Effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and in those receiving tofacitinib as different lines of therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the United States CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY Clinical Rheumatology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1007/s10067-024-07245-3
Leslie R Harrold, Clifton O Bingham, Janet E Pope, Jacqueline O'Brien, Page C Moore, Carla Roberts-Toler, Miao Yu, Lindsay L Sweet, Ahmed Shelbaya, Karim R Masri
{"title":"Effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and in those receiving tofacitinib as different lines of therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the United States CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry.","authors":"Leslie R Harrold, Clifton O Bingham, Janet E Pope, Jacqueline O'Brien, Page C Moore, Carla Roberts-Toler, Miao Yu, Lindsay L Sweet, Ahmed Shelbaya, Karim R Masri","doi":"10.1007/s10067-024-07245-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and across tofacitinib lines of therapy, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using US CorEvitas RA Registry data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Analysis included patients with RA initiating tofacitinib or TNFi with a 12-month follow-up visit between November 2012-February 2021. Primary (Clinical Disease Activity Index-defined low disease activity [CDAI-LDA: CDAI ≤ 10]) and secondary (clinical/disease activity/patient-reported) effectiveness outcomes were assessed at month 12. Outcomes were stratified by treatment regimen (overall tofacitinib vs overall TNFi/tofacitinib monotherapy vs tofacitinib combination therapy/TNFi monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib combination therapy vs TNFi combination therapy), or tofacitinib line of therapy (2nd/3rd/ ≥ 4th line).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>3,481 eligible patients initiated tofacitinib (n = 805) or TNFi (n = 2,676). Improvements in effectiveness at month 12 were generally similar across treatment regimens; 25.1% and 30.1% of overall tofacitinib and TNFi initiators achieved CDAI-LDA, respectively (odds ratio 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94, 1.76]). Odds ratios (95% CIs) for achieving CDAI-LDA at 12 months were 0.70 (0.36, 1.37) for 3rd- versus 2nd-line, and 1.09 (0.63, 1.88) for 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators. At month 12, mean change from baseline in CDAI was greater among 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators, and mean Health Assessment Questionnaire and patient-reported pain were greater in 3rd- versus 2nd-line and ≥ 4th- versus 3rd-line tofacitinib initiators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Generally, there were no differences in effectiveness between tofacitinib versus TNFi regimens. Few differences were observed between tofacitinib lines of therapy; sample sizes were small for 2nd/3rd-line initiators.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>NCT01402661 (ClinicalTrials.gov; July 25, 2011). Key Points • Using data from the US CorEvitas rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Registry, this study compared the effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and across tofacitinib lines of therapy. • Effectiveness of tofacitinib was similar to TNFi regimens up to month 12, while differences in some effectiveness outcomes at month 12 were observed with tofacitinib across different lines of therapy. • The findings of this study may inform future treatment decision-making in patients with RA.</p>","PeriodicalId":10482,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":"635-648"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11775051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-024-07245-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and across tofacitinib lines of therapy, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using US CorEvitas RA Registry data.

Methods: Analysis included patients with RA initiating tofacitinib or TNFi with a 12-month follow-up visit between November 2012-February 2021. Primary (Clinical Disease Activity Index-defined low disease activity [CDAI-LDA: CDAI ≤ 10]) and secondary (clinical/disease activity/patient-reported) effectiveness outcomes were assessed at month 12. Outcomes were stratified by treatment regimen (overall tofacitinib vs overall TNFi/tofacitinib monotherapy vs tofacitinib combination therapy/TNFi monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib monotherapy vs TNFi combination therapy/tofacitinib combination therapy vs TNFi combination therapy), or tofacitinib line of therapy (2nd/3rd/ ≥ 4th line).

Results: 3,481 eligible patients initiated tofacitinib (n = 805) or TNFi (n = 2,676). Improvements in effectiveness at month 12 were generally similar across treatment regimens; 25.1% and 30.1% of overall tofacitinib and TNFi initiators achieved CDAI-LDA, respectively (odds ratio 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94, 1.76]). Odds ratios (95% CIs) for achieving CDAI-LDA at 12 months were 0.70 (0.36, 1.37) for 3rd- versus 2nd-line, and 1.09 (0.63, 1.88) for 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators. At month 12, mean change from baseline in CDAI was greater among 3rd- versus ≥ 4th-line tofacitinib initiators, and mean Health Assessment Questionnaire and patient-reported pain were greater in 3rd- versus 2nd-line and ≥ 4th- versus 3rd-line tofacitinib initiators.

Conclusions: Generally, there were no differences in effectiveness between tofacitinib versus TNFi regimens. Few differences were observed between tofacitinib lines of therapy; sample sizes were small for 2nd/3rd-line initiators.

Study registration: NCT01402661 (ClinicalTrials.gov; July 25, 2011). Key Points • Using data from the US CorEvitas rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Registry, this study compared the effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and across tofacitinib lines of therapy. • Effectiveness of tofacitinib was similar to TNFi regimens up to month 12, while differences in some effectiveness outcomes at month 12 were observed with tofacitinib across different lines of therapy. • The findings of this study may inform future treatment decision-making in patients with RA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
托法替尼对肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂的有效性,以及接受托法替尼作为不同治疗线的类风湿关节炎患者的有效性:来自美国CorEvitas类风湿关节炎登记处的结果
目的:利用美国CorEvitas RA Registry数据,比较托法替尼与肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFi)以及跨托法替尼治疗类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者的有效性。方法:分析纳入2012年11月至2021年2月期间开始使用托法替尼或TNFi的RA患者,随访12个月。在第12个月评估原发性(临床疾病活动指数定义的低疾病活动性[CDAI- lda: CDAI≤10])和继发性(临床/疾病活动性/患者报告)疗效结局。结果按治疗方案分层(总托法替尼vs总TNFi/托法替尼单药vs托法替尼联合治疗/TNFi单药vs TNFi联合治疗/托法替尼单药vs TNFi联合治疗/托法替尼单药vs TNFi联合治疗/托法替尼联合治疗vs TNFi联合治疗),或托法替尼治疗线(第2 /3 /≥4线)。结果:3481名符合条件的患者开始使用tofacitinib (n = 805)或TNFi (n = 2676)。在第12个月,不同治疗方案的有效性改善大体相似;tofacitinib和TNFi起始剂中分别有25.1%和30.1%达到CDAI-LDA(优势比1.29[95%可信区间(CI) 0.94, 1.76])。在12个月时达到CDAI-LDA的优势比(95% ci),三线与二线为0.70(0.36,1.37),三线与≥4线为1.09(0.63,1.88)。在第12个月,托法替尼3线起始者与≥4线起始者相比,CDAI的基线平均变化更大;托法替尼3线起始者与2线起始者相比,≥4线起始者与3线起始者相比,平均健康评估问卷和患者报告的疼痛更大。结论:一般来说,托法替尼与TNFi方案之间的有效性没有差异。托法替尼治疗之间几乎没有差异;二线/三线引发剂的样本量较小。研究注册:NCT01402661 (ClinicalTrials.gov;2011年7月25日。•使用来自美国CorEvitas类风湿性关节炎(RA)登记处的数据,本研究比较了托法替尼与肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFi)以及跨托法替尼治疗线的有效性。•到第12个月,托法替尼的有效性与TNFi方案相似,而在第12个月,托法替尼在不同的治疗线中观察到一些有效性结果的差异。•本研究的发现可能为RA患者未来的治疗决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Rheumatology
Clinical Rheumatology 医学-风湿病学
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
441
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Rheumatology is an international English-language journal devoted to publishing original clinical investigation and research in the general field of rheumatology with accent on clinical aspects at postgraduate level. The journal succeeds Acta Rheumatologica Belgica, originally founded in 1945 as the official journal of the Belgian Rheumatology Society. Clinical Rheumatology aims to cover all modern trends in clinical and experimental research as well as the management and evaluation of diagnostic and treatment procedures connected with the inflammatory, immunologic, metabolic, genetic and degenerative soft and hard connective tissue diseases.
期刊最新文献
Exploring the association of metabolic factors and chronic musculoskeletal pain over a period of 10 years - the Doetinchem Cohort Study. Development and validation of non-invasive prediction models for assessing kidney histopathological activity index in lupus nephritis. Effectiveness of tofacitinib versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and in those receiving tofacitinib as different lines of therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from the United States CorEvitas Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry. The climate emergency for rheumatologists: where do we stand? Association study of the HLA class I system with psoriatic arthritis in Southern Tunisia: a case-control study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1