Seoyoung C Kim1, Daniel H Solomon2, Jun Liu3, Jessica M Franklin3, Robert J Glynn3, Sebastian Schneeweiss4. 1. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: skim62@partners.org. 2. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. 4. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Recent research suggests that rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study compared the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis initiating a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with those initiating methotrexate or a nonbiologic DMARD. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using US insurance claims data (2001-2012). Three mutually exclusive, hierarchical DMARD groups were used: (1) a biologic DMARD with and without nonbiologic DMARDs; (2) methotrexate without a biologic DMARD; or (3) nonbiologic DMARDs without a biologic DMARD or methotrexate. We calculated the incidence rates of venous thromboembolism. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by propensity score (PS) deciles after asymmetric PS trimming were used for 3 pairwise comparisons, controlling for potential confounders at baseline. RESULTS: We identified 29,481 patients with rheumatoid arthritis with 39,647 treatment episodes. From the pairwise comparison after asymmetric PS trimming, the incidence rate of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism per 1000 person-years was 5.5 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 4.4 in nonbiologic DMARD initiators and 4.8 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 3.5 in methotrexate initiators. The PS decile-stratified hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism associated with biologic DMARDs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-3.66) versus nonbiologic DMARDs and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.73-2.63) versus methotrexate. The hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism in biologic DMARD initiators was the highest in the first 180 days versus nonbiologic DMARD initiators (2.48; 95% CI, 1.14-5.39) or methotrexate initiators (1.80; 95% CI, 0.90-3.62). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute risk for venous thromboembolism was low in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis. Initiation of a biologic DMARD seems to be associated with an increased short-term risk of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism compared with initiation of a nonbiologic DMARD or methotrexate.
OBJECTIVES: Recent research suggests that rheumatoid arthritis increases the risk of venous thromboembolism. This study compared the risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis initiating a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with those initiating methotrexate or a nonbiologic DMARD. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using US insurance claims data (2001-2012). Three mutually exclusive, hierarchical DMARD groups were used: (1) a biologic DMARD with and without nonbiologic DMARDs; (2) methotrexate without a biologic DMARD; or (3) nonbiologic DMARDs without a biologic DMARD or methotrexate. We calculated the incidence rates of venous thromboembolism. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by propensity score (PS) deciles after asymmetric PS trimming were used for 3 pairwise comparisons, controlling for potential confounders at baseline. RESULTS: We identified 29,481 patients with rheumatoid arthritis with 39,647 treatment episodes. From the pairwise comparison after asymmetric PS trimming, the incidence rate of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism per 1000 person-years was 5.5 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 4.4 in nonbiologic DMARD initiators and 4.8 in biologic DMARD initiators versus 3.5 in methotrexate initiators. The PS decile-stratified hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism associated with biologic DMARDs was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-3.66) versus nonbiologic DMARDs and 1.39 (95% CI, 0.73-2.63) versus methotrexate. The hazard ratio of venous thromboembolism in biologic DMARD initiators was the highest in the first 180 days versus nonbiologic DMARD initiators (2.48; 95% CI, 1.14-5.39) or methotrexate initiators (1.80; 95% CI, 0.90-3.62). CONCLUSIONS: The absolute risk for venous thromboembolism was low in patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis. Initiation of a biologic DMARD seems to be associated with an increased short-term risk of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism compared with initiation of a nonbiologic DMARD or methotrexate.
Authors: T Jonsdottir; J Forslid; A van Vollenhoven; A Harju; S Brannemark; L Klareskog; R F van Vollenhoven Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2004-04-05 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Sudha Visvanathan; Carrie Wagner; Josef Smolen; E William St Clair; Ron Hegedus; Daniel Baker; Gregory Keenan Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2006-09
Authors: Jeremy A Rassen; Abhi A Shelat; Jessica Myers; Robert J Glynn; Kenneth J Rothman; Sebastian Schneeweiss Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: F Atzeni; S Ardizzone; P Sarzi-Puttini; E Colombo; G Maconi; S De Portu; M Carrabba; G Bianchi Porro Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2005-09-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: A Tosetto; A Iorio; M Marcucci; T Baglin; M Cushman; S Eichinger; G Palareti; D Poli; R C Tait; J Douketis Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Marie E Holmqvist; Martin Neovius; Jonas Eriksson; Ängla Mantel; Solveig Wållberg-Jonsson; Lennart T H Jacobsson; Johan Askling Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rebecca Davies; James B Galloway; Kath D Watson; Mark Lunt; Deborah P M Symmons; Kimme L Hyrich Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Alexis Ogdie; Neilia Kay McGill; Daniel B Shin; Junko Takeshita; Thorvardur Jon Love; Megan H Noe; Zelma C Chiesa Fuxench; Hyon K Choi; Nehal N Mehta; Joel M Gelfand Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-10-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Robin K Dore; Jenya N Antonova; Chakkarin Burudpakdee; Lawrence Chang; Magdaliz Gorritz; Mark C Genovese Journal: ACR Open Rheumatol Date: 2021-11-18
Authors: Arvind Chopra; Vineeta Shobha; Srikantiah Chandrashekara; Sarath C M Veeravalli; Reena Sharma; Uppuluri R Rao; Sapan Pandya; Shrikant Wagh; Jugal K Kadel; Amit V Thorat; Charles Adhav; Paul Santos Estrella; Wei Yu; Kenneth Kwok; Ann Wouters Journal: Int J Rheum Dis Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: Huifang Liang; Raghava Danwada; Dianlin Guo; Jeffrey R Curtis; Ryan D Kilpatrick; Barbara Hendrickson; Syed S Islam Journal: RMD Open Date: 2019-09-23