Department of Pharmacy Administration, School of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, Oxford. Mississippi, USA.
Section of Immunology, Allergy & Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Clin Ther. 2023 Sep;45(9):e177-e186. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2023.06.024. Epub 2023 Aug 10.
Guidelines recommend using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after monotherapy. Little is known about the real-world comparative effectiveness of these MTX-DMARD combinations. This study compared the effectiveness of various MTX-based DMARD combinations for patients with RA initiating MTX-DMARD combination therapy using administrative claims database.
This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with RA who initiated MTX combination treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), non-TNFi bDMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013 (index date), from the MarketScan Commercial Claims Data. Patients had continuous enrollment from the 6 months of preindex period until the 12 months of postindex period. The MTX-based DMARD combination therapy cohort was defined as ≥1 MTX prescription in the first 30 days from the index date and ≥14 days overlapping use of the prescription fills of the MTX and the index DMARD. Effectiveness was measured by using the claims algorithm (dosing, switching, addition, oral glucocorticoid use, or multiple glucocorticoid injection). Propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW), estimated by using the generalized boosted machine learning method, was used to balance the distribution of baseline variables between the combination groups. Multivariable logistic regression using PS-IPTW was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the combination groups. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the modified effectiveness algorithms or the time to the first treatment failure.
A total of 3174 adult patients with RA starting an MTX-DMARD combination therapy were identified (mean [SD] age, 50 [9] years), including 1568 (49%) initiating a csDMARD + MTX, 1343 (42%) initiating TNFi + MTX, and 240 (8%) initiating non-TNFi bDMARD + MTX, and 23 (1%) initiating tsDMARD + MTX. Owing to the small sample, the tsDMARD combination group was not included in the comparative analysis. Algorithm-based therapy effectiveness was found in 9.95% of the csDMARD + MTX, 20.48% of the TNFi + MTX, and 20.83% of the non-TNFi + MTX groups. PS-IPTW showed that the csDMARD combination is less effective (adjusted odds ratio, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.341-0.524) than the TNFi combination; however, the non-TNFi biologic combination had similar effectiveness (aOR, 1.063; 95% CI, 0.680-1.662) compared to the TNFi combination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results.
Among RA patients initiating MTX-DMARD combinations, both non-TNFi biologics and TNFi-based combinations with MTX were equally effective, but csDMARD + MTX was less effective than the TNFi plus MTX.
指南建议类风湿关节炎(RA)患者在单药治疗后使用疾病修饰抗风湿药物(DMARDs)联合甲氨蝶呤(MTX)。对于这些 MTX-DMARD 联合用药的真实世界比较效果,人们知之甚少。本研究使用行政索赔数据库比较了 RA 患者开始 MTX-DMARD 联合治疗时使用各种 MTX 为基础的 DMARD 联合的有效性。
这项回顾性队列研究纳入了 2012 年 7 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日(索引日期)期间从 MarketScan 商业索赔数据中开始接受常规合成 DMARD(csDMARDs)、肿瘤坏死因子抑制剂(TNFi)生物 DMARD(bDMARDs)、非 TNFi bDMARD 或靶向合成 DMARD(tsDMARDs)与 MTX 联合治疗的年龄≥18 岁的 RA 成年患者。患者在索引前 6 个月至索引后 12 个月期间持续登记。MTX 为基础的 DMARD 联合治疗组定义为在索引日期后的第 30 天内至少有 1 次 MTX 处方,并且 MTX 和索引 DMARD 的处方填充至少有 14 天重叠使用。有效性通过使用索赔算法(剂量、转换、添加、口服糖皮质激素使用或多次糖皮质激素注射)来衡量。使用广义增强机学习方法估计的逆概率治疗加权(PS-IPTW)进行倾向评分分析,以平衡组合组之间的基线变量分布。使用 PS-IPTW 进行多变量逻辑回归,比较联合组的有效性。敏感性分析评估了改良的有效性算法或首次治疗失败的时间。
共确定了 3174 名开始 MTX-DMARD 联合治疗的成年 RA 患者(平均[标准差]年龄,50[9]岁),其中 1568 名(49%)开始接受 csDMARD+MTX 治疗,1343 名(42%)开始接受 TNFi+MTX 治疗,240 名(8%)开始接受非 TNFi bDMARD+MTX 治疗,23 名(1%)开始接受 tsDMARD+MTX 治疗。由于样本量较小,tsDMARD 联合组未包括在比较分析中。基于算法的治疗有效性在 csDMARD+MTX 组中为 9.95%,在 TNFi+MTX 组中为 20.48%,在非 TNFi+MTX 组中为 20.83%。PS-IPTW 显示 csDMARD 联合治疗的效果较差(调整后的优势比,0.422;95%CI,0.341-0.524),而 TNFi 联合治疗效果较好(调整后的优势比,1.063;95%CI,0.680-1.662)。敏感性分析证实了主要结果。
在开始 MTX-DMARD 联合治疗的 RA 患者中,非 TNFi 生物制剂和 TNFi 联合 MTX 同样有效,但 csDMARD+MTX 不如 TNFi 联合 MTX 有效。