UCL Discovery Stage
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery Stage

Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab vs Tofacitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Australia

Deakin, CT; De Stavola, BL; Littlejohn, G; Griffiths, H; Ciciriello, S; Youssef, P; Mathers, D; ... Seaman, SR; + view all (2023) Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab vs Tofacitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Australia. JAMA Network Open , 6 (6) , Article e2320851. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20851. Green open access

[thumbnail of deakin_2023_oi_230618_1686934990.90233.pdf]
Preview
PDF
deakin_2023_oi_230618_1686934990.90233.pdf - Published Version

Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Importance: There is a need for observational studies to supplement evidence from clinical trials, and the target trial emulation (TTE) framework can help avoid biases that can be introduced when treatments are compared crudely using observational data by applying design principles for randomized clinical trials. Adalimumab (ADA) and tofacitinib (TOF) were shown to be equivalent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a randomized clinical trial, but to our knowledge, these drugs have not been compared head-to-head using routinely collected clinical data and the TTE framework. Objective: To emulate a randomized clinical trial comparing ADA vs TOF in patients with RA who were new users of a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study emulating a randomized clinical trial of ADA vs TOF included Australian adults aged 18 years or older with RA in the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology (OPAL) data set. Patients were included if they initiated ADA or TOF between October 1, 2015, and April 1, 2021; were new b/tsDMARD users; and had at least 1 component of the disease activity score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) recorded at baseline or during follow-up. Intervention: Treatment with either ADA (40 mg every 14 days) or TOF (10 mg daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the estimated average treatment effect, defined as the difference in mean DAS28-CRP among patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA at 3 and 9 months after initiating treatment. Missing DAS28-CRP data were multiply imputed. Stable balancing weights were used to account for nonrandomized treatment assignment. Results: A total of 842 patients were identified, including 569 treated with ADA (387 [68.0%] female; median age, 56 years [IQR, 47-66 years]) and 273 treated with TOF (201 [73.6%] female; median age, 59 years [IQR, 51-68 years]). After applying stable balancing weights, mean DAS28-CRP in the ADA group was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.6 (95% CI, 2.5-2.7) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.2-2.4) at 9 months; in the TOF group, it was 5.3 (95% CI, 5.2-5.4) at baseline, 2.4 (95% CI, 2.2-2.5) at 3 months, and 2.3 (95% CI, 2.1-2.4) at 9 months. The estimated average treatment effect was -0.2 (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.03; P = .02) at 3 months and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.2 to 0.1; P = .60) at 9 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, there was a modest but statistically significant reduction in DAS28-CRP at 3 months for patients receiving TOF compared with those receiving ADA and no difference between treatment groups at 9 months. Three months of treatment with either drug led to clinically relevant average reductions in mean DAS28-CRP, consistent with remission.

Type: Article
Title: Comparative Effectiveness of Adalimumab vs Tofacitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Australia
Location: United States
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.20851
Publisher version: https://jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/j...
Language: English
Additional information: © 2023 Deakin CT et al. JAMA Network Open. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License (https://jamanetwork.com/pages/cc-by-license-permissions).
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > UCL GOS Institute of Child Health
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > UCL GOS Institute of Child Health > Population, Policy and Practice Dept
URI: https://discovery-pp.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10173810
Downloads since deposit
684Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item