scholarly journals Comparative risk of serious infections among real-world users of biologics for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xintong Li ◽  
Kathleen M Andersen ◽  
Hsien-Yen Chang ◽  
Jeffrey R Curtis ◽  
G Caleb Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Propensity Scores ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Tnf Inhibitor ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Serious Infections

ObjectiveTo examine whether initiation of interleukin (IL)-17, IL-12/23 or tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor is associated with an increased risk of serious infection among real-world psoriasis (PsO) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients.MethodsWe assembled a retrospective cohort of commercially insured adults in the USA diagnosed with PsO or PsA between 2015 and 2018. Exposure was dispensation for IL-17 (ixekizumab or secukinumab), IL-12/23 (ustekinumab) or TNF (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab). The outcome was infection requiring hospitalisation after biologic initiation. Incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years were computed, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for inverse probability of treatment-weighted propensity scores.ResultsA total of 11 560 new treatment episodes were included. Overall, 190 serious infections (2% of treatment episodes) were identified in 9264 person-years of follow-up. Class-specific IRs were similar among IL-17 and TNF, yet significantly lower for IL-12/23. After adjustment for propensity scores, there was no increased risk with IL-17 compared with either TNF (HR=0.89, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.66) or IL-12/23 (HR=1.12, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.03). By contrast, IL-23/23 were associated with a lower risk of infections than TNF (HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.90).ConclusionsRelative to TNF and IL-17, IL-12/23 inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of serious infection in biologic-naïve patients with PsO or PsA. In biologic-experienced individuals, there was no difference in infection risk across TNF, IL-17 or IL-12/23 inhibitors.

scholarly journals Comparative risk of malignancies and infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating abatacept versus other biologics: a multi-database real-world study

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa A. Simon ◽  
Maarten Boers ◽  
Marc Hochberg ◽  
Nicole Baker ◽  
Mary L. Skovron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Opportunistic Infections ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Malignancy Risk ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of developing certain cancers and infections compared with the general population. Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are effective treatment options for RA, but limited evidence is available on the comparative risks among b/tsDMARDs. We assessed the risk of malignancies and infections in patients with RA who initiated abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs in a real-world setting. Methods This retrospective, observational study used administrative data from three large US healthcare databases (MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum) to identify patients treated with abatacept or other b/tsDMARDs. In both groups, age-stratified incidence rates (IRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for total malignancy and hospitalized infections; propensity score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for total malignancy, lung cancer, lymphoma, breast cancer, non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), hospitalized infections, opportunistic infections, and tuberculosis (TB), both within individual databases and in meta-analyses across the three databases. Results A rounded total of 19.2, 13.6, and 4.2 thousand patients initiating abatacept and 55.3, 40.8, and 13.8 thousand initiating other b/tsDMARDs were identified in the MarketScan, PharMetrics, and Optum databases, respectively. The IRs for total malignancy and hospitalized infections were similar between the two groups in each age stratum. In meta-analyses, total malignancy risk (HR [95% CI] 1.09 [1.02–1.16]) of abatacept versus other b/tsDMARDs was slightly but statistically significantly increased; small, but not statistically significant, increases were seen for lung cancer (1.10 [0.62–1.96]), lymphoma (1.27 [0.94–1.72]), breast cancer (1.15 [0.92–1.45]), and NMSC (1.10 [0.93–1.30]). No significant increase in hospitalized infections (0.96 [0.84–1.09]) or opportunistic infections (1.06 [0.96–1.17]) was seen. For TB, low event counts precluded meta-analysis. Conclusions In this real-world multi-database study, the risks for specific cancers and infections did not differ significantly between patients in the abatacept and other b/tsDMARDs groups. The slight increase in total malignancy risk associated with abatacept needs further investigation. These results are consistent with the established safety profile of abatacept.

scholarly journals Longterm, Real-world Safety of Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis of a Prospective US-based Registry

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 959-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie R. Harrold ◽  
Jenny Griffith ◽  
Patrick Zueger ◽  
Heather J. Litman ◽  
Bernice Gershenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
First Year ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
Infection Event ◽  
Serious Infections ◽  
Using Data

Objective.To assess longterm safety in a US cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with adalimumab (ADA) in real-world clinical care settings.Methods.This observational study analyzed the longterm incidence of safety outcomes among patients with RA initiating ADA, using data from the Corrona RA registry. Patients were adults (≥ 18 yrs) who initiated ADA treatment between January 2008 and June 2017, and who had at least 1 followup visit.Results.In total, 2798 ADA initiators were available for analysis, with a mean age of 54.5 years, 77% female, and mean disease duration of 8.3 years. Nearly half (48%) were biologic-naive, and 9% were using prednisone ≥ 10 mg at ADA initiation. The incidence rates per 100 person-years for serious infections, congestive heart failure requiring hospitalization, malignancy (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer), and all-cause mortality were 1.86, 0.15, 0.64, and 0.33, respectively. The incidence of serious infections was higher in the first year of therapy (3.44, 95% CI 2.45–4.84) than in subsequent years, while other measured adverse effects did not vary substantially by duration of exposure. The median time to ADA discontinuation was 11 months, while the median time to first serious infection among those experiencing a serious infection event was 12 months.Conclusion.Analysis of longterm data from this prospective real-world registry demonstrated a safety profile consistent with previous studies in patients with RA. This analysis did not identify any new safety signals associated with ADA treatment and provides guidance for physicians prescribing ADA for extended periods.

scholarly journals Serious infections in patients with self-reported psoriatic arthritis from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR) treated with biologics

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher T. Ritchlin ◽  
Mona Stahle ◽  
Yves Poulin ◽  
Jerry Bagel ◽  
Soumya D. Chakravarty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Reference Group ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Tnf Inhibitors ◽  
Longitudinal Assessment ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Serious Infections ◽  
History Of ◽  
Necrosis Factor

Abstract Background Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased risk of adverse events, including serious infections (SI), compared with psoriasis patients. Methods Patients eligible for, or receiving conventional systemic and biologic agents for psoriasis were followed prospectively using PSOLAR. Cohorts included: ustekinumab, tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors; infliximab; etanercept; adalimumab; non-biologic/methotrexate (MTX) (reference group); and non-biologic/non-MTX. Multivariate analyses using Cox hazard regression were used to identify factors associated with time to first SI. Rates of SI in PSOLAR psoriasis patients with self-reported PsA and possible risks with biologic therapy were evaluated. Results PSOLAR enrolled 4315 psoriasis patients with self-reported PsA. The overall population (N = 2401) included patients (n): 628 ustekinumab; 1413 TNF inhibitors; 258 infliximab; 481 etanercept; 674 adalimumab; 54 other biologics, 98 non-biologic/MTX; 208 non-biologic/non-MTX. Overall, 138 SI were reported with incidence rates per 100 patient-years as follows: a) ustekinumab: 1.00; b) TNF inhibitors: 2.22; c) infliximab: 2.12; d) etanercept: 2.58; e) adalimumab: 1.99; f) non-biologic/MTX: 3.01; g) and non-biologic/non-MTX: 2.31. Age, time-dependent disease activity Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) of 4, 5, history of infection, and diabetes were associated with increased risk for SI (p < 0.05) in self-reported PsA patients. Biologic groups, other than ustekinumab, had numerically higher rates of SI. Conclusions PSOLAR psoriasis patients with self-reported PsA in the TNF inhibitors, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, and MTX cohorts had numerically higher SI rates than the ustekinumab cohort, although not statistically significant. Age, PGA 4, 5, history of infection, and diabetes were associated with an increased risk for SI, irrespective of biologic exposure. Trial registration NCT00508547; Registered July 30, 2007.

scholarly journals FRI0106 RISK FACTORS FOR SERIOUS INFECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH RA INITIATING TREATMENT WITH BIOLOGIC DMARDS: A REAL-WORLD POPULATION-BASED OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 632.1-633
Author(s):  
S. Suissa ◽  
P. Brassard ◽  
A. L. Dominique ◽  
T. Simon ◽  
M. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Score ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Biologic Dmards ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Serious Infections

Background:Patients with RA are at increased risk of infection compared with the general population, but it is unclear whether this is due to the underlying disease or to immunosuppressive medications used to manage the disease.1Some biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) have been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.2A large cohort study found no increased risk of serious infection in patients initiating abatacept compared with patients initiating other bDMARDs.3It is clinically important to identify which patients are at a higher risk of infections at the time of initiating treatment with a bDMARD. However, studies that assess risk factors for infection and derive corresponding risk scores of infection, especially at the time of bDMARD treatment initiation, are lacking or based on too few patients.4Objectives:To identify the risk factors for serious infections among patients with RA initiating treatment with a bDMARD in a real-world observational setting.Methods:The Truven MarketScan®Commercial and Supplemental Medicare databases were used to identify patients diagnosed with RA who initiated treatment with a bDMARD between January 2007 and December 2015. Patients were followed from treatment initiation until the occurrence of a serious infection requiring hospitalisation, the end of enrolment or 31 December 2015, whichever came first. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) of serious infection associated with baseline risk factors including demographics, the presence of co-morbidities, prior hospitalised infections and medications. An infection risk score was developed using the independent risk factors found to be significant in the model.Results:The study cohort included 84,308 patients initiating treatment with a bDMARD, mainly etanercept (36.7%), adalimumab (29.3%), infliximab (12.4%), rituximab (7.3%) and abatacept (6.8%). During a mean follow-up of 6.6 months, 1724 patients were hospitalised for a serious infection (incidence rate 3.7/100 persons per year). The baseline risk factors significantly and independently associated with serious infections were age, prior hospitalisation for infection, hypertension, diabetes, lymphoma, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cardiovascular disease, other autoimmune disease, corticosteroid use and antibiotic use. The infection risk score, with a possible range of 0 to 15, had a mean (SD) value of 2.6 (1.9) with range 0–12.5. The HR (95% CI) of serious infection was 1.43 (1.40–1.45) for every unit increase in the risk score. Relative to patients with a score of 0, the HR (95% CI) of serious infection for a risk score of 5 was 5.9 (5.3–6.5), and for a risk score of 10 was 34.5 (28.5–41.6).Conclusion:In this large, real-world cohort of patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a bDMARD, several patient characteristics were found to independently predict the subsequent risk of serious infection. The risk score, based on easily available patient characteristics, can be a simple and useful tool for the clinician to identify patients at higher risk of infection at the time of bDMARD initiation for the treatment of RA.References:[1]Doran MF, et al.Arthritis Rheum2002;46:2287–93.[2]Singh JA.Curr Rheumatol Rep2016;18:61.[3]Montastruc F, et al.Semin Arthritis Rheum2019;48:1053–8.[4]Jani M, et al.Curr Opin Rheumatol2019;31:285–92.Acknowledgments:Joanna Wright (editorial assistance, Caudex; funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb).Disclosure of Interests:Samy Suissa Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Consultant of: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis (advisory board meetings), Speakers bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Paul Brassard: None declared, Alyssa L. Dominique Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Teresa Simon Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Marie Hudson: None declared

scholarly journals 1095. Investigation of Risk Factors Associated with Serious Bacterial, Viral and Invasive Fungal Infections in Hematologic Patients on Ibrutinib

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S576-S577
Author(s):  
Thomas Holowka ◽  
Harry Cheung ◽  
Maricar F Malinis ◽  
Sarah Perreault ◽  
Iris Isufi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Fungal Infections ◽  
Antimicrobial Prophylaxis ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Invasive Fungal Infections ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Serious Infections

Abstract Background Ibrutinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor used to treat hematologic malignancies that may increase the risk of serious infection including invasive fungal infections (IFI). In a study of 378 patients with hematologic malignancy on ibrutinib, serious infection and IFI occurred in 11% and 4% respectively (Varughese et al. Clin Infect Dis). The primary aims of our study were to determine the incidence of serious infection and associated risk factors in patients on ibrutinib. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with hematologic malignancy prescribed ibrutinib for ≥ 1 week at Yale New Haven Hospital from 2014 to 2019 to identify serious infections defined as those requiring inpatient management. We collected demographic, clinical and oncologic data. Chi-squared tests were used to determine factors associated with an increased risk of infection. Results A total of 254 patients received ibrutinib including 156 with CLL, 89 with NHL and 9 with other leukemias. Among these, 21 underwent HSCT, 9 complicated by GVHD. There were 51 (20%) patients with serious infections including 45 (17.7%) bacterial, 9 (3.5%) viral and 5 (2%) IFI (1 pulmonary cryptococcosis, 4 pulmonary aspergillosis). Anti-mold prophylaxis was prescribed to 7 (2.8%) patients, none of whom developed IFI. Risk factors associated with serious infection included ECOG score ≥ 2 (OR 4.6, p &lt; 0.001), concurrent steroid use (≥ 10 mg prednisone daily for ≥ 2 weeks; OR 3.0, p &lt; 0.001), neutropenia (OR 3.6, p &lt; 0.01), lymphopenia (OR 2.4, p &lt; 0.05) and maximum ibrutinib dose of 560 mg (OR 2, p &lt; 0.05). There was a dose dependent increase in infections based on number of chemotherapy regimens prior to ibrutinib initiation: 14.3% with 0, 19.7% with 1-2 and 28.7% with ≥ 3 prior treatments. Conclusion The incidence of serious infection in hematologic patients on ibrutinib was higher than previously reported (20% versus 11%) but the rate of IFI was lower (2% versus 4%). High ECOG score, leukopenia, steroids, and higher ibrutinib doses were associated with an increased risk for serious infection. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis should be considered for patients on ibrutinib with these risk factors. Improving functional status may also reduce the risk of infection in patients on ibrutinib. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Estimating the burden of hyperkalaemia in the UK in high-risk patient populations

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P McEwan ◽  
L Hoskin ◽  
K Badora ◽  
D Sugrue ◽  
G James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Real World ◽  
High Risk Patient ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure (HF), resistant hypertension (RHTN) and diabetes are at an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (HK) which can be potentially life-threatening, as a result of cardiac arrhythmias, cardiac arrest leading to sudden death. In these patients, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi), are used to manage several cardiovascular and renal conditions, and are associated with an increased risk of HK. Assessing the burden of HK in real-world clinical practice may concentrate relevant care on those patients most in need, potentially improving patient outcomes and efficiency of the healthcare system. Purpose To assess the burden of HK in a real-world population of UK patients with at least one of: RHTN, Type I or II diabetes, CKD stage 3+, dialysis, HF, or in receipt of a prescription for RAASi. Methods Primary and secondary care data for this retrospective study were obtained from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Eligible patients were identified using READ codes defining the relevant diagnosis, receipt of indication-specific medication, or, in the case of CKD, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤60 ml/min/1.73m2 within the study period (01 January 2008 to 30 June 2018) or in the five-year lookback period (2003–2007). The index date was defined as 01 January 2008 or first diagnosis of an eligible condition or RAASi prescription, whichever occurred latest. HK was defined as K+ ≥5.0 mmol/L; thresholds of ≥5.5 mmol/L and ≥6.0 mmol/L were explored as sensitivity analyses. Incidence rates of HK were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The total eligible population across all cohorts was 931,460 patients. RHTN was the most prevalent comorbidity (n=317,135; 34.0%) and dialysis the least prevalent (n=4,415; 0.5%). The majority of the eligible population were prescribed RAASi during follow-up (n=754,523; 81.0%). At a K+ threshold of ≥5.0 mmol/L, the dialysis cohort had the highest rate of HK (501.0 events per 1,000 patient-years), followed by HF (490.9), CKD (410.9), diabetes (355.0), RHTN (261.4) and the RAASi cohort (211.2) (Figure 1). This pattern was still observed at alternative threshold definitions of HK. Conclusion This large real-world study of UK patients demonstrates the burden of hyperkalaemia in high-risk patient populations from the UK. There is a need for effective prevention and treatment of HK, particularly in patients with CKD, dialysis or HF where increased incidence rates are observed which in turn will improve patient outcomes and healthcare resource usage. Figure 1. Rates of HK by condition Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): AstraZeneca

scholarly journals AB0649 REAL WORLD EFFICACY OF SECUKINUMAB: A SINGLE CENTRE EXPERIENCE

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1619-1620
Author(s):  
G. Kasavkar ◽  
T. Blake ◽  
N. Gullick
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real World ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Tender Joint Count ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Technology Appraisal ◽  
New Onset

Background:Secukinumab was approved by NICE for patients with active Ankylosing Spondylitis and Psoriatic Arthritis in 2017. Clinical trial data suggests secukinumab is a useful treatment option in both conditions, but often real world experience differs greatly from clinical trial results. In addition, patients with more refractory disease are often excluded from clinical trials.Objectives:To assess the response to secukinumab in patients with seronegative spondyloarthropathy receiving treatment at University Hospital Coventry and WarwickshireMethods:Patients starting secukinumab at UHCW were identified from the Blueteq funding database. Medical notes were reviewed retrospectively to assess response rates using BASDAI responses in Ankylosing spondylitis and PsARC responses in PsA. Patients who had previously had inadequate response to TNF inhibitors (PsA only) and severe psoriasis received 300mg secukinumab monthly; the remainder were prescribed 150mg monthly.Results:146 patients commenced secukinumab between June 2017 and January 2020 and had outcome data recorded. 73 patients (50%) had received previous biologic agents prior to secukinumab exposure. Patients with Ankylosing spondylitis had high BASDAI (6.8±1.4) and spinal pain (7.5±1.4). 48 patients had an initial response to treatment as per outcome measures done before and after Secukinumab inception. Secukinumab was effective in 89 patients (94%), and 87 (91%) continued treatment.In psoriatic arthritis, despite high levels of activity at baseline (mean tender joint count 10±8; swollen joint count 6±3) and 65% prior biologic exposure; high rates of response were seen. The majority of patients have continued treatment. Secukinumab was well tolerated in both patient groups with low rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (8 patients, 5%). Adverse events included recurrent infection (3), rash (1), mouth ulcers (1), vertigo (1), new onset cancer (1) and new onset Crohn’s (1) although rates were low overall. Patients with pre-existing uveitis did not develop exacerbations but low numbers of patients with prior uveitis were treated.PsA (n=51)AS (n=95)Age in years, mean (SD)53 (13)49(12)Male sex, n (%)21 (41)62 (65)Disease duration in years, mean (SD)8 (8)10.9 (9.2)Previous biologic exposure, n (%)30 (65)43 (48)Number of prior biologics, median (range)1 (1-4)1 (1-4)Responder, n (%)37 (72)*89 (93)Discontinuation, n(%)12 (24)8 (8.5)Adverse events62Lack of efficacy64Other02*Response could not be assessed in 3/51 PsA patients due to insufficient clinical data; these patients have been recorded as non respondersConclusion:Secukinumab demonstrates high levels of efficacy even in a cohort of patients with longstanding PSA and AS with high rates of inadequate responses to other biologics.Secukinumab is well tolerated with low rates of discontinuation due to adverse events.References:Certolizumab pegol and secukinumab for treating active psoriatic arthritis after inadequate response to DMARDs Technology appraisal guidance [TA445]Secukinumab for active ankylosing spondylitis after treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or TNF-alpha inhibitors Technology appraisal guidance [TA407]Disclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Real-world safety of palbociclib in breast cancer patients in the United States: a new user cohort study

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C. Beachler ◽  
Cynthia de Luise ◽  
Aziza Jamal-Allial ◽  
Ruihua Yin ◽  
Devon H. Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Real World ◽  
The United States ◽  
Elevated Risk ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Serious Infections

Abstract Background There is limited real-world safety information on palbociclib for treatment of advanced stage HR+/HER2- breast cancer. Methods We conducted a cohort study of breast cancer patients initiating palbociclib and fulvestrant from February 2015 to September 2017 using the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD), a longitudinal claims database of commercial health plan members in the United States. The historical comparator cohort comprised patients initiating fulvestrant monotherapy from January 2011 to January 2015. Propensity score matching and Cox regression were used to estimate hazard ratios for various safety events. For acute liver injury (ALI), additional analyses and medical record validation were conducted. Results There were 2445 patients who initiated palbociclib including 566 new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant, and 2316 historical new users of fulvestrant monotherapy. Compared to these historical new users of fulvestrant monotherapy, new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant had a greater than 2-fold elevated risk for neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, stomatitis and mucositis, and ALI. Incidence of anemia and QT prolongation were more weakly associated, and incidences of serious infections and pulmonary embolism were similar between groups after propensity score matching. After adjustment for additional ALI risk factors, the elevated risk of ALI in new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant persisted (e.g. primary ALI algorithm hazard ratio (HR) = 3.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.1–8.4). Conclusions This real-world study found increased risks of several adverse events identified in clinical trials, including neutropenia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia, but no increased risk of serious infections or pulmonary embolism when comparing new users of palbociclib-fulvestrant to fulvestrant monotherapy. We observed an increased risk of ALI, extending clinical trial findings of significant imbalances in grade 3/4 elevations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT).

scholarly journals SAT0398 PERSISTENCE OF USTEKINUMAB (UST) OR TNF INHIBITOR (TNFI) TREATMENT IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS (PsA): INSIGHTS FROM THE LARGE, PROSPECTIVE, MULTINATIONAL, REAL-WORLD PsABio COHORT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1149-1150
Author(s):  
L. Gossec ◽  
S. Siebert ◽  
P. Bergmans ◽  
K. De Vlam ◽  
E. Gremese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Real World ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Tnf Inhibitor ◽  
Skin Involvement ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Treatment Persistence ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Difference

Background:Several biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) exist for PsA, TNFi and UST being the earliest on European markets. When bDMARDs are insufficiently effective, later-line bDMARDs typically have shorter persistence. Treatment persistence reflects a mix of effectiveness and adverse events (AEs), and persistence data are limited in PsA.Objectives:Comparative analysis of 1-year persistence of UST and TNFi within the prospective PsABio cohort.Methods:PsABio is an observational, multinational study of PsA patients (pts) treated with 1st to 3rd line UST or TNFi at their rheumatologist’s discretion.1Treatment persistence (up to 15 months of follow-up) was defined as time between start of first bDMARD treatment in PsABio, and either stop or switch to another bDMARD, or withdrawal.Persistence of UST and TNFi is shown by Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using Cox regression analysis, with propensity score (PS) to adjust for baseline imbalanced demographic and disease-related covariates (age, sex, bDMARD line, BMI, Clinical Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis [cDAPSA], 12-item PsA Impact of Disease [PsAID-12], Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool [FiRST] score, co-treatments with MTX, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, cardiovascular/metabolic comorbidities, dactylitis, enthesitis and body surface area [BSA]). Factors including concomitant MTX use and skin involvement: <3%, 3–10% and >10%, were added to the Cox model to investigate their impact on the PS-adjusted treatment effect.Results:Of 438 and 455 pts who started UST and TNF, respectively, 121 (28%) and 134 (29%) stopped or switched treatment before Month 15, with differences (as expected) according to treatment line (Fig. 1a, b). Reasons for stop/switch were related to safety/AEs in 12% (UST) and 28% (TNFi), and effectiveness (joints, nails or skin) in 77% (UST) and 69% (TNFi) of pts.The observed mean time on drug was 397 days for UST and 385 days for TNFi pts (1st line 410/397 days, 2nd 390/382 days, 3rd 381/338 days). Fig. 1b shows similar persistence for all drugs and treatment lines, except for lower persistence in TNFi 3rd line vs 1st/2nd. In PS-adjusted Cox analysis, no statistically significant difference between UST and TNFi persistence was seen; hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) for stop/switch bDMARD (UST vs TNFi) was 0.82 (0.60, 1.13). In the model, bDMARD monotherapy (without MTX) and extensive skin involvement (BSA >10%), showed significantly better persistence for UST (HR 0.61 [0.42, 0.90] and 0.41 [0.19, 0.89] respectively; unadjusted Kaplan-Meier graphs shown in Fig. 1c, d). MTX co-therapy and low BSA did not affect the PS-adjusted treatment effect. Other factors added to the PS-adjusted Cox model did not show significant effects.Conclusion:In this real-world PsA cohort undergoing bDMARD treatment, persistence was generally comparable for UST and TNFi, but some clinical situations led to better drug persistence with UST compared to TNFi – particularly monotherapy, more extensive skin involvement, and in 3rd-line treatment. Our data emphasise the importance of skin involvement for pts with PsA.References:[1]Gossec L, et al.Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(suppl 2):Abstract AB0928Acknowledgments:This study was funded by Janssen.Disclosure of Interests:Laure Gossec Grant/research support from: Lilly, Mylan, Pfizer, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Stefan Siebert Grant/research support from: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, Paul Bergmans Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Employee of: Janssen, Kurt de Vlam Consultant of: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – consultant, Speakers bureau: Celgene Corporation, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB – speakers bureau and honoraria, Elisa Gremese Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Sanofi, UCB, Roche, Pfizer, Beatriz Joven-Ibáñez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Tatiana Korotaeva Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BIOCAD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, UCB, Wim Noel Employee of: Janssen Pharmaceuticals NV, Michael T Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, GlaxoSmithKline, Jansen, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, USB, Petros Sfikakis Grant/research support from: Grant/research support from Abvie, Novartis, MSD, Actelion, Amgen, Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, UCB, Elke Theander Employee of: Janssen-Cilag Sweden AB, Josef S. Smolen Grant/research support from: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Celltrion, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, ILTOO, Janssen, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer Inc, Samsung, Sanofi

scholarly journals Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Darunavir/Cobicistat in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Findings From the Multicenter Italian CORIST Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augusto Di Castelnuovo ◽  
Simona Costanzo ◽  
Andrea Antinori ◽  
Nausicaa Berselli ◽  
Lorenzo Blandi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Propensity Scores ◽  
Proportional Hazards ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards ◽  
Event Analysis ◽  
Multicenter Observational Study ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Cox Proportional Hazards Models ◽  
Increased Risk

Background: Protease inhibitors have been considered as possible therapeutic agents for COVID-19 patients.Objectives: To describe the association between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/cobicistat (DRV/c) use and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients.Study Design: Multicenter observational study of COVID-19 patients admitted in 33 Italian hospitals. Medications, preexisting conditions, clinical measures, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Patients were retrospectively divided in three groups, according to use of LPV/r, DRV/c or none of them. Primary outcome in a time-to event analysis was death. We used Cox proportional-hazards models with inverse probability of treatment weighting by multinomial propensity scores.Results: Out of 3,451 patients, 33.3% LPV/r and 13.9% received DRV/c. Patients receiving LPV/r or DRV/c were more likely younger, men, had higher C-reactive protein levels while less likely had hypertension, cardiovascular, pulmonary or kidney disease. After adjustment for propensity scores, LPV/r use was not associated with mortality (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), whereas treatment with DRV/c was associated with a higher death risk (HR = 1.89, 1.53 to 2.34, E-value = 2.43). This increased risk was more marked in women, in elderly, in patients with higher severity of COVID-19 and in patients receiving other COVID-19 drugs.Conclusions: In a large cohort of Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in a real-life setting, the use of LPV/r treatment did not change death rate, while DRV/c was associated with increased mortality. Within the limits of an observational study, these data do not support the use of LPV/r or DRV/c in COVID-19 patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document