Affiliation:
1. Department of Medicine, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Boston, MA, USA
2. Division of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with tofacitinib compared with TNFis in patients with RA.
Methods
RA patients initiating tofacitinib or a TNFi without use of any biologic or tofacitinib any time prior were identified from IBM ‘MarketScan’ (2012–18), Medicare (parts A, B and D, 2012–17) or ‘Optum’ Clinformatics (2012–19) and followed until treatment discontinuation, treatment switch, insurance disenrollment or administrative censoring. The primary outcome, VTE, was identified using inpatient claims for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. A Cox proportional hazards model provided hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CIs after accounting for confounding through propensity score fine-stratification weighting. HRs were pooled across databases with inverse variance meta-analytic method.
Results
A total of 42 201, 25 078 and 20 374 RA patients were identified from MarketScan, Medicare and Optum, respectively, of whom 7.1, 7.1 and 9.7% were tofacitinib initiators. The crude incidence rates per 100 person-years (95% CI) were 0.42 (0.20–0.77) and 0.35 (0.29–0.42) in MarketScan, 1.18 (0.68–1.92) and 0.83 (0.71–0.97) in Medicare, and 0.19 (0.04–0.57) and 0.34 (0.26–0.44) in Optum for tofacitinib and TNFis, respectively. Propensity score-weighted HRs showed no significant differences in the risk of VTE between tofacitinib and TNFis in any database with a pooled HR (95% CI) of 1.13 (0.77–1.65).
Conclusion
Overall, VTE occurred infrequently (<1 per 100) in a total of 87 653 RA patients initiating tofacitinib or a TNFi. We observed no evidence for an increased risk of VTE for tofacitinib vs TNFis in RA patients.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Rheumatology
Reference24 articles.
1. American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis;Singh;Arthritis Rheumatol,2015
2. Temporal trends in use of biologic DMARDs for rheumatoid arthritis in the United States: a cohort study of publicly and privately insured patients;Desai;J Manag Care Spec Pharm,2017
3. Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis;Sepriano;Ann Rheum Dis,2020
Cited by
49 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献