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.

Post-Marketing Safety Surveillance of Tofacitinib over 9 Years in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of tofacitinib in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been demonstrated in clinical studies of ≤ 4 and 9.5 years, respectively. Post-marketing surveillance (PMS) data for tofacitinib from spontaneous and voluntary adverse event (AE) reports have been published for RA, but not PsA. To inform the real-world safety profile of tofacitinib in PsA, we evaluated AE reports submitted to the Pfizer safety database (including RA data for context). METHODS: Endpoints included AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest (AESIs; serious infections, herpes zoster, cardiovascular events, malignancies, venous thromboembolism), and fatal cases. Exposure was estimated using IQVIA global commercial sales data. Number, frequency, and reporting rates (RRs; number of events/100 patient-years' [PY] exposure) were summarized by indication and formulation (immediate release [IR] 5 or 10 mg twice daily], modified release [MR] 11 mg once daily, or all tofacitinib). The data-collection period differed by indication (PsA: 14 December 2017 [US approval, IR/MR] to 6 November 2021; RA: 6 November 2012 [US approval, IR] to 6 November 2021; MR approval, 24 February 2016). RESULTS: A total of 73,525 case reports were reviewed (PsA = 5394/RA = 68,131), with 20,706/439,370 PY (PsA/RA) of exposure. More AEs were reported for IR versus MR (IR/MR: PsA = 8349/7602; RA = 137,476/82,153). RRs for AEs (IR/MR: PsA = 59.6/113.4; RA = 44.0/64.8) and SAEs (PsA = 8.1/13.6; RA = 8.0/9.5) were higher with MR versus IR. AE RRs (RA) in the first 4 years after IR approval were 95.9 (IR; 49,439 PY) and 147.0 (MR; 2000 PY). Frequency of SAEs, AESIs, and fatal cases was mostly similar across formulations and indications. The most frequently-reported AE Preferred Terms (PsA/RA) included drug ineffective (20.0%/17.8%), pain (9.7%/10.6%), condition aggravated (9.9%/10.5%), headache (8.8%/7.9%) and, for PsA, off-label use (10.5%/3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib PMS safety data from submitted AE reports were consistent between PsA and RA, and aligned with its known safety profile. Exposure data (lower MR versus IR; estimation from commercial sales data), reporting bias, reporter identity, and regional differences in formulation use limit interpretation.

Identification of two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNF inhibitors: an analysis of the open label, randomised controlled study ORAL Surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Based on primary results from ORAL Surveillance, an event-driven clinical trial of risk-enriched patients, identify subpopulations with different relative risk (ie, 'high-risk' and 'low-risk') with tofacitinib versus tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged ≥50 years with ≥1 additional cardiovascular risk factor received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg two times a day or TNFi. Prior analyses had identified age and smoking as risk factors of particular interest across safety outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) and incidence rates were evaluated by age and smoking individually and in combination. Results were validated across tofacitinib development programmes. RESULTS: 'Age ≥65 years or ever smoker' defined a group ('high-risk') with increased risk of malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism and all-cause death with tofacitinib (combined doses) versus TNFi (HRs 1.41-5.19). In patients 'aged <65 years and never smokers' ('low-risk'), there was no detectable risk increase with tofacitinib versus TNFi (HRs ≈1.0) up to 6 years of follow-up, and absolute risk remained low and was corroborated across tofacitinib rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ulcerative colitis programmes with up to 10 years of observation. CONCLUSIONS: This posthoc analysis of ORAL Surveillance identified two tofacitinib subpopulations with different relative risk versus TNFi. High risk was confined to patients defined by distinct risk factors age ≥65 years or smoking, and these differentiating risk factors accounted for the excess risk observed with tofacitinib versus TNFi. These findings can guide individualised benefit/risk assessment and clinical decision-making on treatment with tofacitinib. 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, NCT00787202, NCT01465763, NCT01458951, NCT01458574, NCT01470612, NCT01877668, NCT01882439, NCT01976364.

Fracture in clinical studies of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis.

Background: Preclinical data suggest that tofacitinib would protect bone health in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Objective: To assess fracture risk in tofacitinib RA clinical trials. Design: Post hoc analysis. Methods: We analyzed pooled data of phase I/II/III and long-term extension studies ('P123LTE cohort'), pooled data of placebo-controlled portions of phase III studies (phase III placebo-controlled cohort), and data from ORAL Surveillance [phase IIIb/IV randomized, open-label trial evaluating tofacitinib 5/10 mg twice daily (BID) vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) in patients ⩾ 50 years with ⩾ 1 additional cardiovascular risk factor]. Results: In the phase III placebo-controlled cohort, incidence rates (IRs) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of fracture were 2.11 (1.09-3.68), 2.56 (1.23-4.71), and 4.43 (1.78-9.12) per 100 patient-years (PYs) for tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and placebo, respectively [tofacitinib 5 mg BID vs placebo: hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) = 0.55(0.18-1.65); tofacitinib 10 mg BID vs placebo: HR (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.26-2.01)]. In P123LTE, IRs (95% CI) were 2.62 (2.29-2.99) and 2.26 (2.02-2.52) per 100 PY for average tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID, respectively. In ORAL Surveillance, IRs (95% CI) were 2.79 (2.34-3.30), 2.87 (2.40-3.40), and 2.27 (1.87-2.74) per 100 PY for tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, and TNFi, respectively. In ORAL Surveillance, the risk of fracture was numerically higher than TNFi for tofacitinib 5 mg BID [HR (95% CI) = 1.23 (0.96-1.58)] and tofacitinib 10 mg BID [HR (95% CI) = 1.26 (0.97-1.62)]. In ORAL Surveillance, independent predictors of all and osteoporotic fractures with tofacitinib or TNFi included age ⩾ 65, female sex, history of fracture/osteoporosis, and baseline oral corticosteroid use. Conclusion: This post hoc analysis showed numerically lower fracture risk with tofacitinib versus placebo and numerically greater risk versus TNFi. We did not identify any tofacitinib-specific predictors of fractures, and predictors of fracture were generally aligned with prior literature in the general population and patients with RA. Patients with fracture risk factors should be adequately monitored and treated. Clinical trial registration: NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385, NCT01039688, NCT02187055, NCT02831855, NCT00413699, NCT00147498, NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00661661, NCT01164579, NCT00976599, NCT01059864, NCT01359150, NCT01262118, NCT01484561, NCT02281552, NCT02147587, NCT02092467.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the best-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research based on these characteristics.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the best-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research based on these characteristics.

Enhancing research in academic radiology departments: recommendations of the 2003 Consensus Conference.

Opportunities for funded radiologic research are greater than ever, and the amount of federal funding coming to academic radiology departments is increasing. Even so, many medical school-based radiology departments have little or no research funding. Accordingly, a consensus panel was convened to discuss ways to enhance research productivity and broaden the base of research strength in as many academic radiology departments as possible. The consensus panel included radiologists who have leadership roles in some of the most well-funded research departments, radiologists who direct other funded research programs, and radiologists with related expertise. The goals of the consensus panel were to identify the attributes associated with successful research programs and to develop an action plan for radiology research on the basis of these characteristics.