Bryant R England, Joshua F Baker, Michael D George, Tate M Johnson, Yangyuna Yang, Punyasha Roul, Halie Frideres, Harlan Sayles, Fang Yu, Scott M Matson, Jorge Rojas, Brian C Sauer, Grant W Cannon, Jeffrey R Curtis, Ted R Mikuls
{"title":"美国退伍军人类风湿性关节炎相关间质性肺病的先进治疗:一项回顾性、主动比较、新用户队列研究","authors":"Bryant R England, Joshua F Baker, Michael D George, Tate M Johnson, Yangyuna Yang, Punyasha Roul, Halie Frideres, Harlan Sayles, Fang Yu, Scott M Matson, Jorge Rojas, Brian C Sauer, Grant W Cannon, Jeffrey R Curtis, Ted R Mikuls","doi":"10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00265-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uncertainty exists regarding patient outcomes when using TNF inhibitors versus other biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD). We compared survival and respiratory hospitalisation outcomes following initiation of TNF-inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a retrospective, active-comparator, new-user, observational cohort study with propensity score matching following the target trial emulation framework using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic and administrative health records. VA health-care enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD and no previous receipt of ILD-directed therapies (eg, antifibrotics) who initiated a TNF inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2018, were included. Propensity score matching was performed using demographics, health-care use, health behaviours, comorbidity burden, rheumatoid arthritis-related severity factors, and ILD-related severity factors, including baseline forced vital capacity. Study outcomes were respiratory hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and respiratory-related death over follow-up of up to 3 years, from VA, Medicare, and National Death Index data. People with lived experience of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD were not involved in the design or conduct of this study.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 1047 patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated-ILD who initiated biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs, we matched 237 patients who had initiated TNF inhibitors and 237 who had initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age 68 years [SD 9]); 434 (92%) of 474 were male and 40 (8%) were female. Death and respiratory hospitalisation did not significantly differ between groups (adjusted hazard ratio 1·21 [95% CI 0·92-1·58]). Respiratory hospitalisation (1·27 [0·91-1·76]), all-cause mortality (1·15 [0·83-1·60]), and respiratory mortality (1·38 [0·79-2·42]) did not differ between groups. Secondary, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses supported the primary findings.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD, no difference in outcomes were seen between those who started TNF inhibitors compared to those starting non-TNF biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs. These data do not support systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors in all people with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD. Comparative efficacy trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD are needed given the potential for residual confounding and selection bias in observational studies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>US Department of Veterans Affairs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48540,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Advanced therapies in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a retrospective, active-comparator, new-user, cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Bryant R England, Joshua F Baker, Michael D George, Tate M Johnson, Yangyuna Yang, Punyasha Roul, Halie Frideres, Harlan Sayles, Fang Yu, Scott M Matson, Jorge Rojas, Brian C Sauer, Grant W Cannon, Jeffrey R Curtis, Ted R Mikuls\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00265-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Uncertainty exists regarding patient outcomes when using TNF inhibitors versus other biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD). We compared survival and respiratory hospitalisation outcomes following initiation of TNF-inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We did a retrospective, active-comparator, new-user, observational cohort study with propensity score matching following the target trial emulation framework using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic and administrative health records. VA health-care enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD and no previous receipt of ILD-directed therapies (eg, antifibrotics) who initiated a TNF inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2018, were included. Propensity score matching was performed using demographics, health-care use, health behaviours, comorbidity burden, rheumatoid arthritis-related severity factors, and ILD-related severity factors, including baseline forced vital capacity. Study outcomes were respiratory hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and respiratory-related death over follow-up of up to 3 years, from VA, Medicare, and National Death Index data. People with lived experience of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD were not involved in the design or conduct of this study.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Of 1047 patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated-ILD who initiated biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs, we matched 237 patients who had initiated TNF inhibitors and 237 who had initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age 68 years [SD 9]); 434 (92%) of 474 were male and 40 (8%) were female. Death and respiratory hospitalisation did not significantly differ between groups (adjusted hazard ratio 1·21 [95% CI 0·92-1·58]). Respiratory hospitalisation (1·27 [0·91-1·76]), all-cause mortality (1·15 [0·83-1·60]), and respiratory mortality (1·38 [0·79-2·42]) did not differ between groups. Secondary, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses supported the primary findings.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>In US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD, no difference in outcomes were seen between those who started TNF inhibitors compared to those starting non-TNF biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs. These data do not support systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors in all people with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD. Comparative efficacy trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD are needed given the potential for residual confounding and selection bias in observational studies.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>US Department of Veterans Affairs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48540,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Rheumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Rheumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00265-0\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00265-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:在类风湿关节炎相关间质性肺疾病(ILD)中,使用TNF抑制剂与其他生物和靶向合成疾病改善抗风湿药物(DMARDs)相比,患者预后存在不确定性。我们比较了开始使用tnf抑制剂或非tnf抑制剂生物或靶向合成dmard治疗类风湿关节炎相关ILD后的生存率和呼吸系统住院治疗结果。方法:我们使用美国退伍军人事务部(VA)的电子和行政健康记录进行回顾性、主动比较、新用户、观察性队列研究,并遵循目标试验模拟框架进行倾向评分匹配。纳入了在2006年1月1日至2018年12月31日期间接受TNF抑制剂或非TNF抑制剂治疗的类风湿关节炎相关ILD患者,既往未接受过ILD靶向治疗(如抗纤维化药物)。使用人口统计学、卫生保健使用、健康行为、合并症负担、类风湿关节炎相关严重程度因素和ild相关严重程度因素(包括基线强迫肺活量)进行倾向评分匹配。研究结果为呼吸道住院、全因死亡率和呼吸相关死亡,随访时间长达3年,数据来自VA、Medicare和National death Index数据。有类风湿关节炎相关ILD生活经验的人没有参与本研究的设计或实施。研究结果:在1047例启动生物或靶向合成DMARDs的类风湿关节炎相关ild患者中,我们匹配了237例启动TNF抑制剂的患者和237例启动非TNF抑制剂的患者(平均年龄68岁[SD 9]);其中男性434例(92%),女性40例(8%)。两组之间的死亡率和因呼吸道疾病住院率无显著差异(校正风险比1.21 [95% CI 0.92 - 1.58])。呼吸系统住院率(1.27[0.91 - 1.76])、全因死亡率(1.15[0.83 - 1.60])和呼吸系统死亡率(1.38[0.79 - 2.42])在两组间无显著差异。次要分析、敏感性分析和亚组分析支持主要发现。解释:在患有类风湿性关节炎相关ILD的美国退伍军人中,开始使用TNF抑制剂的患者与开始使用非TNF生物或靶向合成dmard的患者相比,结果没有差异。这些数据并不支持在所有类风湿性关节炎相关ILD患者中系统性地避免使用TNF抑制剂。鉴于观察性研究中可能存在残留混淆和选择偏倚,需要对类风湿关节炎相关ILD患者进行比较疗效试验。资助:美国退伍军人事务部。
Advanced therapies in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: a retrospective, active-comparator, new-user, cohort study.
Background: Uncertainty exists regarding patient outcomes when using TNF inhibitors versus other biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (ILD). We compared survival and respiratory hospitalisation outcomes following initiation of TNF-inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD.
Methods: We did a retrospective, active-comparator, new-user, observational cohort study with propensity score matching following the target trial emulation framework using US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) electronic and administrative health records. VA health-care enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD and no previous receipt of ILD-directed therapies (eg, antifibrotics) who initiated a TNF inhibitor or non-TNF inhibitor between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2018, were included. Propensity score matching was performed using demographics, health-care use, health behaviours, comorbidity burden, rheumatoid arthritis-related severity factors, and ILD-related severity factors, including baseline forced vital capacity. Study outcomes were respiratory hospitalisation, all-cause mortality, and respiratory-related death over follow-up of up to 3 years, from VA, Medicare, and National Death Index data. People with lived experience of rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD were not involved in the design or conduct of this study.
Findings: Of 1047 patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated-ILD who initiated biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs, we matched 237 patients who had initiated TNF inhibitors and 237 who had initiated non-TNF inhibitors (mean age 68 years [SD 9]); 434 (92%) of 474 were male and 40 (8%) were female. Death and respiratory hospitalisation did not significantly differ between groups (adjusted hazard ratio 1·21 [95% CI 0·92-1·58]). Respiratory hospitalisation (1·27 [0·91-1·76]), all-cause mortality (1·15 [0·83-1·60]), and respiratory mortality (1·38 [0·79-2·42]) did not differ between groups. Secondary, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses supported the primary findings.
Interpretation: In US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD, no difference in outcomes were seen between those who started TNF inhibitors compared to those starting non-TNF biological or targeted synthetic DMARDs. These data do not support systematic avoidance of TNF inhibitors in all people with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD. Comparative efficacy trials in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD are needed given the potential for residual confounding and selection bias in observational studies.
期刊介绍:
The Lancet Rheumatology, an independent journal, is dedicated to publishing content relevant to rheumatology specialists worldwide. It focuses on studies that advance clinical practice, challenge existing norms, and advocate for changes in health policy. The journal covers clinical research, particularly clinical trials, expert reviews, and thought-provoking commentary on the diagnosis, classification, management, and prevention of rheumatic diseases, including arthritis, musculoskeletal disorders, connective tissue diseases, and immune system disorders. Additionally, it publishes high-quality translational studies supported by robust clinical data, prioritizing those that identify potential new therapeutic targets, advance precision medicine efforts, or directly contribute to future clinical trials.
With its strong clinical orientation, The Lancet Rheumatology serves as an independent voice for the rheumatology community, advocating strongly for the enhancement of patients' lives affected by rheumatic diseases worldwide.