Etanercept-Methotrexate Combination Therapy Initiators Have Greater Adherence and Persistence Than Triple Therapy Initiators With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Risk of incident cardiovascular events with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among adults with rheumatoid arthritis: a nested case-control study

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with the disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHOD

This nested case-control study used the MarketScan database (2012-2014), involving adult RA patients (aged ≥18 years) initiating either a conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD, biologic DMARD, or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 (cohort entry) and had no CVD history. Cases were individuals with incident CVD identified using diagnosis codes or procedure codes from medical claims. For each case, 10 age- and sex-matched controls were selected using the incident density sampling with replacement. Prescriptions of DMARDs were measured 90 days before the event date. Conditional logistic regression examined the association of risk of CVD with DMARDs in combination treatment or individual use, with reference to methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, adjusting for baseline confounders. Subgroup analyses were performed separately in DMARD combination therapy users or individual DMARD users, respectively.

RESULTS

In total, 270 cases of incident CVD and 2700 controls were included (mean [standard deviation (SD)] age: 54 [1]; 75.6% women). The commonly prescribed DMARD therapies were csDMARD monotherapy (n = 795, 27.04%), followed by  tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) monotherapy (n = 367, 12.48%), and TNFi in combination with MTX (n = 314, 10.68%). Compared with MTX monotherapy, overall use of DMARD agents was not associated with the differential risk of CVD, including various types of DMARD combination regimens. The findings were similar across subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found no differential risk of CVD with DMARDs in combination therapy or monotherapy compared to MTX monotherapy in patients with RA. Key Points • This study evaluated the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with the disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). • Findings suggest no differential CVD risk with DMARDs in combination with MTX or used individually compared with MTX monotherapy in patients with early RA. • Further efforts should focus on a better understanding of the mechanism of DMARD combination treatments with MTX in modifying CV risk.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Methotrexate-based Combinations for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after monotherapy. Little is known about the real-world comparative effectiveness of these MTX-DMARD combinations. This study compared the effectiveness of various MTX-based DMARD combinations for patients with RA initiating MTX-DMARD combination therapy using administrative claims database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with RA who initiated MTX combination treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), non-TNFi bDMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013 (index date), from the MarketScan Commercial Claims Data. Patients had continuous enrollment from the 6 months of preindex period until the 12 months of postindex period. The MTX-based DMARD combination therapy cohort was defined as ≥1 MTX prescription in the first 30 days from the index date and ≥14 days overlapping use of the prescription fills of the MTX and the index DMARD. Effectiveness was measured by using the claims algorithm (dosing, switching, addition, oral glucocorticoid use, or multiple glucocorticoid injection). Propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW), estimated by using the generalized boosted machine learning method, was used to balance the distribution of baseline variables between the combination groups. Multivariable logistic regression using PS-IPTW was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the combination groups. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the modified effectiveness algorithms or the time to the first treatment failure.

FINDINGS

A total of 3174 adult patients with RA starting an MTX-DMARD combination therapy were identified (mean [SD] age, 50 [9] years), including 1568 (49%) initiating a csDMARD + MTX, 1343 (42%) initiating TNFi + MTX, and 240 (8%) initiating non-TNFi bDMARD + MTX, and 23 (1%) initiating tsDMARD + MTX. Owing to the small sample, the tsDMARD combination group was not included in the comparative analysis. Algorithm-based therapy effectiveness was found in 9.95% of the csDMARD + MTX, 20.48% of the TNFi + MTX, and 20.83% of the non-TNFi + MTX groups. PS-IPTW showed that the csDMARD combination is less effective (adjusted odds ratio, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.341-0.524) than the TNFi combination; however, the non-TNFi biologic combination had similar effectiveness (aOR, 1.063; 95% CI, 0.680-1.662) compared to the TNFi combination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results.

IMPLICATIONS

Among RA patients initiating MTX-DMARD combinations, both non-TNFi biologics and TNFi-based combinations with MTX were equally effective, but csDMARD + MTX was less effective than the TNFi plus MTX.

Factors influencing prescribing the first add-on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients initiating methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Advances in Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) have expanded the treatment landscape for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Guidelines recommend adding either conventional synthetic (cs), biologic (b), or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs to methotrexate (MTX) for managing RA. Limited evidence exists regarding the factors that contribute to adding a DMARD agent to the MTX regimen. This study examined the factors associated with adding the first DMARD in RA patients initiating MTX.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study utilized the MarketScan data (2012-2014) involving adults (aged ≥18) with RA initiating an MTX (index date) between Jul 1, 2012 and Dec 30, 2013, and with continuous enrollment for the 6-month pre-index period. The combination therapy users received the first treatment addition of DMARD starting from day 30 after the index MTX over one year period. The study focused on the addition of csDMARDs, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors (TNFi) bDMARDs, non-TNFi bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs. Baseline covariates were measured in the 6-month pre-index and grouped into predisposing, enabling, and need factors, as per the Andersen Behavior Model. Multivariable logistic regression examined the factors associated with the addition of TNFi compared to adding a csDMARD. An additional regression model evaluated the factors associated with adding any biologic (combining TNFi and non-TNFi biologics).

Results

Among 8350 RA patients starting MTX, 31.92% (n = 2665) initiated any DMARD within the 1-year post-index period. Among RA patients initiating a DMARD prescription after starting MTX, 945 (11.32%) received combination therapy with treatment addition of a DMARD to MTX regimen; majority added TNFi (550, 58%), followed by csDMARD (352, 37%); non-TNF biologic (40, 4%), or tsDMARD (3, 0.3%). The tsDMARD group was limited and was not included for further analysis. The multivariable model found Preferred Provider Organization insurance coverage (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.93), chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.14-3.44), liver disease (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.77-15.49), and Elixhauser score (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) were significantly associated with the addition of TNF-α inhibitors. The separate multivariable model additionally found that patients from metropolitan areas (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16) were positively associated with adding any biological agent.

Conclusions

TNFi are often added to MTX for managing RA. Enabling and need factors contribute to the prescribing of a TNFi add-on therapy in RA. Future research should examine the impact of these combination therapies on RA management.

Measuring Medication Adherence in a Population-Based Asthma Administrative Pharmacy Database: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Limited studies have systematically reviewed the literature to identify and compare the various database methods and optimal thresholds for measuring medication adherence specific to adolescents and adults with asthma. In the present study, we aim to identify the methods and optimal thresholds for measuring medication adherence in population-based pharmacy databases.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Web of Science, Google Scholar, and grey literature from January 1, 1998, to March 16, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the studies. A quantitative knowledge synthesis was employed.

Results

Thirty-eight (38) retrospective cohort studies were eligible. This review identified 20 methods for measuring medication adherence in adolescent and adult asthma administrative health records. Two measures namely the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC) were commonly reported in 87% of the literature included in this study. From the meta-analysis, asthma patients who achieved adherence threshold of "0.75-1.00" [OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.77] and ">0.5" [OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.94] were less likely to experience asthma exacerbation.

Conclusion

Despite their limitations, the PDC and the MPR still remain the most common measures for assessing adherence in asthma pharmacy claim databases. The evidence synthesis showed that an adherence threshold of at least 0.75 is optimal for classifying adherent and non-adherent asthma patients.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of healthcare resources in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib

Introduction/objectives

The objective of this study is to describe the treatment patterns and use of healthcare resources in a cohort of Colombian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or tofacitinib.

Method

This is a descriptive study from a retrospective cohort of patients diagnosed with RA who were treated with bDMARDs or tofacitinib after failure of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) or first bDMARD. Patients who were receiving pharmacological treatment between 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2018 were included. The analysis is through the revision of claim database and electronical medical records. Demographic and clinical data were collected. The costs of healthcare resources were estimated from the billing expense of healthcare service provider.

Results

We evaluated 588 RA patients on treatment with bDMARDs (n = 505) or tofacitinib (n = 83), most of them were in combination with cDMARDs (85.4%). The 88.1% were females and mean age was 57.3 ± 12.5 years. The median evolution of RA since diagnosis was 9 years (IQR:4–17.2). The mean duration of use during follow-up of the bDMARDs or tofacitinib was similar, with a mean of 9.8 ± 1.9 months. It was identified that 394 (67.0%) discontinued therapy. The average annual direct cost of care per patient was USD 8997 ± 2172, where 97.2% was due to drug costs. The average annual cost of treatment per patient with bDMARDs was USD 8604 and tofacitinib was USD 6377.

Conclusions

In the face of a first failure of cDMARD, bDMARDs are frequently added. A high frequency of patients do not persist treatment during the first year of follow-up. The pharmacological treatment is the most representative cause of healthcare costs.

Key Points • Rheumatoid arthritis is a disease with a high burden of comorbidities, complications, and worse health-related quality of life and is associated with elevated healthcare costs. • The biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib medications are indicated for those with significant progression of the disease and when there is a need for alternatives to achieve low levels of activity and remission. • Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tofacitinib represent a significant economic burden to the health system, especially in the costs derived from pharmacological treatment.

Adherence to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in adult patients with rheumatic diseases

INTRODUCTION

The emergence of biologics has revolutionized the management of refractory rheumatic diseases (RD) by improving clinical outcomes. Unfortunately, the impact of non-adherence to the emerging therapy can limit their potential benefit. The objective of our study was to evaluate biologics' adherence in Tunisian patients with RD and to assess the determinants of non-adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study involving patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthritis (SpA) treated with bDMARDs (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) for at least three months. Socio-demographic, clinical and biological data were collected. Biologic adherence was assessed using the compliance questionnaire for rheumatology (CQR).

RESULTS

One hundred patients with RD (45 RA and 55 SpA) were collected. Non-adherence to bDMARDs was found in 70% of cases. In univariate analysis, non-adherence to bDMARDs was statistically related to the absence of coxitis (P=0.003), to a low ASDAS-CRP (ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score) prior to the initiation of the bDMARDs (P=0.01), to a rate of administration of bDMARDs less than one injection per month (P=0.01), to the subcutaneous delivery route (P=0.02) as well as to non-adherence to csDMARDs (conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) (P=0.001). In multivariate analysis, the predictors of non-adherence were the absence of coxitis (OR=6.01; IC 95% [1.88-19.12]; P=0.002], and a rate of administration of bDMARDs less than one injection per month (OR=8.79; IC 95% [2.13-36.22]; P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

This work has revealed the low rate of adherence to biological treatments in Tunisian patient with RD. Predictors of poor adherence were the absence of coxitis and a rate of administration of bDMARDs less than one injection per month. Detection of these factors could help us to adapt our strategies to improve adherence that are essentially based on therapeutic education program.

Methotrexate Discontinuation and Dose Decreases After Therapy With Tocilizumab: Results From the Corrona Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry

INTRODUCTION

Similar outcomes have been observed between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) responding to tocilizumab (TCZ) with methotrexate (MTX) who discontinued vs. continued MTX and between patients receiving MTX who added TCZ vs. switched to TCZ monotherapy. This study examined MTX discontinuation and dose decreases in patients with RA initiating TCZ in a real-world setting.

METHODS

TCZ-naïve patients enrolled in the Corrona RA registry who initiated TCZ in combination with MTX and had a 6-month follow-up visit without TCZ discontinuation were included. Patients were grouped by MTX dose at the time of TCZ initiation (≤ 10 mg, > 10 to ≤ 15 mg, > 15 to ≤ 20 mg, > 20 mg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with changes in MTX use at 6 months, with a secondary analysis at 12 months. Changes in disease activity [Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)] and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6 and 12 months were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 444 included patients, 82.7% were female and 83.7% white, with mean (SD) disease duration of 11.6 (9.3) years, baseline CDAI score of 24.0 (15.4), and baseline MTX dose of 17.7 (5.8) mg. At 6 months, 139 patients (31.3%) discontinued or decreased their MTX dose. All MTX dose groups and patients who discontinued, decreased, maintained, or increased their MTX dose displayed improvements in CDAI scores and PROs at 6 months. Similar patterns and results were observed at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of patients initiating TCZ discontinued or decreased their MTX dose after TCZ initiation. Improvements in disease activity and functionality were observed in patients who decreased or stopped MTX. This real-world study confirmed prior observations that discontinuing or decreasing MTX may be a treatment strategy for patients initiating TCZ combination therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01402661.

Treatment Patterns and Costs in Biologic DMARD-Naive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Etanercept or Adalimumab with or Without Methotrexate

BACKGROUND

Etanercept (ETN) and adalimumab (ADA) are tumor necrosis factor inhibitors indicated for treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate (MTX). Data on treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA as monotherapies or in combination therapy with MTX are lacking in biologic DMARD (bDMARD)-naive patients with RA.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA monotherapy and combination therapy in bDMARD-naive patients with RA.

METHODS

Data from adult bDMARD-naive patients with RA were evaluated according to index therapy (ADA or ETN as monotherapy or combination therapy with MTX) in a retrospective cohort study using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2017. Participants were bDMARD-naive for ≥ 12 months before initial ETN or ADA pharmacy claim (index date) and had continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index and 24 months post-index. Combination therapy cohorts had an MTX claim within 30 days of the index date. Outcomes included persistence (no treatment changes or gap [≥ 60 days]); modifications to index therapy (discontinuation or switching without prior gap, restarting as switch or restart after gap, or MTX initiation/discontinuation); and mean total bDMARD costs for 2 years post-index.

RESULTS

Patients on ETN monotherapy (n = 2,064) had higher persistence (26.8% vs. 21.1%, respectively; P < 0.001) on index treatment and received treatment for a longer duration (mean 375.9 days vs. 339.7 days, respectively; P < 0.001) than those on ADA monotherapy (n = 1,528). Regimen changes were more common in patients on ADA monotherapy than patients on ETN monotherapy (38.0% vs. 33.4%, respectively; P = 0.004). More patients on ADA monotherapy added MTX than those on ETN (17.5% vs. 12.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Overall, 790 patients receiving index monotherapy had a regimen change following a gap (≥ 60 days), with a similar proportion between cohorts. Among these patients, 13.8% restarted index therapy, and 7.9% switched from index therapy. Significantly more patients receiving ETN monotherapy restarted their index regimen after a gap than those receiving ADA monotherapy (14.9% vs. 12.2%, respectively; P = 0.023). The proportion of patients persistent on combination therapy was similar between the ETN and ADA combination therapy cohorts (21.9% vs. 22.2%, respectively; P = 0.818). Treatment pattern rates were similar regardless of index combination therapy. Overall, costs for ADA were consistently higher within the index regimen throughout the follow-up period irrespective of MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

ETN monotherapy as first-line treatment was associated with higher persistence, lower rate of MTX supplementation, and lower bDMARD costs than ADA monotherapy. ETN monotherapy may represent a less costly option for achieving treatment targets in bDMARD-naive patients with RA.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Amgen. Tkacz, Henderson DeYoung, and Wilson are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen for this study. Collier and Oko-osi are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 25-28, 2018; Orlando, FL.

Assessing the Association of Formulary Copayment Changes with Real-World Treatment Patterns in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis on Etanercept

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment to improve or maintain stable disease activity. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), a class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), are effective at treating symptoms and inhibiting joint progression. Although treatment changes are not recommended in patients with stable disease, health plans have recently enacted formulary changes with higher copayments that could disrupt patient access to TNFis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of formulary copayment changes with real-world treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and health care costs among bDMARD-naive patients with RA receiving the TNFi etanercept.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort analysis used the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Adult patients with RA with 6 months of stable etanercept use (no refill gap ≥ 45 days) from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, were selected and the index date was set to the first fill date after the stable-use period. Average etanercept copayment was calculated at the drug-plan level. Copayment change was defined as a monthly increase of at least $40 to account for copayment changes attributable to etanercept wholesale acquisition costs between 2014 and 2015. This amount also corresponded to the 90th percentile of average plan-level changes in etanercept copayments in the database, representing an average change in copayment by a payer. Patients were followed ≥ 12 months before and after the index date to track etanercept treatment changes and ≥ 12 months after a treatment change to track costs after etanercept copayment changes. Etanercept persistence, bDMARD switching, refill gaps, and treatment effectiveness (using a validated effectiveness algorithm) were described for patients with or without copayment change during the 12 months post-index or postchange. We also assessed the mean total of all-cause and RA-related expenditure during the 12-month post-index (or postchange) period.

RESULTS

1,970 stable patients met study inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation] age: 50.3 [9.5] years; 77.8% female) and were evaluated. Of these, 133 (6.8%) patients had a copayment change ≥$40 during follow-up. Overall, most patients (60.3%) persisted on etanercept for the 12-month follow-up period, while 13.0% switched from etanercept, and 8.1% discontinued (refill gap of ≥ 45 days). Nearly half (48.0%) of all patients were considered effectively treated according to a validated algorithm. Compared with patients without a copayment change, those with a copayment change were more likely to switch biologics (19.5% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.021). Although statistical significance was not reached, patients with a copayment change were less likely to be persistent (54.1% vs. 60.7%; P = 0.135), and less likely to be effectively treated (42.1% vs. 48.4%; P = 0.161) than patients without a copayment change. All-cause and RA-related expenditures at baseline and post-copayment change were similar between patients with and without a copayment change.

CONCLUSIONS

Changing formulary copayment of etanercept was associated with higher switching without difference in costs or health care utilization between copayment and no copayment change groups.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Amgen. Bonafede, Manjelievskaia, and Lopez-Gonzalez are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Oko-osi, Collier, and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. The authors have no other relationships that present a potential conflict of interest. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at the 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL.

An overview of the common methods used to measure treatment adherence

Background and aims

The success of a treatment depends on the effectiveness of the medication regimen, provided that patients take the medicines as prescribed. A low rate of adherence in chronic conditions is associated with poor outcome and decreased quality of life, which constitutes an additional burden for the healthcare systems. To correctly identify the dimension of this problem may be a challenge, as there are numerous methods, definitions, patient settings and factors, each with their specific roles. Our aim was to give an appropriate overview of the most common validated methods that can be used to identify non-adherent patients.

Methods

This overview is based on an online search of PubMed database and includes the relevant articles in this field.

Results

We included both direct and indirect methods for measuring treatment adherence and presented concise information that can help researchers and clinicians when choosing an appropriate method. Both subjective and objective methods have advantages and disadvantages that should be fully understood and taken into consideration.

Conclusions

Choosing a simple, accurate and inexpensive method that can give supplementary information about the patterns, beliefs and barriers of adherence would be desirable. But because this perfect method to measure treatment adherence does not exist, the best solution seems to be the combined use of at least two methods.

Medication adherence and persistence in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients receiving triple therapy in a USA commercially insured population

INTRODUCTION

This longitudinal, retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD describes baseline characteristics, adherence, and persistence following initiation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonists (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) from multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT).

METHODS

Patients aged ≥40 years receiving MITT between January 2012 and September 2015 were identified from the IQVIA™ Real-world Data Adjudicated Claims-USA database. MITT was defined as subjects with ≥1 overlapping days' supply of three COPD medications (ICS, LABA, and LAMA). Adherence (proportion of days covered, PDC) and discontinuation (defined as a gap of 1, 30, 60, or 90 days of supply in any of the three components of the triple therapy) were calculated for each patient over 12 months of follow-up. In addition, analyses were stratified by number of inhalers.

RESULTS

In total, 14,635 MITT users were identified (mean age, 62 years). Mean PDC for MITT at 12 months was 0.37%. Mean PDC for the ICS/LABA and LAMA component at 12 months was 49% (0.49±0.31; median, 0.47) and 54% (0.54±0.33; 0.56), respectively. The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥0.8) at 12 months was 14% for MITT. Allowing for a 30-day gap from last day of therapy, 86% of MITT users discontinued therapy during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD had low adherence to and persistence with MITT in a real-world setting. Mean PDC for each single inhaler component was higher than the mean PDC observed with MITT. Reducing the number of inhalers may improve overall adherence to intended triple therapy.

Medication adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review

PURPOSE

Proper adherence and persistence to medications are crucial for better quality of life and improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PsO), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We systematically describe current adherence and persistence patterns for RA, PsO, and PsA, with a focus on biologics and identifying factors associated with adherence and persistence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using various databases, a systematic literature review of US-based studies published from 2000 to 2015 on medication adherence and persistence to biologics and associated factors was conducted among patients with RA, PsO, and PsA.

RESULTS

Using the medication possession ratio or the percentage of days covered >80%, RA and PsO adherence rates for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab ranged from 16% to 73%, 21% to 70%, and 38% to 81%, respectively. Using the criteria of a ≥45-day gap, RA persistence rates for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab ranged from 46% to 89%, 42% to 94%, and 41% to 76%, respectively. In PsO, persistence rates for etanercept and adalimumab ranged from 34% to 50% and 50% to 62%, respectively. Similar persistence rates were observed in PsA. Experienced biologics users showed better adherence and persistence. Younger age, female gender, higher out-of-pocket costs, greater disease severity, and more comorbidities were associated with lower adherence and persistence rates. Qualitative surveys revealed that nonpersistence was partly due to perceived ineffectiveness and safety/tolerability concerns.

CONCLUSION

Biologic adherence and persistence rates in RA, PsO, and PsA in the United States were low, with significant opportunity for improvement. Various factors - including decrease in disease severity; reduction of comorbidities; lower out-of-pocket costs; refilling at specialty pharmacies; and awareness of drug effectiveness, safety, and tolerability - can inform targeted approaches to improve these rates.

Medication adherence and persistence in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Several drugs are available for the treatment of autoimmune rheumatic diseases; however, their effectiveness may be negatively influenced by inappropriate adherence. Low adherence and persistence rates have a significant impact on patient quality of life and are associated with health-related expenses.

PURPOSE

To provide an up-to-date narrative review on treatment adherence and persistence rates, and discuss the factors that influence them, in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed database for studies among patients with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), published from January 2015 to February 2017. Only studies with a well-defined measurement of adherence/persistence and those that carried out an evaluation of the influencing factors were included.

RESULTS

Fifteen relevant studies that evaluated adherence and/or persistence were included. Adherence rates varied between 9.3% and 94%, and persistence rates between 23% and 80%. Most of the studies used one method to evaluate adherence or persistence (different questionnaire scores, proportion of days covered, and mean treatment duration). A high concordance was found between the adherence measurements of the Medication Event Monitoring System and Visual Analog Scale. Factors of economic, demographic, and clinical nature were only moderately linked to treatment adherence or persistence. However, patient-related factors - such as positive and increased beliefs in medication necessity, strong views of the chronic nature of the diseases, and increased knowledge of the disease - were related to better treatment adherence.

CONCLUSION

Owing to the heterogeneity of the study results, we consider that the use of more than one method to assess adherence/persistence should yield more comprehensive and accurate data about patient adherence behavior. Patient-related factors should be included and analyzed more often in adherence studies as the former may be modified to improve patient adherence.

Persistence With Conventional Triple Therapy Versus a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor and Methotrexate in US Veterans With Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To compare persistence and adherence to triple therapy with the nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) methotrexate (MTX), hydroxychloroquine, and sulfasalazine, versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) plus MTX in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Administrative and laboratory data were analyzed for US Veterans with RA initiating triple therapy or TNFi + MTX between January 2006 and December 2012. Treatment persistence 365 days postindex was calculated using 3 definitions. Definition 1 required no gap in therapy of ≥90 days for any drug in the original combination. Definition 2 required no added or switched DMARD, no decrease to nonbiologic DMARD monotherapy, and no termination of all DMARD therapies. Definition 3 was similar to definition 2 but allowed a switch to another drug within the same class. Adherence used a proportion of days covered of ≥80%. Propensity-weighted analysis with matched weights was used to balance covariates.

RESULTS

The analysis included 4,364 RA patients (TNFi + MTX, n = 3,204; triple therapy, n = 1,160). In propensity-weighted analysis, patients in the TNFi + MTX group were significantly more likely than patients in the triple therapy group to satisfy all persistence criteria in definition 1 (risk difference [RD] 13.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 9.2-17.0]), definition 2 (RD 6.4% [95% CI 2.3-10.5]), and definition 3 (RD 9.5% [95% CI 5.5-13.6]). Patients in the TNFi + MTX group also exhibited higher adherence during the first year (RD 7.2% [95% CI 3.8-10.5]).

CONCLUSION

US Veterans with RA were significantly more likely to be persistent and adherent to combination therapy with TNFi + MTX than triple therapy with nonbiologic DMARDs.

Brief Report: Intensification to Triple Therapy After Treatment With Nonbiologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs for Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States From 2009 to 2014

OBJECTIVE

Several trials suggest that triple therapy (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, and hydroxychloroquine) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have similar efficacy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was undertaken to investigate intensification to triple therapy after initial nonbiologic prescription among patients with RA.

METHODS

The use of triple therapy among patients with RA in 2009-2014 was evaluated using US insurance claims data. Patients with a health care visit for RA and an initial nonbiologic DMARD prescription were included. Frequencies of intensification to triple therapy or a biologic DMARD and rates of intensification per 6-month time period were calculated. Using Cox regression, we evaluated whether sociodemographic, temporal, geographic, clinical, and health care utilization factors were associated with intensification to triple therapy. Among those patients whose therapy was intensified, we investigated factors associated with triple therapy use by logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for intensification to triple therapy in relation to various clinical and demographic factors were calculated.

RESULTS

There were 24,576 patients with a mean ± SD age of 50.3 ± 12.3 years, and 78% were female. During the study period, treatment was intensified to biologic DMARDs in 2,739 patients (11.1%) compared to 181 patients (0.7%) whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy. There was no significant change in triple therapy use across calendar years. Patients whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy were more likely to receive glucocorticoids (HR 1.91 [95% CI 1.41-2.60]) compared to patients who did not use glucocorticoids and were more likely to use nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.10-1.99 versus no NSAID use). Among those patients whose treatment was intensified to triple therapy or biologic DMARDs, factors significantly associated with triple therapy use included older age, US region (with the highest odds for triple therapy use in the West and lowest odds for triple therapy use in the Northeast), glucocorticoid use, and lower number of outpatient visits within 180 days of initial nonbiologic DMARD prescription.

CONCLUSION

Despite reports published during the study period suggesting equivalent efficacy of triple therapy and biologic DMARDs for RA, the use of triple therapy was infrequent and did not increase over time in this large nationwide study.

A systematic review of the barriers affecting medication adherence in patients with rheumatic diseases

Medication adherence is a crucial part in the management of rheumatic diseases, especially with many such patients requiring long-term medications. In this paper, we aim to systematically review the literature for the factors associated with medication adherence in the rheumatic patient population. We carried out a systematic literature search using PubMed^®, PsychInfo^® and Embase ^® with relevant keywords and employed the PRISMA^® criteria. We included English peer-reviewed articles that studied the factors affecting medication adherence in patients with rheumatic diseases, which were assessed by two independent reviewers. Hand searches were conducted and relevant factors were extracted and classified using the World Health Organization (WHO)'s five dimensions of medication adherence. A simple diagram was drawn to summarise the factors extracted. 1977 articles were identified and reviewed and 90 articles were found to be relevant. A total of 17 factors and 38 sub-factors were identified and categorized based on the WHO's five dimensions of medication adherence. A hand model for medication adherence was developed to succinctly summarise these dimension to remind clinicians the importance of medication adherence in daily practice. We conducted a systematic review on the various factors including patient, therapy, condition, health system and socioeconomic-related factors that affected medication adherence in rheumatic patients. We found 17 factors and 38 sub-factors that affected medication adherence in this population. This systematic review can facilitate future focused research in unexplored dimensions.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (biologics) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head biologic comparison studies. We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis (NMA) to update the 2009 Cochrane Overview. This review is focused on the adults with RA who are naive to methotrexate (MTX) that is, receiving their first disease-modifying agent.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA who are naive to methotrexate.

METHODS

In June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase; and trials registers. We used standard Cochrane methods. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for traditional meta-analyses and 95% credible intervals (CrI) using a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for network meta-analysis (NMA). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) for ease of interpretation. We also present results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB/H).

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 6485 participants met inclusion criteria (including five studies from the original 2009 review), and data were available for four TNF biologics (adalimumab (six studies; 1851 participants), etanercept (three studies; 678 participants), golimumab (one study; 637 participants) and infliximab (seven studies; 1363 participants)) and two non-TNF biologics (abatacept (one study; 509 participants) and rituximab (one study; 748 participants)).Less than 50% of the studies were judged to be at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 21% were at low risk for selective reporting, 53% had low risk of bias for attrition and 89% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. Three trials used biologic monotherapy, that is, without MTX. There were no trials with placebo-only comparators and no trials of tofacitinib. Trial duration ranged from 6 to 24 months. Half of the trials contained participants with early RA (less than two years' duration) and the other half included participants with established RA (2 to 10 years). Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX (17 trials (6344 participants)/MTX + methylprednisolone 2 trials (141 participants))In traditional meta-analyses, there was moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency that biologics with MTX were associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit versus comparator as demonstrated by ACR50 (American College of Rheumatology scale) and RA remission rates. For ACR50, biologics with MTX showed a risk ratio (RR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.49), absolute difference of 16% (95% CI 13% to 20%) and NNTB = 7 (95% CI 6 to 8). For RA remission rates, biologics with MTX showed a RR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.33 to 1.98), absolute difference of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%) and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 6 to 7). Biologics with MTX were also associated with a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, benefit in physical function (moderate-quality evidence downgraded for inconsistency), with an improvement of HAQ scores of -0.10 (95% CI -0.16 to -0.04 on a 0 to 3 scale), absolute difference -3.3% (95% CI -5.3% to -1.3%) and NNTB = 4 (95% CI 2 to 15).We did not observe evidence of differences between biologics with MTX compared to MTX for radiographic progression (low-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision and inconsistency) or serious adverse events (moderate-quality evidence, downgraded for imprecision). Based on low-quality evidence, results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events (RR of 1.32, but 95% confidence interval included possibility of important harm, 0.89 to 1.97). Results for cancer were also inconclusive (Peto OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.33) and downgraded to low-quality evidence for serious imprecision. Biologic without MTX versus active comparator (MTX 3 trials (866 participants)There was no evidence of statistically significant or clinically important differences for ACR50, HAQ, remission, (moderate-quality evidence for these benefits, downgraded for imprecision), withdrawals due to adverse events,and serious adverse events (low-quality evidence for these harms, downgraded for serious imprecision). All studies were for TNF biologic monotherapy and none for non-TNF biologic monotherapy. Radiographic progression was not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In MTX-naive RA participants, there was moderate-quality evidence that, compared with MTX alone, biologics with MTX was associated with absolute and relative clinically meaningful benefits in three of the efficacy outcomes (ACR50, HAQ scores, and RA remission rates). A benefit regarding less radiographic progression with biologics with MTX was not evident (low-quality evidence). We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that biologic therapy with MTX was not associated with any higher risk of serious adverse events compared with MTX, but results were inconclusive for withdrawals due to adverse events and cancer to 24 months.TNF biologic monotherapy did not differ statistically significantly or clinically meaningfully from MTX for any of the outcomes (moderate-quality evidence), and no data were available for non-TNF biologic monotherapy.We conclude that biologic with MTX use in MTX-naive populations is beneficial and that there is little/inconclusive evidence of harms. More data are needed for tofacitinib, radiographic progression and harms in this patient population to fully assess comparative efficacy and safety.

Triple Oral Therapy Versus Antitumor Necrosis Factor Plus Methotrexate (MTX) in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Response to MTX: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), the relative effectiveness of the combination of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) compared with the combination of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and MTX, as second-line therapy, is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of triple oral DMARD therapy versus anti-TNF agents associated with MTX in patients with RA after MTX failure.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature up to November 2015 in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane library, and abstracts from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) meetings from 2006 to 2015. Articles were included if they were of randomized controlled trials of patients receiving triple oral combination therapy (TT; MTX + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine) compared with anti-TNF agents plus MTX. Treatment effects were examined by disease activity [Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)], ACR and EULAR response criteria, structural damage by the modified total Sharp score, and functional disability by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).

RESULTS

Our search identified 263 articles; only 5 fulfilled the selection criteria. Analysis of ACR and EULAR response criteria, DAS28, and modified Sharp scores favored anti-TNF agents combined with MTX. Functional disability (HAQ) and rates of adverse events did not differ between treatments.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA in whom MTX has failed, the addition of a TNF antagonist to MTX may be a valid option, with better clinical outcomes and better radiographic results in the presence of poor prognostic factors. In the absence of poor prognostic factors and/or with contraindications to biologic agents, TT retains its place in the therapeutic strategy for RA in a currently restricted economic context.

Biologics or tofacitinib for people with rheumatoid arthritis unsuccessfully treated with biologics: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs: referred to as biologics) are effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there are few head-to-head comparison studies. Our systematic review, standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) updates the 2009 Cochrane overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)' and adds new data. This review is focused on biologic or tofacitinib therapy in people with RA who had previously been treated unsuccessfully with biologics.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib versus comparator (placebo or methotrexate (MTX)/other DMARDs) in people with RA, previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.

METHODS

On 22 June 2015 we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase; and trials registries (WHO trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov). We carried out article selection, data extraction, and risk of bias and GRADE assessments in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We have also presented results in absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB). Outcomes measured included four benefits (ACR50, function measured by Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score, remission defined as DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6, slowing of radiographic progression) and three harms (withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and cancer).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes nine new RCTs for a total of 12 RCTs that included 3364 participants. The comparator was placebo only in three RCTs (548 participants), MTX or other traditional DMARD in six RCTs (2468 participants), and another biologic in three RCTs (348 participants). Data were available for four tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-biologics: (certolizumab pegol (1 study; 37 participants), etanercept (3 studies; 348 participants), golimumab (1 study; 461 participants), infliximab (1 study; 27 participants)), three non-TNF biologics (abatacept (3 studies; 632 participants), rituximab (2 studies; 1019 participants), and tocilizumab (2 studies; 589 participants)); there was only one study for tofacitinib (399 participants). The majority of the trials (10/12) lasted less than 12 months.We judged 33% of the studies at low risk of bias for allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, 25% had low risk of bias for attrition, 92% were at unclear risk for selective reporting; and 92% had low risk of bias for major baseline imbalance. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for most outcomes to moderate or low due to study limitations, heterogeneity, or rarity of direct comparator trials. Biologic monotherapy versus placeboCompared to placebo, biologics were associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in RA as demonstrated by higher ACR50 and RA remission rates. RR was 4.10 for ACR50 (95% CI 1.97 to 8.55; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 14% (95% CI 6% to 21%); and NNTB = 8 (95% CI 4 to 23). RR for RA remission was 13.51 (95% CI 1.85 to 98.45, one study available; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 5% to 13%); and NNTB = 11 (95% CI 3 to 136). Results for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events did not show any statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences. There were no studies available for analysis for function measured by HAQ, radiographic progression, or cancer outcomes. There were not enough data for any of the outcomes to look at subgroups. Biologic + MTX versus active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs)Compared to MTX/other traditional DMARDs, biologic + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50, function measured by HAQ, and RA remission rates in direct comparisons. RR for ACR50 was 4.07 (95% CI 2.76 to 5.99; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 16% (10% to 21%); NNTB = 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). HAQ scores showed an improvement with a mean difference (MD) of 0.29 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 9.7% improvement (95% CI 7% to 12%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Remission rates showed an improved RR of 20.73 (95% CI 4.13 to 104.16; moderate-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 10% (95% CI 8% to 13%); and NNTB = 17 (95% CI 4 to 96), among the biologic + MTX group compared to MTX/other DMARDs. There were no studies for radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significantly different for withdrawals due to adverse events or serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer. Tofacitinib monotherapy versus placeboThere were no published data. Tofacitinib + MTX versus active comparator (MTX)In one study, compared to MTX, tofacitinib + MTX was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 (RR 3.24; 95% CI 1.78 to 5.89; absolute benefit RD 19% (95% CI 12% to 26%); NNTB = 6 (95% CI 3 to 14); moderate-quality evidence), and function measured by HAQ, MD 0.27 improvement (95% CI 0.14 to 0.39); absolute benefit RD 9% (95% CI 4.7% to 13%), NNTB = 5 (95% CI 4 to 10); high-quality evidence). RA remission rates were not statistically significantly different but the observed difference may be clinically meaningful (RR 15.44 (95% CI 0.93 to 256.1; high-quality evidence); absolute benefit RD 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%); NNTB could not be calculated. There were no studies for radiographic progression. There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and results were inconclusive for cancer.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Biologic (with or without MTX) or tofacitinib (with MTX) use was associated with clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits (ACR50, HAQ, remission) compared to placebo or an active comparator (MTX/other traditional DMARDs) among people with RA previously unsuccessfully treated with biologics.No studies examined radiographic progression. Results were not clinically meaningful or statistically significant for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events, and were inconclusive for cancer.

Biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis in people with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) failure: a Cochrane Systematic Review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review, a standard meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA), which updates the 2009 Cochrane Overview, 'Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA)'. This review is focused on biologic monotherapy in people with RA in whom treatment with traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX) had failed (MTX/other DMARD-experienced).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of biologic monotherapy (includes anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or non-TNF (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab)) or tofacitinib monotherapy (oral small molecule) versus comparator (placebo or MTX/other DMARDs) in adults with RA who were MTX/other DMARD-experienced.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, June), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and Embase (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated direct estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using standard meta-analysis. We used a Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTC) approach for NMA estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted odds ratios (OR) to risk ratios (RR) for ease of understanding. We calculated absolute measures as risk difference (RD) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB).

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes 40 new RCTs for a total of 46 RCTs, of which 41 studies with 14,049 participants provided data. The comparator was placebo in 16 RCTs (4,532 patients), MTX or other DMARD in 13 RCTs (5,602 patients), and another biologic in 12 RCTs (3,915 patients). Monotherapy versus placeboBased on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR50) and physical function, as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) versus placebo. RR was 4.68 for ACR50 (95% CI, 2.93 to 7.48); absolute benefit RD 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%); and NNTB = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8). The mean difference (MD) was -0.32 for HAQ (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.23; a negative sign represents greater HAQ improvement); absolute benefit of -10.7% (95% CI, -14% to -7.7%); and NNTB = 4 (95% CI, 3 to 5). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic or tofacitinib monotherapy showed similar results for ACR50 , downgraded to moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for TNF biologic, anakinra or tofacitinib monotherapy showed a similar results for HAQ versus placebo with mostly moderate quality evidence.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence, biologic monotherapy was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant greater proportion of disease remission versus placebo with RR 1.12 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.22); absolute benefit 10% (95% CI, 3% to 17%; NNTB = 10 (95% CI, 8 to 21)).Based on low-quality direct evidence, results for biologic monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase. The direct estimate for TNF monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events showed a clinically meaningful and statistically significant result with RR 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08 to 3.78), absolute benefit RD 3% (95% CI,1% to 4%), based on moderate-quality evidence. The NMA estimates for TNF biologic, non-TNF biologic, anakinra, or tofacitinib monotherapy for withdrawals due to adverse events and for serious adverse events were all inconclusive and downgraded to low-quality evidence. Monotherapy versus active comparator (MTX/other DMARDs)Based on direct evidence of moderate quality, biologic monotherapy (without concurrent MTX/other DMARDs) was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in ACR50 and HAQ scores versus MTX/other DMARDs with a RR of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.14 to 2.08); absolute benefit 13% (95% CI, 2% to 23%), NNTB = 7 (95% CI, 4 to 26) and a mean difference in HAQ of -0.27 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.14); absolute benefit of -9% (95% CI, -13.3% to -4.7%), NNTB = 2 (95% CI, 2 to 4). Direct and NMA estimates for TNF monotherapy and NMA estimate for non-TNF biologic monotherapy for ACR50 showed similar results, based on moderate-quality evidence. Direct and NMA estimates for non-TNF biologic monotherapy, but not TNF monotherapy, showed similar HAQ improvements , based on mostly moderate-quality evidence.There were no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences for direct estimates of biologic monotherapy versus active comparator for RA disease remission. NMA estimates showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference versus active comparator for TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 7% (95% CI, 2% to 14%)) and non-TNF monotherapy (absolute improvement 19% (95% CrI, 7% to 36%)), both downgraded to moderate quality.Based on moderate-quality direct evidence from a single study, radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologic monotherapy versus active comparator, MD -4.34 (95% CI, -7.56 to -1.12), though the absolute reduction was small, -0.97% (95% CI, -1.69% to -0.25%). We are not sure of the clinical relevance of this reduction.Direct and NMA evidence (downgraded to low quality), showed inconclusive results for withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events and cancer, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mostly on RCTs of six to 12-month duration in people with RA who had previously experienced and failed treatment with MTX/other DMARDs, biologic monotherapy improved ACR50, function and RA remission rates compared to placebo or MTX/other DMARDs.Radiographic progression was reduced versus active comparator, although the clinical significance was unclear.Results were inconclusive for whether biologic monotherapy was associated with an increased risk of withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events or cancer, versus placebo (no data on cancer) or MTX/other DMARDs.

Recommendations by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology for the management of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis who cannot be treated with methotrexate

To establish a set of recommendations for the management of patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who cannot be treated with methotrexate (MTX) due to contraindications, drug toxicity or lack of adherence, and to establish therapeutic strategies more effective and safer in these RA patients. A qualitative analysis of the scientific evidence available to June 2015. The 2-round Delphi technique of consensus was used to collect and establish expert opinion based on the participants' clinical experience when only low quality evidence was available. A total of eighteen recommendations were developed for the management of this patient profile. Fourteen of these recommendations were related to drug safety aspects. Recommendations on contraindication and toxicity of MTX have been updated. The experts recommend the use of biological monotherapy, a preferred treatment option, in patients whose profiles reveal a contraindication, intolerance or circumstances that prevent us against the use of MTX. There is some high-quality scientific evidence that supports contraindication and establishes certain conditions of MTX use in RA patients with specific clinical profiles.

Biologics or tofacitinib for rheumatoid arthritis in incomplete responders to methotrexate or other traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.