IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179179.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative risk of hospitalized infection between biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Shunsuke Mori
  • Tamami Yoshitama
  • Toshihiko Hidaka
  • Fumikazu Sakai
  • Mizue Hasegawa
  • Yayoi Hashiba
  • Eiichi Suematsu
  • Hiroshi Tatsukawa
  • Akinari Mizokami
  • Shigeru Yoshizawa
  • Naoyuki Hirakata
  • Yukitaka Ueki

Abstract

Objective: Knowing the risk of hospitalized infection associated with individual biological agents is an important factor in selecting the best treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study examined the comparative risk of hospitalized infection between biological agents in a routine care setting. Methods: We used data for all RA patients who had first begun biological therapy at rheumatology divisions of participating community hospitals in Japan between January 2009 and December 2014. New treatment episodes with etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, abatacept, or tocilizumab were included. Patients were allowed to contribute multiple treatment episodes with different biological agents. Incidence rates (IRs) of hospitalized infection during the first year of follow-up were examined. Cox regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for overall hospitalized infection and for pulmonary hospitalized infection, adjusting for possible confounders. Results: A total of 1596 new treatment episodes were identified. The incidence of overall hospitalized infection during the first year was 86 with 1239 person-years (PYs), yielding a crude IR of 6.9 per 100 PYs (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6–8.6). After correction for confounders, no significant difference in risk of hospitalized infection was observed between treatment groups: adjusted HRs (95% CI) were 1.54 (0.78–3.04) for infliximab, 1.72 (0.88–3.34) for adalimumab, 1.11 (0.55–2.21) for abatacept, and 1.02 (0.55–1.87) for tocilizumab compared with etanercept. Patient-specific factors such as age, RA functional class, body mass index (BMI), prednisolone use, and chronic lung disease contributed more to the risk of hospitalized infection than specific biological agents. The incidence of pulmonary hospitalized infection was 50 and a crude IR of 4.0 per 100 PYs (95% CI, 3.1–5.3). After adjustment for confounders, adalimumab had a significantly higher HR for pulmonary hospitalized infection compared with tocilizumab: an adjusted HR (95% CI) was 4.43 (1.72–11.37) for adalimumab. BMI, prednisolone use, diabetes mellitus, and chronic lung disease were also significant factors associated with the risk of pulmonary hospitalized infection. Conclusions: The magnitude of the risk of overall hospitalized infection was not determined by the type of biological agents, and patient-specific risk factors had more impact on the risk of hospitalized infection. For pulmonary hospitalized infections, the use of adalimumab was significantly associated with a greater risk of this complication than tocilizumab use.

Suggested Citation

  • Shunsuke Mori & Tamami Yoshitama & Toshihiko Hidaka & Fumikazu Sakai & Mizue Hasegawa & Yayoi Hashiba & Eiichi Suematsu & Hiroshi Tatsukawa & Akinari Mizokami & Shigeru Yoshizawa & Naoyuki Hirakata & , 2017. "Comparative risk of hospitalized infection between biological agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients: A multicenter retrospective cohort study in Japan," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179179
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179179
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179179
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179179&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179179?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179179. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.