Safety and effectiveness of abatacept in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: results from the PRINTO/PRCSG registry.

OBJECTIVE: To report the interim 5-year safety and effectiveness of abatacept in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the PRINTO/PRCSG registry. METHODS: The Abatacept JIA Registry (NCT01357668) is an ongoing observational study of children with JIA receiving abatacept; enrolment started in January 2013. Clinical sites enrolled patients with JIA starting or currently receiving abatacept. Eligible patients were assessed for safety (primary end point) and effectiveness over 10 years. Effectiveness was measured by clinical 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS10) in patients with JIA over 5 years. As-observed analysis is presented according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. RESULTS: As of 31 March 2020, 587 patients were enrolled; 569 are included in this analysis (including 134 new users) with 1214.6 patient-years of safety data available. Over 5 years, the incidence rate (IR) per 100 patient-years of follow-up of serious adverse events was 5.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.27, 7.01) and of events of special interest was 3.62 (95% CI: 2.63, 4.86), with 18 serious infections (IR 1.48 [95% CI: 0.88, 2.34]). As early as month 3, 55.9% of patients achieved cJADAS10 low disease activity and inactive disease (20.3%, 72/354 and 35.6%, 126/354, respectively), sustained over 5 years. Disease activity measures improved over 5 years across JIA categories. CONCLUSION: Abatacept was well tolerated in patients with JIA, with no new safety signals identified and with well-controlled disease activity, including some patients achieving inactive disease or remission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01357668.

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.

Infection 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 risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. METHODS: Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM). RESULTS: The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

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.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review. METHODS: We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool. RESULTS: Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Safety outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept: results from a multinational surveillance study across seven European registries.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of infection and malignancy compared with the general population. Infection risk is increased further with the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), whereas evidence on whether the use of biologic DMARDs increases cancer risk remains equivocal. This single-arm, post-marketing study estimated the incidence of prespecified infection and malignancy outcomes in patients with RA treated with intravenous or subcutaneous abatacept. METHODS: Data were included from seven European RA quality registries: ATTRA (Anti-TNF Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis [Czech Republic]), DANBIO (Danish Rheumatologic Database), ROB-FIN (National Registry of Antirheumatic and Biological Treatment in Finland), ORA (Orencia and Rheumatoid Arthritis [France]), GISEA (Italian Group for the Study of Early Arthritis), BIOBADASER (Spanish Register of Adverse Events of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases), and the SCQM (Swiss Clinical Quality Management) system. Each registry is unique with respect to design, data collection, definition of the study cohort, reporting, and validation of outcomes. In general, registries defined the index date as the first day of abatacept treatment and reported data for infections requiring hospitalization and overall malignancies; data for other infection and malignancy outcomes were not available for every cohort. Abatacept exposure was measured in patient-years (p-y). Incidence rates (IRs) were calculated as the number of events per 1000 p-y of follow-up with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Over 5000 patients with RA treated with abatacept were included. Most patients (78-85%) were female, and the mean age range was 52-58 years. Baseline characteristics were largely consistent across registries. Among patients treated with abatacept, IRs for infections requiring hospitalization across the registries ranged from 4 to 100 events per 1000 p-y, while IRs for overall malignancy ranged from 3 to 19 per 1000 p-y. CONCLUSIONS: Despite heterogeneity between registries in terms of design, data collection, and ascertainment of safety outcomes, as well as the possibility of under-reporting of adverse events in observational studies, the safety profile of abatacept reported here was largely consistent with previous findings in patients with RA treated with abatacept, with no new or increased risks of infection or malignancy.

Delta-8, a Cannabis-Derived Tetrahydrocannabinol Isomer: Evaluating Case Report Data in the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) Database.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to characterize the frequency of adverse effects where delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (D8-THC) was identified as a possible suspect drug in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. Methods: A case-series design was used. Results: A total of 183 cases listed D8-THC as a suspect drug in FAERS as of June 30, 2021. The most common events included dyspnea, respiratory disorder, and seizure. The reporting odds ratios were consistently and significantly greater than 2, a 2-fold increase from 2019 to 2021, indicating a potential safety signal. Conclusion: The first report of D8-THC, in the FAERS database, as a suspect drug appears to be in 2011. Overall, there are 183 total cases listing D8-THC as a suspect drug in the FAERS database as of June 30, 2021. Of the 183 cases, most were respiratory in nature.

Increase in Cannabis Use Among Adults With Rheumatic Diseases: Results From a 2014-2019 United States Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite advances in treatments and outcomes among patients with rheumatic diseases, there is an unmet need in pain management. Cannabis has emerged as a potential opioid-sparing alternative, with arthritic pain as a commonly cited reason for medicinal cannabis use. However, little is known, and we set out to understand patterns of cannabis use in a US-wide rheumatic disease population. METHODS: The study included participants in FORWARD, The National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases. Participants were asked in 2014 and 2019 about their past and current cannabis use. Demographic characteristics, patient-reported outcomes, medications, comorbidities, and diagnoses were compared between cannabis users and non-users with t-tests, chi-square tests, logistic regression, and geographic assessment. RESULTS: Among 11,006 respondents, cannabis use increased from 6.3% in 2014 to 18.4% in 2019, with the greatest prevalence of use in states where cannabis use was legalized. Most users (74% and 62% in 2014 and 2019, respectively) reported that cannabis was effective in the relief of arthritis symptoms. Cannabis users were more likely to be taking weak opioids (odds ratio 1.2 [95% confidence interval 1.0, 1.5], P = 0.03), to have a history of smoking tobacco (odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval 1.5, 2.1], P < 0.001), and had worse measures on all assessed patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Reported cannabis use in this cohort increased significantly between 2014 and 2019. Characteristics of users suggest that those who try cannabis are feeling worse symptomatically, and their pain management needs may not be adequately addressed by other therapies. The association between cannabis, opioids, and patient-reported outcomes highlight areas for future work.

Prevalence of autoimmune diseases and other associated conditions in children and young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Many autoimmune diseases share common pathogenic mechanisms; however, there are limited studies quantifying the coexistence of autoimmune diseases and associated conditions in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). This large US-based study estimated and compared the prevalence of multiple coexisting autoimmune diseases in patients with JIA with a general paediatric (GP) patient population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using registry data from the Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (January 2010-October 2018). The prevalence of multiple autoimmune diseases was estimated in patients (age <21 years) with JIA and a control group from the GP patient population. Crude prevalences of 26 prespecified autoimmune diseases and associated conditions were compared using Bayesian Poisson regression modelling for each year up to the end of the study period. RESULTS: Overall, 2026 patients were included in the JIA cohort and 41 572 in the GP cohort. Of 26 autoimmune diseases and associated conditions evaluated, 14 (53.8%) had a significantly higher prevalence in the JIA cohort compared with the GP cohort. In total, seven (26.9%) autoimmune diseases or associated conditions had a >20-fold increased prevalence in the JIA cohort compared with the GP cohort. CONCLUSION: In this study, patients with JIA had a greater prevalence of a large number of coexisting autoimmune diseases and associated conditions compared with the GP population. Physicians should consider coexisting autoimmune diseases in the treatment and management of patients with JIA.

Risk of opportunistic infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept: cumulative clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate incidence of opportunistic infections (OIs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept in clinical trials. METHODS: This pooled analysis of 16 randomized, double-blind/open-label trials, with ≥ 1 abatacept (intravenous or subcutaneous) arm, and with/without placebo control covered cumulative (controlled short-term and open-label long-term) abatacept exposure periods. OIs were analyzed separately in controlled (abatacept and placebo individually) and cumulative periods. OIs were identified using a prespecified list; events were independently adjudicated. Unadjusted incidence rates (IRs; per 100 patient-years) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: In cumulative periods, 7044 patients received abatacept, with a mean (standard deviation) duration of exposure of 36.9 (26.2) months (21,274 patient-years of exposure). IRs (95% CIs) of OIs were 0.17 (0.05-0.43) for abatacept and 0.56 (0.22-1.15) for placebo during the controlled periods and 0.21 (0.15-0.28) for abatacept during the cumulative periods. There was 1 case of tuberculosis in both the abatacept (IR [95% CI] 0.04 [0.00-0.24]) and placebo (IR [95% CI] 0.08 [0.00-0.44]) groups during the controlled periods; 13 verified tuberculosis cases (IR [95% CI] 0.06 [0.03-0.10]) were reported in the cumulative period. Herpes zoster was reported numerically more often with abatacept (IR 1.9 [1.4-2.5]), versus placebo (1.7 [1.1-2.6]) in the controlled periods; within the cumulative period, herpes zoster IR (95% CI) was 1.53 (1.36-1.71) for abatacept-treated patients. CONCLUSION: In controlled periods of the clinical trials, abatacept-treated patients had similarly low rates of OIs compared with placebo-treated patients. Overall, OI rates were similar among abatacept-treated patients in the controlled and cumulative periods and consistent with the ranges reported in the literature.

Acceptability and Content Validity of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Considered From the Perspective of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To consider the acceptability and content validity of patient-reported outcome measures commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis by describing patients' perceptions of patient-reported outcome measures and comparing patients' responses on patient-reported outcome measures with their verbal accounts of disease impacts. METHODS: We used a sequential mixed methods approach, combining analysis of interviews and data from patient-reported outcome measures (from the Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue subscale, the EuroQol 5-domain instrument, the Short Form 36 health survey, and a visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, fatigue, sleep, and patient global assessment of disease activity). Qualitative analysis of patients' perceptions of patient-reported outcome measures informed a subsequent comparison between data from patient-reported outcome measures and verbal accounts of pain, fatigue, sleep, and functional limitations to assess the effectiveness of patient-reported outcome measures in communicating disease impact. RESULTS: The study included 18 patients. Although a few patients offered positive comments about patient-reported outcome measures, most doubted that patient-reported outcome measures could accurately convey their experience of symptoms and functional limitations. Patients discussed the ease of responding to questions, capturing and conveying symptoms, and concerns about the underreporting of symptoms and interpretation of responses. Compared with verbal accounts, patient-reported outcome measures often did not convey the personal significance of limitations; however, patient-reported outcome measures captured limitations that patients omitted or described with insufficient detail during interviews. Although verbal accounts of pain could be categorized into 3 levels of severity (pain without interference in activities, pain is not the worst ever experienced but interferes with activities, and pain is omnipresent), the pain VAS was more effective at conveying finer gradations in pain severity. CONCLUSION: Although patients may feel that patient-reported outcome measures have certain shortcomings, patient-reported outcome measures also have advantages relative to verbal discussion for communicating symptoms and disease impact.

Realizing the Potential of the Patient Perspective.

Assessing a patient's perspective on their treatment is part of an increasingly integrated approach to pharmacovigilance and treatment optimization. New tools and methods developed in partnership with patients can capture and quantify cognitive and behavioral aspects of the treatment experience. These treatment insights have the potential to shape the drug development process, as well as supplement patient-reported outcome data in a way that is meaningful to the patient. We highlight examples of tools developed to assess the impact of treatment on the aspects of disease that are of utmost concern to the patient in their daily life.

Prevalence of co-existing autoimmune disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Many autoimmune diseases share common pathogenic mechanisms, cytokine pathways and systemic inflammatory cascades; however, large studies quantifying the co-existence of autoimmune diseases in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) have not been conducted. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study using two United States administrative healthcare claims databases (Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial Database and IMS PharMetrics database) to screen for the prevalence of multiple autoimmune diseases in patients with JIA and in a control group with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Patients with a diagnosis code for JIA or ADHD between January 1, 2006 and September 30, 2017 were separated into two age cohorts (< 18 and ≥ 18 years) and matched (maximum 1:5) based on age, sex, number of medical encounters, and calendar year of diagnosis. The prevalence rates of 30 pre-specified autoimmune diseases during the 12-month periods before and after diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 29,215 patients with JIA and 134,625 matched control patients with ADHD were evaluated. Among patients in the MarketScan database, 28/30 autoimmune diseases were more prevalent in patients with JIA aged < 18 years and 29/30 were more prevalent in patients aged ≥ 18 years when compared with a matched cohort of patients with ADHD. In the PharMetrics database, 29/30 and 30/30 autoimmune diseases were more prevalent in patients with JIA aged < 18 and ≥ 18 years, respectively, compared with a matched cohort of patients with ADHD. Among patients with JIA aged < 18 years, the greatest odds ratios (ORs) were seen for Sjögren's syndrome/sicca syndrome and uveitis. Among patients aged ≥ 18 years in the MarketScan database, the greatest ORs were recorded for uveitis. Data from the PharMetrics database indicated that the greatest ORs were for uveitis and chronic glomerulonephritis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with JIA are more likely to have concurrent autoimmune diseases than matched patients with ADHD. Having an awareness of the co-existence of autoimmune diseases among patients with JIA may play an important role in patient management, treatment decisions, and outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Experiences of Patients With Rheumatic Diseases in the United States During Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and lupus have increased risk of infection and are treated with medications that may increase this risk yet are also hypothesized to help treat COVID-19. We set out to understand how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives of these patients in the United States. METHODS: Participants in a US-wide longitudinal observational registry responded to a supplemental COVID-19 questionnaire by e-mail on March 25, 2020, about their symptoms, COVID-19 testing, health care changes, and related experiences during the prior 2 weeks. Analysis compared responses by diagnosis, disease activity, and new onset of symptoms. Qualitative analysis was conducted on optional free-text comment fields. RESULTS: Of the 7061 participants invited to participate, 530 responded, with RA as the most frequent diagnosis (61%). Eleven participants met COVID-19 screening criteria, of whom two sought testing unsuccessfully. Six others sought testing, three of whom were successful, and all test results were negative. Not quite half of participants (42%) reported a change to their care in the prior 2 weeks. Qualitative analysis revealed four key themes: emotions in response to the pandemic, perceptions of risks from immunosuppressive medications, protective measures to reduce risk of COVID-19 infection, and disruptions in accessing rheumatic disease medications, including hydroxychloroquine. CONCLUSION: After 2 weeks, many participants with rheumatic diseases already had important changes to their health care, with many altering medications without professional consultation or because of hydroxychloroquine shortage. As evidence accumulates on the effectiveness of potential COVID-19 treatments, effort is needed to safeguard access to established treatments for rheumatic diseases.

Comparative safety of biologic versus conventional synthetic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis with COPD: a real-world population study.

OBJECTIVES: Abatacept, a biologic DMARD, was associated with respiratory adverse events in a small subgroup of RA patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a trial. Whether this potential risk is specific to abatacept or extends to all biologics and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) is unclear. We assessed the risk of adverse respiratory events associated with biologic and tsDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) among RA patients with concomitant COPD in a large, real-world cohort. METHODS: We used a prevalent new-user design to study RA patients with COPD in the US-based MarketScan databases. New users of biologic DMARDs and/or tsDMARDs were matched on time-conditional propensity scores to new users of csDMARDs. Adverse respiratory events were estimated using Cox models comparing current use of biologic/tsDMARDs with csDMARDs. RESULTS: The cohort included 7424 patients initiating biologic/tsDMARDs and 7424 matched patients initiating csDMARDs. The adjusted hazard ratio of hospitalized COPD exacerbation comparing biologic/tsDMARD vs csDMARD was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.06), while it was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.27) for bronchitis, 1.21 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.58) for hospitalized pneumonia or influenza and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.12) for outpatient pneumonia or influenza. The hazard ratio of the combined end point of COPD exacerbation, bronchitis and hospitalized pneumonia or influenza was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.21). CONCLUSION: In this large, real-world comparative safety study, biologic and tsDMARDs, including abatacept, were not associated with an increased risk of adverse respiratory events when compared with csDMARDs in patients with RA and COPD.

Development of Resilience Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Resilience, the ability to recover from and adapt successfully to stressful situations, is a valuable resource for patients who live with chronic conditions. This qualitative study examines the development of resilience among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. We aimed to describe the resilience development process and to describe strategies used by patients to cultivate resilience. METHODS: Our approach combined ethnographic data collection and narrative analysis methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with adult RA patients in the US. Interviewees were asked to discuss their experiences with diagnosis, living with RA, coping with challenges, treatment, and health care providers. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analyzed to describe the stages of resilience development and to identify patients' strategies for building/maintaining resilience. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed, ages 27-80 years and with RA duration of 5-41 years. Patient responses to challenging situations were grouped into 3 stages: 1) lacking capacity to handle the situation, 2) struggling but growing in capacity to handle the situation, and 3) attaining mastery. Patients used 10 strategies to cultivate resilience: perseverance, exchanging social support, pursuing valued activities, flexibility, positive reframing, acceptance, humor, avoiding threatening thoughts, equanimity, and maintaining a sense of control. CONCLUSION: RA patients acquire resilience in a dynamic process of learning in response to new challenges. Patients use a combination of behavioral and emotion management strategies to cultivate resilience. Awareness of these strategies may benefit patients, health care providers, and researchers developing behavioral interventions and social support programs in the context of RA and other chronic diseases.

Safety of Abatacept Versus Placebo in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Integrated Data Analysis of Nine Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety of abatacept treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using integrated data from multiple clinical trials. METHODS: Data from nine double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of abatacept treatment (seven intravenous, two subcutaneous) in patients with RA were pooled, focusing on safety events in the double-blind treatment period of each study. Incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) per 100 patient-years of exposure were calculated for abatacept- and placebo-treated patients. AEs in abatacept-treated patients were combined regardless of dose and formulation. RESULTS: In total, 2653 patients received abatacept and 1485 received placebo, with 2357 and 1254 patient-years of exposure, respectively. The mean (SD) durations of exposure in the abatacept and placebo groups were 10.8 (3.3) and 10.3 (3.5) months, respectively. The IRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) for serious AEs were 14.8 (13.3, 16.5) and 14.6 (12.5, 17.0) in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively. Death occurred in 12 (0.5%) and 12 (0.8%) patients in the abatacept and placebo groups, respectively, and was most commonly caused by cardiac disorders. Malignancies were observed in 31 patients (1.2%) treated with abatacept (IR: 1.32 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.87]) versus 14 (0.9%; IR: 1.12 [0.61, 1.88]) who received placebo. Solid organ tumor was the most frequent malignancy reported in both groups (abatacept: 1.0%; IR: 1.11 [95% CI: 0.72, 1.62]; placebo: 0.8%; 0.96 [0.50, 1.67]). CONCLUSION: In this integrated analysis, the IRs of safety events in the abatacept and placebo groups were similar with no new safety concerns identified.

High-quality cooperative research: studies that represent a triumph in the rheumatology community.

Over the past 20 years, the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment landscape has been continuously evolving. A range of novel biologic agents, different from the conventional therapies, became available. However, some understandable concerns, such as long-term safety, accompanied their development. Over the years in rheumatology research, I aimed to broaden the knowledge of the new treatments of RA through real-word research, which proved to be valuable in providing important evidence to clinicians and enabling them to make informed treatment decisions. Nevertheless, many unanswered questions remain-it will be interesting to see how the research progresses over the next 20 years.

Comparative risk of malignancies and infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept versus other biologics: a multi-database real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of developing certain cancers and infections compared with the general population. Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are effective treatment options for RA, but limited evidence is available on the comparative risks among b/tsDMARDs. We assessed the risk of malignancies and infections in patients with RA who initiated abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study used administrative data from three large US healthcare databases (MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum) to identify patients treated with abatacept or other b/tsDMARDs. In both groups, age-stratified incidence rates (IRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for total malignancy and hospitalized infections; propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for total malignancy, lung cancer, lymphoma, breast cancer, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), hospitalized infections, opportunistic infections, and tuberculosis (TB), both within individual databases and in meta-analyses across the three databases. RESULTS: A rounded total of 19.2, 13.6, and 4.2 thousand patients initiating abatacept and 55.3, 40.8, and 13.8 thousand initiating other b/tsDMARDs were identified in the MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum databases, respectively. The IRs for total malignancy and hospitalized infections were similar between the two groups in each age stratum. In meta-analyses, total malignancy risk (HR [95% CI] 1.09 [1.02-1.16]) of abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs was slightly but statistically significantly increased; small, but not statistically significant, increases were seen for lung cancer (1.10 [0.62-1.96]), lymphoma (1.27 [0.94-1.72]), breast cancer (1.15 [0.92-1.45]), and NMSC (1.10 [0.93-1.30]). No significant increase in hospitalized infections (0.96 [0.84-1.09]) or opportunistic infections (1.06 [0.96-1.17]) was seen. For TB, low event counts precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world multi-database study, the risks for specific cancers and infections did not differ significantly between patients in the abatacept and other b/tsDMARDs groups. The slight increase in total malignancy risk associated with abatacept needs further investigation. These results are consistent with the established safety profile of abatacept.

Safety of abatacept compared with other biologic and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: data from an observational study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the risks of malignancies, infections and autoimmune diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept compared with other biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, in a US-wide observational RA cohort METHODS: Data were reviewed from patients (≥ 18 years) with RA who were registered with FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and who initiated abatacept, other bDMARDs or csDMARDs between 2005 and 2015. Patients who switched treatment during the study could be allocated to more than one group. The incidence rates (IRs) by treatment were calculated for malignancies, hospitalized infections and autoimmune diseases identified by six monthly questionnaires and medical records. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for all outcomes with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs were determined using marginal structural models adjusted for clinical confounders. RESULTS: In the study sample, 1496 initiated abatacept, 3490 initiated another bDMARD and 1520 initiated a csDMARD. The risk of malignancies with abatacept was not statistically significant versus other bDMARDs (HR [95% CI)] 1.89 [0.93, 3.84]) or versus csDMARDs (HR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.20, 4.27]). Patients receiving abatacept versus other bDMARDs were at a lower risk of hospitalized infections (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.75]); the risk versus csDMARDs was lower with wide CIs (HR [95% CI] 0.31 [0.09, 1.05]). The relative risks for psoriasis were similar between treatment groups (HR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.76, 2.81] and HR [95% CI] 2.05 [0.59, 7.16] for abatacept versus other bDMARDs and versus csDMARDS, respectively). The IR (95% CI) of severe infusion/injection reactions was lower with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs (1.57 [1.11, 2.17] vs 2.31 [1.87, 2.82] per 100 patient-years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, abatacept was well tolerated and did not result in an overall increased risk of malignancies, infections or autoimmune diseases compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs.