Search

Abstract Introduction This drug utilization study evaluated the impact of 2019 label changes on real-world febuxostat utilization among patients with gout. We describe the numbers and proportions of patients initiating febuxostat as new users (allopurinol-naïve) or prevalent new users (prior allopurinol use) and data on febuxostat users with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidities before, during, and after the 2019 label changes. Methods This descriptive, non-interventional, cross-sectional study used data from two large administrative claims databases in the United States, the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database and the Optum Research Database (ORD). The study population included patients with gout initiating febuxostat on or after June 1, 2016. Data were collected on febuxostat and allopurinol use, established CVD morbidities, comorbidities of interest, concomitant medications, and patient demographics. Results In both databases, the total number of febuxostat users and proportion of patients who initiated febuxostat as new users both decreased during the study period. Of 13,848 patients in the PharMetrics Plus cohort, 42.7% were new users of febuxostat and 57.3% were prevalent new users. In the ORD cohort, 40.5% of the 10,198 patients were new users and 59.5% were prevalent new users. The most common established CVD morbidities in the 12 months prior to initiation of febuxostat were diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and heart failure/cardiomyopathy. Conclusions Although the benefit–risk profile for febuxostat is considered favorable for the treatment of hyperuricemia in certain patients with gout, real-world febuxostat utilization decreased during the study period, presumably in response to the label change.

Abstract Introduction The aim of this work is to evaluate baricitinib safety with respect to venous thromboembolism (VTE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and serious infection relative to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with RA from 14 real-world data sources (three disease registries, eight commercial and three government health insurance claims databases) in the United States (n = 9), Europe (n = 3), and Japan (n = 2) were analyzed using a new user active comparator design. Propensity score matching (1:1) controlled for potential confounding. Meta-analysis of incidence rate ratios (IRR) and incidence rate differences (IRD) for each outcome, from each data source was executed using modified Poisson regression and Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel analysis. Results Of 9013 eligible baricitinib-treated patients, 7606 were propensity score-matched with TNFi-treated patients, contributing 5879 and 6512 person-years of baricitinib and TNFi exposure, respectively. Across data sources, 97 patients (56 baricitinib) experienced VTE during follow-up, 93 experienced MACE (54 baricitinib), and 321 experienced serious infection (176 baricitinib). Overall IRRs comparing baricitinib with TNFi treatment were 1.51 (95% CI 1.10, 2.08) for VTE, 1.54 (95% CI 0.93, 2.54) for MACE, and 1.36 (95% CI 0.86, 2.13) for serious infection. IRDs for VTE, MACE, and serious infection, respectively, were 0.26 (95% CI −0.04, 0.57), 0.22 (95% CI −0.07, 0.52), and 0.57 (95% CI −0.07, 1.21) per 100 person-years greater for baricitinib than TNFi. Conclusions Overall results suggest increased risk of VTE with baricitinib versus TNFi, with consistent point estimates from the two largest data sources. A numerically greater risk was observed for MACE and serious infection when comparing baricitinib versus TNFi, with different point estimates from the two largest data sources. Findings from this study and their impact on clinical practice should be considered in context of limitations and other evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of baricitinib and other Janus kinase inhibitors. Trial registration: EU PAS Register ( http://encepp.eu ), identifier #32271.