Cardiovascular Safety of Tocilizumab Versus Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
- 作者列表："Giles JT","Sattar N","Gabriel S","Ridker PM","Gay S","Warne C","Musselman D","Brockwell L","Shittu E","Klearman M","Fleming TR
OBJECTIVE:To assess the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tocilizumab compared to those treated with the tumor necrosis factor inhibitor etanercept. METHODS:This randomized, open-label, parallel-group trial enrolled patients with active seropositive RA (n = 3,080) who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and who had at least 1 cardiovascular (CV) risk factor. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive open-label tocilizumab at 8 mg/kg/month or etanercept at 50 mg/week. All patients were followed up for a mean of 3.2 years. The primary end point was comparison of time to first occurrence of MACE. The trial was powered to exclude a relative hazard ratio for MACE of 1.8 or higher in the tocilizumab group compared to the etanercept group. RESULTS:By week 4 of treatment, the serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were a median 11.1%, 5.7%, and 13.6% higher, respectively, in patients receiving tocilizumab compared to those receiving etanercept (each P < 0.001). During follow-up, 83 MACE occurred in the tocilizumab group compared to 78 MACE in the etanercept group. The estimated hazard ratio for occurrence of MACE in the tocilizumab group relative to the etanercept group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.77-1.43). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses and in the on-treatment population analysis. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the tocilizumab group, including serious infection and gastrointestinal perforation. CONCLUSION:The results of this trial, which provide insights into the CV safety of tocilizumab as compared to etanercept, ruled out a risk for occurrence of MACE of 1.43 or higher in patients treated with tocilizumab. This result should be interpreted in the context of the clinical efficacy and non-CV safety of tocilizumab.
目的: 评估与肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂依那西普治疗相比，托珠单抗治疗类风湿关节炎 (RA) 患者发生主要不良心血管事件 (MACE) 的风险。 方法: 这项随机、开放标签、平行组试验纳入了活动性血清阳性RA患者 (n = 3,080) 谁对常规合成的改善病情的抗风湿药反应不足，谁至少有 1 个心血管 (CV) 危险因素。患者被随机分配在 1:1 接受开放标签tocilizumab 8 mg/kg/月或依那西普 50 mg/周。所有患者平均随访 3.2 年。主要终点是MACE首次发生时间的比较。与依那西普组相比，该试验排除了tocilizumab组MACE的相对风险比为 1.8 或更高。 结果: 治疗 4 周时，患者血清低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇和甘油三酯水平中位数分别高出 11.1% 、 5.7% 和 13.6%。在接受托珠单抗的患者中，与接受依那西普的患者相比 (各P <0.001)。随访期间，tocilizumab组发生了 83 次MACE，而依那西普组发生了 78 次MACE。Tocilizumab组相对于依那西普组发生MACE的估计风险比为 1.05 (95% 置信区间 0.77-1.43)。敏感性分析和治疗人群分析的结果相似。托珠单抗组的不良事件发生率更高，包括严重感染和胃肠道穿孔。 结论: 本试验的结果为tocilizumab与依那西普相比的CV安全性提供了见解，排除了tocilizumab治疗患者发生MACE 1.43 或更高的风险。这个结果应该在tocilizumab的临床疗效和非CV安全性的背景下解释。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.