Disparities in burden of disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis across racial and ethnic groups.

To examine racial/ethnic differences in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease burden and change in clinical outcomes over time. We included CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry patients from two time periods (2013-2015 and 2018-2020). Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) (as a continuous measure and as a dichotomous measure) and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) were assessed at each visit. Marginal means and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) by race/ethnicity were estimated for each outcome using adjusted mixed effects linear and logistic regression models. Overall and pairwise tests were conducted to detect differences between race/ethnicity groups. Of 9,363 eligible patients (8,142 White, 527 Black, 545 Hispanic, 149 Asian), most (76%-85%) were female. At Visit 1, the mean disease duration ranged from 9.8-11.8 years. Estimated CDAI was significantly higher for Hispanics compared to Whites at Visit 1 (11.1 vs. 9.9; pairwise P = 0.033) and Visit 2 (9.2 vs. 8.0, pairwise P = 0.005). Disease activity improved over the 5-year study period among all race/ethnicity groups, though Hispanics improved less than Whites. Disease activity improved over the 5-year period across all racial/ethnicity groups, and disparities between racial/ethnicity groups in disease activity and functional status did persist over time, suggesting that further effort is needed to understand the drivers of these discrepancies to close this race/ethnicity gap. Key Points • Disease activity improved over the 5-year period across all racial and ethnic groups. • Disparities between racial and ethnic groups in disease activity and functional status did persist over time, suggesting that further effort is needed to understand the drivers of these discrepancies and close this racial gap.

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive.

BACKGROUND: The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive. METHODS: Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used. RESULTS: In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort..

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis patients who are ACPA and shared epitope positive

Abstract Background The HLA-DRB1 shared epitope (SE) is a risk factor for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) in RA patients. Our objective was to examine the real-world effectiveness of abatacept versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with RA who were SE and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (anti-CCP3) positive. Methods Abatacept or TNFi initiators who were SE + and anti-CCP3+ (> 20 U/mL) at or prior to treatment and had moderate or high CDAI score (> 10) at initiation were identified. The primary outcome was mean change in CDAI score over six months. Analyses were conducted in propensity score (PS)-trimmed and -matched populations overall and a biologic-experienced subgroup. Mixed-effects models were used. Results In the overall PS-trimmed (abatacept, n = 170; TNFi, n = 157) and PS-matched cohorts (abatacept, n = 111; TNFi, n = 111), there were numerically greater improvements in mean change in CDAI between abatacept and TNFi but were not statistically significant. Similar trends were seen for biologic-experienced patients, except that statistical significance was reached for mean change in CDAI in the PS-trimmed cohort (abatacept, 12.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 10.13 to 14.31]; TNFi, 9.28 [95%CI 7.08 to 11.48]; p = 0.045). Conclusion In this real world cohort, there were numerical improvements in efficacy outcomes with abatacept over TNFi in patients with RA who were SE + and ACPA+, similar to results from a clinical trial population The only statistically significant finding after adjusting for covariates was greater improvement in CDAI with abatacept versus TNFi in the bio-experienced PS-trimmed cohort. .

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Abatacept vs. Tofacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients who are CCP.

INTRODUCTION: Currently there is limited data to drive clinical decision making regarding  the choice of biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD); thus, head-to-head comparisons are needed to help guide prescribing. In recent years, significant advancements have helped clarify the mechanistic basis of the clinical associations of autoantibodies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study evaluated the effectiveness of abatacept versus tofacitinib in anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP+) patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: CorEvitas (formerly known as CORRONA) Registry patients aged ≥ 18 years, who were CCP+ before initiating abatacept or tofacitinib (December 2012 onwards through October 2019), had 6-month follow-up data (baseline and 6-month Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI]), and were not in remission at index were included. Patients were frequency matched 1:1 by prior biologic use before propensity score matching (PSM). Primary (mean change [D] in CDAI) and secondary outcomes 6 months after index were compared using mixed-effects models adjusted for variables that remained unbalanced after PSM. RESULTS: Following PSM, most baseline characteristics for 291 patient pairs were well balanced between treatments, although fewer patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib received prior non-TNFi biologic DMARDs, and patients initiating abatacept versus tofacitinib had a higher physician global assessment score, patient-reported fatigue, and modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ). In adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in mean [D] from baseline in CDAI at 6 months with abatacept versus tofacitinib (P = 0.936). Patients naïve for b/tsDMARDs initiating abatacept had a numerically greater mean [D] in CDAI at 6 months versus tofacitinib, although this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.662). There were no significant differences for any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adjusted analyses, CCP+ patients with RA initiating treatment with abatacept versus tofacitinib did not show a statistically significant difference in reducing disease activity or improving patient-reported outcomes.

Baseline Anti-Citrullinated Protein Antibody Status and Response to Abatacept or Non-TNFi Biologic/Targeted-Synthetic DMARDs: US Observational Study of Patients with RA.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) may respond to treatments differently based on their underlying serology and biomarker status, but real-world data comparing treatment responses to abatacept versus other non-TNFi biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs by anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) status remain limited. We assessed the association between ACPA status and response to treatment in patients with RA. METHODS: Adults from CorEvitas' RA Registry were identified who initiated abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib, and had ACPA measured at/prior to treatment initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit. Three cohorts were included: abatacept/rituximab (2006-2019), abatacept/tocilizumab (2010-2019), and abatacept/tofacitinib (2012-2019). Patient characteristics at initiation were compared by ACPA status (positive [+], anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-2 [anti-CCP2] ≥ 20 U/ml; negative [-], anti-CCP2 < 20 U/ml). Outcomes over 6 months: changes in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ), patient global assessment (PGA) scores, and proportion of patients achieving a clinical response. Adjusted mean differences and odds ratios were estimated using mixed-effects linear regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 982 abatacept, 246 rituximab, 404 tocilizumab, and 429 tofacitinib initiators were identified. ACPA+ (vs. ACPA-) patients had longer disease duration and more erosive disease. During most time periods adjusted mean changes in CDAI, mHAQ, and PGA scores and the proportion of patients achieving a clinical response were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating abatacept. Adjusted mean change in PGA score and patient fatigue were significantly higher for ACPA+ versus ACPA- patients initiating rituximab. No significant differences were seen by ACPA status for patients initiating tocilizumab or tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiated abatacept or rituximab and were ACPA+ had a greater clinical response at 6-month follow-up post index compared to patients who were ACPA- treated with the same biologic.

Cardiovascular Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Risk Factors, Autoantibodies, and the Effect of Antirheumatic Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To scope the current published evidence on cardiovascular risk factors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) focusing on the role of autoantibodies and the effect of antirheumatic agents. METHODS: Two reviews were conducted in parallel: A targeted literature review (TLR) describing the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in RA patients; and a systematic literature review (SLR) identifying and characterizing the association between autoantibody status and CVD risk in RA. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 69 publications (49 in the TLR and 20 in the SLR) were included in the qualitative evidence synthesis. The most prevalent topic related to CVD risks in RA was inflammation as a shared mechanism behind both RA morbidity and atherosclerotic processes. Published evidence indicated that most of RA patients already had significant CV pathologies at the time of diagnosis, suggesting subclinical CVD may be developing before patients become symptomatic. Four types of autoantibodies (rheumatoid factor, anti-citrullinated peptide antibodies, anti-phospholipid autoantibodies, anti-lipoprotein autoantibodies) showed increased risk of specific cardiovascular events, such as higher risk of cardiovascular death in rheumatoid factor positive patients and higher risk of thrombosis in anti-phospholipid autoantibody positive patients. CONCLUSION: Autoantibodies appear to increase CVD risk; however, the magnitude of the increase and the types of CVD outcomes affected are still unclear. Prospective studies with larger populations are required to further understand and quantify the association, including the causal pathway, between specific risk factors and CVD outcomes in RA patients.

Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: epidemiology, risk/prognostic factors, and treatment landscape.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the epidemiology, risk and prognostic factors, and treatment landscape of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). METHODS: Targeted and systematic literature reviews were conducted to characterise the epidemiology and treatment landscape associated with RA-ILD, respectively. MEDLINE®, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched via OvidSP in March 2019 and December 2018. The results were narratively summarised. RESULTS: A total of 24 and 20 publications were captured through targeted and systematic literature review, respectively. No randomised controlled trials were identified; publications were observational cohort studies, cross-sectional, or case-control. Unadjusted incidence of interstitial lung disease (ILD) ranged from 1.3/1,000 person-years for interstitial pneumonia-type ILD to 5.0/1,000 person-years for 'probable or definite ILD'. Prevalence of ILD ranged from 1.8% to 67% (median: 24.9%) and varied with case definition and sample size. Few publications identified the same risk and prognostic factors; age, male sex, duration of disease, and antibodies to cyclic citrullinated peptides were the most frequently reported risk factors for development of RA-ILD, and age was the most common predictor of mortality. Despite identification of a variety of pharmacotherapeutic interventions, assessment of the comparative efficacy and safety of the available treatments were difficult due to heterogenous reporting of outcomes and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of estimates were identified for incidence and prevalence of RA-ILD. Further, there was no consensus on risk and prognostic factors. Sufficiently powered clinical trials are needed to confirm the findings of the observational studies with respect to efficacy and safety of current treatments.