Impact of DMARD treatment and systemic inflammation on all-cause mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and interstitial lung disease: a cohort study from the German RABBIT register.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of disease activity and treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on all-cause mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and prevalent interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). METHODS: Patients with RA-ILD were selected from the biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy (RABBIT). Using time-varying Cox regression, the association between clinical measures and mortality was investigated. The impact of DMARDs was analysed by (1) Cox regression considering cumulative exposure (ie, treatment months divided by total months) and (2) time-varying Cox regression as main approach (treatment exposures at monthly level). RESULTS: Out of 15 566 participants, 381 were identified as RA-ILD cases with 1258 person-years of observation and 2.6 years median length of follow-up. Ninety-seven patients (25.5%) died and 34 (35.1%) of these were not receiving DMARD therapy at the time of death. Higher inflammatory biomarkers but not swollen and tender joint count were significantly associated with mortality. Compared with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), non-TNFi biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) exhibited adjusted HRs (aHRs) for mortality below 1, lacking statistical significance. This finding was stable in various sensitivity analyses. Joint aHR for non-TNFi biologics and JAKi versus TNFi was 0.56 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.97). Receiving no DMARD treatment was associated with a twofold higher mortality risk compared with receiving any DMARD treatment, aHR 2.03 (95% CI 1.23 to 3.35). CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory biomarkers and absence of DMARD treatment were associated with increased risk of mortality in patients with RA-ILD. Non-TNFi bDMARDs may confer enhanced therapeutic benefits in patients with RA-ILD.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice. METHODS: Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with conventional synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: observational data from the German RABBIT register.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effects of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), other biologic(b) or conventional synthetic(cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Cohort study analysing episodes of DMARD-treatment initiated between January 2017 and April 2022 in the biologics register Rheumatoid Arthritis: Observation of Biologic Therapy. Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years with 95% CIs were calculated for overall patients and those with cardiovascular risk (age ≥50 years and ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor). MACE risk was estimated as HRs by inverse probability of treatment weight-adjusted Andersen-Gill models. RESULTS: A total of 154 MACE occurred among 14 203 treatment episodes (21 218 patient-years). IRs were 0.68 (0.47; 0.95), 0.62 (0.45; 0.83), 0.76 (0.53; 1.06) and 0.95 (0.68; 1.29) for JAKi, TNFi, bDMARDs and csDMARDs, respectively. IRs were higher in cardiovascular risk patients. Adjusted HRs (95% CI) comparing JAKi, bDMARDs and csDMARDs with TNFi were 0.89 (0.52 to 1.52), 0.76 (0.45; to1.27) and 1.36 (0.85 to 2.19) in overall, and 0.74 (0.41 to 1.31), 0.75 (0.45 to 1.27) and 1.21 (0.74 to 1.98) in cardiovascular risk patients. HRs were not increased in patients ≥65 years, with cardiovascular history or smokers, and also not when using csDMARD as reference instead of TNFi. IRs for baricitinib, tofacitinib and upadacitinib were 0.49 (0.25 to 0.85), 0.98 (0.58 to 1.55) and 0.53 (0.15 to 1.36), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this German observational cohort study, MACE did not occur more frequently with JAKi compared with other DMARDs. However, individual JAKis showed different unadjusted IRs.

Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with axial spondyloarthritis: pooled data analysis from the European Network of Pregnancy Registries in Rheumatology (EuNeP).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate outcome and course of pregnancies in women with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in a pooled data analysis of pregnancy registries in rheumatology. METHODS: Prospectively followed women with axSpA, fulfilling ASAS classification criteria and for whom a pregnancy outcome was reported, were eligible for the analysis. Anonymised data of four registries was pooled. Rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes were calculated. Systemic inflammation, disease activity and treatment patterns with tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) before, during and after pregnancy were analysed. RESULTS: In a total of 332 pregnancies from 304 axSpA women, 98.8% of the pregnancies resulted in live birth. Mean maternal age was 31 years and disease duration 5 years. Most of these patients received pre-conception counselling (78.4%). Before pregnancy, 53% received TNFi treatment, 27.5% in first and 21.4% in third trimester. Pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were favourable with rates of 2.2% for pre-eclampsia, 4.9% for preterm birth, 3.1% for low birth weight and 9.5% for small for gestational age. Neonates were delivered by caesarean section in 27.7% of pregnancies, of which 47.4% were emergencies. Pooled mean CRP was 4 mg/L before conception peaking in the second trimester at 9.4 mg/L. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) was below 4 at all time-points. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled rates of most outcomes were better than what had been reported in the literature and within expected rates of those reported for the general population. Pre-conception counselling, planned pregnancies and a tight management in expert centres applying a tailored treatment approach may have contributed to the favourable pregnancy outcomes.

Pregnancy in women with psoriatic arthritis: A systematic literature review of disease activity and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is limited robust evidence on the course of pregnancy and its outcomes in women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) on which to base recommendations for the management of these patients. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to review available data on (I) disease activity during pregnancy and on (II) adverse pregnancy outcomes (APO) in women with PsA. Secondly, neonatal outcomes and treatment of the rheumatic disease were investigated. METHODS: Systematic literature search within the databases Pubmed and Embase until 30 Nov 2020 was performed. Additionally, reference lists of included studies and of review articles revealed by the search were screened. All full text articles identified and published in English language were systematically evaluated by two reviewers. All studies that reported on one of the primary outcomes and included at least five pregnancies in women with PsA were considered. RESULTS: The review of 734 search results revealed 13 eligible publications reporting on a total of 2,332 pregnancies in women with PsA. Nine studies reported on PsA activity and showed an increase or worsening of disease activity after delivery compared to the pregnancy period. APOs were reported by nine studies. Adjusted analyses of APOs did not show an increased risk for gestational diabetes, small for gestational age and low birth weight in PsA patients in relation to the respective comparator groups. However, there were signals for a higher pre-eclampsia, elective caesarean section and preterm birth risk in PsA pregnancies. Meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: This review showed a postpartum deterioration of disease activity in women with PsA and no risk elevation for gestational diabetes, small for gestational age and low birth weight. A higher risk for pre-eclampsia, elective caesarean section and preterm birth in PsA pregnancies cannot be ruled out. Differences in the studies investigated limit overall summary statements on disease activity and APOs in women with PsA. Harmonization of study approaches, instruments and outcome reporting is crucial to ensure informed counselling of patients with PsA before, during and after pregnancy that is based on robust data. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020162242.

Obesity reduces the real-world effectiveness of cytokine-targeted but not cell-targeted disease-modifying agents in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of TNF inhibitors in RA has been shown to be affected by obesity. No such effect has been found for abatacept and rituximab, while for tocilizumab results are ambiguous. Additionally, it remains unresolved whether sex is an effect modifier for obesity. We investigated the impact of obesity on the drug effectiveness of conventional synthetic or biologic DMARDs, taking into account potential sex-specific differences. METHODS: Data from 10 593 RA patients included in the German observational cohort study Rheumatoid Arthritis: oBservation of BIologic Therapy (RABBIT) since 2009 were analysed. Patients had to have a BMI ≥18.5 kg/m2, at least one follow-up and 6 months of observation time. The influence of obesity on drug effectiveness was investigated by regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Obesity had a negative impact on improvement in the DAS with 28 joints using ESR as an inflammation marker of -0.15 (95% CI: -0.26; -0.04) units for women receiving conventional synthetic DMARDs, -0.22 (95% CI: -0.31; -0.12) units for women receiving TNF inhibitors, -0.22 (95% CI: -0.42; -0.03) units for women receiving tocilizumab and -0.41 (95% CI: -0.74; -0.07) units for men receiving tocilizumab. Overall, no negative obesity effects on the effectiveness of rituximab and abatacept were found. CONCLUSION: Obesity has a negative impact on the effectiveness of cytokine-targeted but not cell-targeted therapies in daily practice, affecting more outcomes and therapies in women than in men. Overall, no effects of obesity on treatment effectiveness were found for rituximab and abatacept.

Impact of disease activity and treatment of comorbidities on the risk of myocardial infarction in rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to estimate the impact of individual risk factors and treatment with various disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) on the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analysed data from 11,285 patients with RA, enrolled in the prospective cohort study RABBIT, at the start of biologic (b) or conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs. A nested case-control study was conducted, defining patients with MI during follow-up as cases. Cases were matched 1:1 to control patients based on age, sex, year of enrolment and five cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities. Generalized linear models were applied (Poisson regression with a random component, conditional logistic regression). RESULTS: In total, 112 patients developed an MI during follow-up. At baseline, during the first 6 months of follow-up and prior to the MI, inflammation markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP)) but not 28-joint-count disease activity score (DAS28) were significantly higher in MI cases compared to matched controls and the remaining cohort. Baseline treatment with DMARDs was similar across all groups. During follow-up bDMARD treatment was significantly more often discontinued or switched in MI cases. CV comorbidities were significantly less often treated in MI cases vs. matched controls (36 % vs. 17 %, p < 0.01). In the adjusted regression model, we found a strong association between higher CRP and MI (OR for log-transformed CRP at follow-up: 1.47, 95 % CI 1.00; 2.16). Furthermore, treatment with prednisone ≥10 mg/day (OR 1.93, 95 % CI 0.57; 5.85), TNF inhibitors (OR 0.91, 95 % CI 0.40; 2.10) or other bDMARDs (OR 0.85, 95 % CI 0.27; 2.72) was not associated with higher MI risk. CONCLUSIONS: CRP was associated with risk of MI. Our results underline the importance of tight disease control taking not only global disease activity, but also CRP as an individual marker into account. It seems irrelevant with which class of (biologic or conventional) DMARD effective control of disease activity is achieved. However, in some patients the available treatment options were insufficient or insufficiently used - regarding DMARDs to treat RA as well as regarding the treatment of CV comorbidities.