRODUCTION: Although modifications to dietary and physical activity (PA) behavior can reduce blood pressure, racial disparities in prevalence and control of hypertension persist. Psychosocial constructs (PSCs) of self-regulation, processes of change, and social support are associated with initiation and maintenance of PA in African Americans; which PSCs best predict lifestyle behavior changes is unclear. This study's objective was to examine relationships among PSC changes and postintervention changes in PA and dietary outcomes in a community-based, multicomponent lifestyle intervention. METHODS: This study was a noncontrolled, pre/post experimental intervention conducted in a midsized, Southern US city in 2010. Primarily African American adults (n = 269) participated in a 6-month intervention consisting of motivational enhancement, social support, pedometer diary self-monitoring, and 5 education sessions. Outcome measures included pedometer-determined steps per day, fitness, dietary intake, and PSC measures. Generalized linear mixed models were used to test for postintervention changes in behavioral outcomes, identify predictors of PSC changes, and determine if PSC changes predicted changes in PA and diet. RESULTS: Postintervention changes were apparent for 10 of 24 PSCs (P < .05). Processes of change components, including helping relationships, reinforcement management, and consciousness raising, were significant predictors of fitness change (P < .05). CONCLUSION: This article is among the first to address how measures of several theoretical frameworks of behavior change influence changes in PA and dietary outcomes in a multicomponent, community-based, lifestyle intervention conducted with African American adults. Findings reported identify PSC factors on which health behavior interventions can focus.

Open-label tofacitinib and double-blind atorvastatin in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a randomised study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin versus placebo in modifying lipids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving the oral Janus kinase inhibitor, tofacitinib. METHODS: A randomised, placebo controlled, multicentre phase 2 study, open-label for tofacitinib and blinded for atorvastatin. Patients received tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily for 12 weeks; at week 6, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral atorvastatin 10 mg once daily or placebo for 6 weeks. Main outcome measures were lipid moieties, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response rates, disease activity score in 28 joint counts and safety. RESULTS: 111 patients meeting ACR 1987 RA criteria with active disease were enrolled. Tofacitinib-induced elevation of mean total, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein A-1 concentrations were sustained in placebo recipients to week 12; atorvastatin added at week 6 significantly reduced tofacitinib-associated increases in total and LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides and apolipoprotein B to below week 0 levels. Co-administration of atorvastatin resulted in a significant reduction of LDL-cholesterol versus placebo (primary endpoint; p<0.0001); from week 6 to week 12 the least squares mean reduction was 35.3% with atorvastatin, versus 5.8% increase with placebo. ACR responses were observed with tofacitinib; numerically greater rates were seen with atorvastatin versus placebo. Adverse events were consistent with phase 3 studies. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib-associated elevated total and LDL-cholesterol and triglycerides were rapidly and significantly reduced by atorvastatin. Further investigation is required to explore the significance of reductions in RA disease activity in patients receiving tofacitinib and atorvastatin. (Pfizer protocol A3921109).

Tofacitinib (CP-690,550) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate: twelve-month data from a twenty-four-month phase III randomized radiographic study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this 24-month phase III study was to examine structural preservation with tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Data from a planned 12-month interim analysis are reported. METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, patients receiving background MTX were randomized 4:4:1:1 to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily, placebo to tofacitinib at 5 mg twice daily, and placebo to tofacitinib at 10 mg twice daily. At month 3, nonresponder placebo-treated patients were advanced in a blinded manner to receive tofacitinib as indicated above; remaining placebo-treated patients were advanced at 6 months. Four primary efficacy end points were all analyzed in a step-down procedure. RESULTS: At month 6, response rates according to the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were higher than those for placebo (51.5% and 61.8%, respectively, versus 25.3%; both P < 0.0001). At month 6, least squares mean (LSM) changes in total modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, versus 0.47 for placebo (P = 0.0792 and P ≤ 0.05, respectively). At month 3, LSM changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index score for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were -0.40 (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and -0.54 (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus -0.15 for placebo. At month 6, rates of remission (defined as a value <2.6 for the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate) for tofacitinib at 5 mg and 10 mg twice daily were 7.2% (significance not declared due to step-down procedure) and 16.0% (P < 0.0001), respectively, versus 1.6% for placebo. The safety profile was consistent with findings in previous studies. CONCLUSION: Data from this 12-month interim analysis demonstrate that tofacitinib inhibits progression of structural damage and improves disease activity in patients with RA who are receiving MTX.

Improvements in blood pressure among undiagnosed hypertensive participants in a community-based lifestyle intervention, Mississippi, 2010.

INTRODUCTION: Effective strategies are needed to reach and treat people who lack awareness of or have uncontrolled hypertension. We used data from a community-based participatory research initiative, Hub City Steps, to quantify the prevalence of undiagnosed hypertension and determine the relationship between hypertension status at baseline and postintervention improvements in blood pressure and health-related quality of life. METHODS: Hub City Steps was a 6-month preintervention-postintervention lifestyle intervention targeting hypertension risk factors. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Generalized linear mixed models were used to test for effects by time and hypertension status. RESULTS: Of the enrolled sample (N = 269), most were overweight or obese (91%), African American (94%), and women (85%). When considering hypertension status, 42% had self-reported diagnosis of hypertension (self-reported subgroup; 84% with antihypertensive medication use); 36% had no self-reported medical history of hypertension, but when blood pressure was measured they had a clinical diagnosis of prehypertension or hypertension (undiagnosed subgroup); and 22% had no self-reported or clinical hypertension diagnosis (no hypertension subgroup). From baseline to 6 months, systolic blood pressure significantly improved for participants with self-reported hypertension [8.2 (SD, 18.2) mm Hg] and undiagnosed hypertension [12.3 (SD, 16.3) mm Hg], with undiagnosed participants experiencing the greatest improvements (P < .001). Effects remained significant after controlling for covariates. Health-related quality of life significantly improved for all 3 hypertension subgroups, with no apparent subgroup differences. CONCLUSION: This study reveals advantages of a culturally appropriate community-based participatory research initiative to reach those with undetected hypertension and effectively improve blood pressure status and health-related quality of life.

Risk of extended major adverse cardiovascular event endpoints with tofacitinib versus TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a post hoc analysis of a phase 3b/4 randomised safety study.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the risk of extended major adverse cardiovascular (CV) event (MACE) composite outcomes and component events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis Trial (ORAL) Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with RA aged ≥50 years and with ≥1 additional CV risk factor received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg two times per day or TNFi. MACE (non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke or CV death (MACE-3)) was extended by sequential addition of CV events (hospitalisation for unstable angina (MACE-4), coronary revascularisation (MACE-5), transient ischaemic attack (MACE-6), peripheral vascular disease (MACE-7)), heart failure (HF) hospitalisation (MACE-8) and venous thromboembolism (VTE; (MACE-8 plus VTE)). HRs (tofacitinib vs TNFi) were evaluated for MACE and individual components. RESULTS: HRs for MACE-4 to MACE-8 with combined and individual tofacitinib doses versus TNFi were similar. Risk of MACE-8 plus VTE appeared similar with tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.12 (0.82 to 1.52)), but higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi (HR 1.38 (1.02 to 1.85)). Risk of MI was higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi, but difference in risk of other individual CV events was not suggested. Across extended MACE definitions, risk appeared higher with tofacitinib versus TNFi in those with atherosclerotic CV disease or age ≥65 years. CONCLUSION: In ORAL Surveillance, risk of composite CV endpoints combining all ischaemic CV events and HF did not appear different with tofacitinib versus TNFi. The totality of CV risk was higher with tofacitinib 10 mg two times per day versus TNFi, driven by an increase in VTE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02092467.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism With Tofacitinib Versus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Cardiovascular Risk-Enriched Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The ORAL Surveillance trial found a dose-dependent increase in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and pulmonary embolism (PE) events with tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). We aimed to assess VTE incidence over time and explore risk factors of VTE, including disease activity, in ORAL Surveillance. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aged 50 years or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or TNFi. Post hoc, cumulative probabilities and incidence rates (patients with first events/100 patient-years) by 6-month intervals were estimated for adjudicated VTE, deep vein thrombosis, and PE. Cox regression models identified risk factors. Clinical Disease Activity Index leading up to the event was explored in patients with VTE. RESULTS: Cumulative probabilities for VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib 10 mg BID, but not 5 mg BID, versus TNFi. Incidence rates were consistent across 6-month intervals within treatments. Across treatments, risk factors for VTE included prior VTE, body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2, older age, and history of chronic lung disease. At the time of the event, most patients with VTE had active disease as defined by Clinical Disease Activity Index. CONCLUSION: Incidences of VTE and PE were higher with tofacitinib (10 > 5 mg BID) versus TNFi and were generally consistent over time. Across treatments, VTE risk factors were aligned with previous studies in the general RA population. These data highlight the importance of assessing VTE risk factors, including age, body mass index, and VTE history, when considering initiation of tofacitinib or TNFi in patients with active RA.