PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Rudrapatna, Vivek A. AU - Glicksberg, Benjamin S. AU - Butte, Atul J. TI - A Comparison of the Randomized Clinical Trial Efficacy and Real-World Effectiveness of Tofacitinib for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cohort Study AID - 10.1101/19007195 DP - 2019 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 19007195 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/10/02/19007195.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/10/02/19007195.full AB - Background Real-world data are receiving attention from regulators, biopharmaceuticals and payors as a potential source of clinical evidence. However, the suitability of these data to produce evidence commensurate with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the best practices in their use remain unclear. We sought to compare the real-world effectiveness of Tofacitinib in the treatment of IBD against efficacy rates published by corresponding RCTs.Methods Electronic health records at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) were queried and reviewed to identify 86 Tofacitinib-treated IBD patients through 4/2019. The primary endpoint was treatment effectiveness. This was measured by time-to-treatment-discontinuation and by the primary endpoints of RCTs in Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s Disease (CD). Endpoints were measured and analyzed following a previously published protocol and analysis plan.Findings 86 patients (68 with UC, 18 with CD) initiated Tofacitinib for IBD treatment. Most of the data needed to calculate baseline and follow-up disease activity indices were documented within the EHR(77% for UC, 91% for CD). Baseline characteristics of the UCSF and RCT cohorts were similar, except for a longer disease duration and 100% treatment failure of Tumor Necrosis Factor inhibitors in the former. None of the UCSF cohort would have met the RCT eligibility criteria due to multiple reasons.The rate of achieving the RCT primary endpoints were highly similar to the published rates for both UC(16%, P=0·5) and CD (38%, P=0·8). However, treatment persistence was substantially higher: 69% for UC (week 52) and 75% for CD (week 26).Interpretation An analysis of routinely collected clinical data can reproduce published Tofacitinib efficacy rates, but also indicates far greater treatment durability than suggested by RCTs including possible benefit in CD. These results underscore the value of real-world studies to complement RCTs.Funding The National Institutes of Health and UCSF Bakar InstituteEvidence before this study Tofacitinib is the most recently approved treatment for Ulcerative Colitis. Data related to treatment efficacy for either IBD subtype is generally limited, whether from controlled trials or real-world studies. A search of clinicaltrials.gov was performed in January 2019 for completed phase 2 or 3, interventional, placebo-controlled clinical trials matching the terms “Crohn’s Disease” OR “Ulcerative Colitis” in the conditions field, and matching “Placebo” AND “Tofacitinib” OR “CP-690,550”) in the Interventions field. We identified three Phase 3 trials for UC (OCTAVE trials, all initially reported in a single article in 2016) and three Phase 2 trials of CD (two published in the same article in 2017, one reported in 2014). The Phase 3 UC trials reported 57·6% pooled clinical response rate in the Tofacitinib-assigned groups after 8 weeks (induction), and a 37·5% pooled remission rate among eligible induction trial responders in the Tofacitinib-assigned groups at 52 weeks. The 2017 CD trial reported a 70·8% pooled rate of response or remission in the Tofacitinib-assigned groups after 8 weeks, and a 47·6% pooled rate of response or remission among enrolled induction-trial responders at 26 weeks. A bias assessment of both UC and CD trials indicated a high risk of attrition bias and unclear risk of bias related to conflicts of interest. We also performed a search of pubmed.gov in January 2019 using search terms (“Colitis” OR “Crohn’s”) AND (“Tofacitinib” OR “CP-690,550”) OR “real-world” to identify cohort studies of Tofacitinib efficacy in routine clinical practice. No studies meeting these criteria were identified.Added value of this study This is one of the early studies to closely compare the results of clinical trials with the continuously-updated data captured in the electronic health records, and the very the first to assess the efficacy-effectiveness gap for Tofacitinib. We found that none of the patients treated at our center thus far would have qualified for the clinical trial based on published eligibility criteria. We found that the drug appeared to perform similarly to its efficacy when using the endpoints reported in clinical trials, but treatment persistence was significantly greater than would have been expected from the reported trial outcomes: 69% for UC at week 52 and 75% for CD at week 26.Implications of all the available evidence Tofacitinib is an effective treatment for the Ulcerative colitis and may be efficacious for Crohn’s disease. Controlled trials may not be representative of real-world cohorts, may not be optimally designed to identify efficacious drugs, and may not accurately predict patterns of use in clinical practice. Further studies using real-world data as well as methods to enable their proper use are needed to confirm and continuously monitor the efficacy and safety of drugs, both for on- and off-label use.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThe study protocol and statistical analysis plan was registered on protocols.io at the following URL: protocols.io/view/robust-measurement-of-the-real-world-effectiveness-2bqgamwClinical Protocols http://doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.2bqgamw Funding StatementResearch reported in this publication was supported by funding from the UCSF Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1 TR001872. VAR was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease of the National Institutes of Health grant under award number T32 DK007007-42. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe analytic code in the form of a R markdown file as well as the accompanying data set needed to reproduce the analysis in this work are available in a Docker container and will be released for public use on https://datadryad.org at the time of publication to all investigators without restriction (https://doi.org/10.7272/Q6PZ5715). These individual participant data were de-identified to comply with the US Department of Health and Human Services 'Safe Harbor' guidance and applicable laws and regulations concerning privacy and/or security of personal information. The data dictionary is documented within the study protocol section of Supplemental Content.