Methotrexate, Tofacitinib, and Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Safety and Effectiveness Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japan: CorEvitas Registry Observational Study

The evolution of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has improved patient prognosis. However, more real-world safety/effectiveness data comparing methotrexate (MTX), tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and non-TNFi biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) are warranted. The CorEvitas RA Japan registry was used to identify patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed RA who initiated MTX/tofacitinib/TNFi/non-TNFi bDMARDs. Safety outcomes included incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), total cardiovascular disease, total serious infections, total herpes zoster, and total malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer). Effectiveness outcomes included change from baseline (Δ) in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and proportion of patients achieving a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in CDAI at month 6. Adjusted regression models were fit; marginal means were estimated. Overall, 1972 patients were included in the safety cohort: MTX (N = 298); tofacitinib (N = 253); TNFi (N = 663); non-TNFi (N = 758). Mean follow-up time was 3.8, 2.9, 3.0, and 2.9 years for MTX, tofacitinib, TNFi, and non-TNFi, respectively. Adjusted incidence rates (IRs, patients with events/100 patient-years 95% confidence intervals) for MACE and total cardiovascular disease, respectively, were numerically lower for MTX (0.34 0, 0.83; 0.42 0, 0.92) and TNFi (0.09 0, 0.27; 0.61 0.15, 1.07) versus tofacitinib (0.48 0, 1.20; 2.30 0.38, 4.22) and non-TNFi (0.77 0.35, 1.19; 1.28 0.73, 1.82). Serious infections were numerically higher for non-TNFi (4.47 3.38, 5.56); herpes zoster was higher for tofacitinib (7.41 4.52, 10.29), versus other groups. IRs for malignancies were comparable between groups. Mean ΔCDAI and rates of achieving MCID in CDAI at month 6 were generally greater with tofacitinib versus other groups. Some variations in incidence of safety outcomes were observed between treatments, while certain effectiveness outcomes favored tofacitinib. Sample size variation between groups and low number of safety events limited the analysis. Further studies are warranted to investigate observed differences. NCT05572567.