Comparative safety of biologic versus conventional synthetic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis with COPD: a real-world population study.

OBJECTIVES

Abatacept, a biologic DMARD, was associated with respiratory adverse events in a small subgroup of RA patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a trial. Whether this potential risk is specific to abatacept or extends to all biologics and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) is unclear. We assessed the risk of adverse respiratory events associated with biologic and tsDMARDs compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) among RA patients with concomitant COPD in a large, real-world cohort.

METHODS

We used a prevalent new-user design to study RA patients with COPD in the US-based MarketScan databases. New users of biologic DMARDs and/or tsDMARDs were matched on time-conditional propensity scores to new users of csDMARDs. Adverse respiratory events were estimated using Cox models comparing current use of biologic/tsDMARDs with csDMARDs.

RESULTS

The cohort included 7424 patients initiating biologic/tsDMARDs and 7424 matched patients initiating csDMARDs. The adjusted hazard ratio of hospitalized COPD exacerbation comparing biologic/tsDMARD vs csDMARD was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.55, 1.06), while it was 1.02 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.27) for bronchitis, 1.21 (95% CI: 0.92, 1.58) for hospitalized pneumonia or influenza and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.12) for outpatient pneumonia or influenza. The hazard ratio of the combined end point of COPD exacerbation, bronchitis and hospitalized pneumonia or influenza was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.21).

CONCLUSION

In this large, real-world comparative safety study, biologic and tsDMARDs, including abatacept, were not associated with an increased risk of adverse respiratory events when compared with csDMARDs in patients with RA and COPD.