Global Pharmacovigilance and Epidemiology, Bristol Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2024 Jan 11;83(2):177-183. doi: 10.1136/ard-2023-224356.
This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs).
49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs.
Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.
本研究旨在评估阿巴西普治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)与非黑素瘤皮肤癌(NMSC)风险的相关性。
本评估纳入了 16 项阿巴西普治疗 RA 的临床试验和 6 项观察性研究。通过比较接受阿巴西普治疗与安慰剂、传统合成(cs)疾病修饰抗风湿药物(DMARDs)和其他生物/靶向合成(b/ts)DMARDs治疗的患者,计算 NMSC 发生率(IRs)/1000 患者年(p-y)。对于观察性研究,使用随机效应模型来汇总率比(RRs)。
从临床试验(n=7000)和观察性研究(n=42000)中分析了~49000 名接受阿巴西普治疗的患者。在随机试验中(n=4138;阿巴西普中位暴露时间,12(2-30)个月),阿巴西普(6.0(3.3 至 10.0))和安慰剂(4.0(1.3 至 9.3))的 NMSC IRs(95%CI)没有显著差异,并且在长期开放标签期内保持稳定(中位累积暴露时间,28(2-130 个月);21335p-y 暴露(7044 例患者,随访 3 年))。对于登记数据库,NMSC IRs/1000p-y 为 5-12(阿巴西普)、1.6-10(csDMARDs)和 3-8(其他 b/tsDMARDs)。索赔数据库的 IRs 为 19-22(阿巴西普)、15-18(csDMARDs)和 14-17(其他 b/tsDMARDs)。来自观察性研究的 NMSC 患者接受阿巴西普治疗的 RR(95%CI)为 1.84(1.00 至 3.37)vs csDMARDs 和 1.11(0.98 至 1.26)vs 其他 b/tsDMARDs。
与阿巴西普标签的警告和预防措施一致,该分析表明与 csDMARDs 相比,阿巴西普治疗可能会增加 NMSC 风险。与 b/tsDMARDs 相比,未观察到显著增加,但 95%CI 的下限接近 1。