Retention of the second-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis failing one tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor: data from the BioRx.si registry

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and PRO Remission Rates in 12,262 Biologic-Naïve Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis Treated With Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in Routine Care

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after initiation of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment in European real-world patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Further, to investigate PRO remission rates across treatment courses, registries, disease duration, sex, and age at disease onset.

METHODS

Visual analog scale or numerical rating scale scores for pain, fatigue, patient global assessment (PtGA), and the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) from 12,262 patients with PsA initiating a TNFi in 13 registries were pooled. PRO remission rates (pain ≤ 1, fatigue ≤ 2, PtGA ≤ 2, and HAQ-DI ≤ 0.5) were calculated for patients still on the treatment.

RESULTS

For the first TNFi, median pain score was reduced by approximately 50%, from 6 to 3, 3, and 2; as were fatigue scores, from 6 to 4, 4, and 3; PtGA scores, from 6 to 3, 3, and 2; and HAQ-DI scores, from 0.9 to 0.5, 0.5, and 0.4 at baseline, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Six-month Lund Efficacy Index (LUNDEX)-adjusted remission rates for pain, fatigue, PtGA, and HAQ-DI scores were 24%, 31%, 36%, and 43% (first TNFi); 14%, 19%, 23%, and 29% (second TNFi); and 9%, 14%, 17%, and 20% (third TNFi), respectively. For biologic-naïve patients with disease duration < 5 years, 6-month LUNDEX-adjusted remission rates for pain, fatigue, PtGA, and HAQ-DI scores were 22%, 28%, 33%, and 42%, respectively. Corresponding rates for patients with disease duration > 10 years were 27%, 32%, 41%, and 43%, respectively. Remission rates were 33%, 40%, 45%, and 56% for men and 17%, 23%, 24%, and 32% for women, respectively. For patients aged < 45 years at diagnosis, 6-month LUNDEX-adjusted remission rate for pain was 29% vs 18% for patients ≥ 45 years.

CONCLUSION

In 12,262 biologic-naïve patients with PsA, 6 months of treatment with a TNFi reduced pain by approximately 50%. Marked differences in PRO remission rates across treatment courses, registries, disease duration, sex, and age at onset of disease were observed, emphasizing the potential influence of factors other than disease activity on PROs.

Commonalities and differences in set-up and data collection across European spondyloarthritis registries - results from the EuroSpA collaboration

BACKGROUND

In European axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical registries, we aimed to investigate commonalities and differences in (1) set-up, clinical data collection; (2) data availability and completeness; and (3) wording, recall period, and scale used for selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Data was obtained as part of the EuroSpA Research Collaboration Network and consisted of (1) an online survey and follow-up interview, (2) upload of real-world data, and (3) selected PROMs included in the online survey.

RESULTS

Fifteen registries participated, contributing 33,948 patients (axSpA: 21,330 (63%), PsA: 12,618 (37%)). The reported coverage of eligible patients ranged from 0.5 to 100%. Information on age, sex, biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment, disease duration, and C-reactive protein was available in all registries with data completeness between 85% and 100%. All PROMs (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity and Functional Indices, Health Assessment Questionnaire, and patient global, pain and fatigue assessments) were more complete after 2015 (68-86%) compared to prior (50-79%). Patient global, pain and fatigue assessments showed heterogeneity between registries in terms of wording, recall periods, and scale.

CONCLUSION

Important heterogeneity in registry design and data collection across fifteen European axSpA and PsA registries was observed. Several core measures were widely available, and an increase in data completeness of PROMs in recent years was identified. This study might serve as a basis for examining how differences in data collection across registries may impact the results of collaborative research in the future.

Refractory inflammatory arthritis definition and model generated through patient and multi-disciplinary professional modified Delphi process

OBJECTIVE

Various definitions have been proposed for Refractory Disease in people with Rheumatoid Arthritis; however, none were generated for Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis or involving adult and paediatric multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and patients. The study aim is to redefine Refractory Disease, using Delphi methodology.

METHODS

Three rounds of surveys (one nominal group and two online (2019-2020)) to achieve consensus using a predetermined cut-off were conducted voting on: a) name, b) treatment and inflammation, c) symptoms and impact domains, and d) rating of individual components within domains. Theoretical application of the definition was conducted through a scoping exercise.

RESULTS

Votes were collected across three rounds from Patients, Researchers and nine multi-disciplinary healthcare professional groups (n = 106). Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis was the most popular name. Regarding treatment and inflammation, these were voted to be kept broad rather than specifying numbers/cut-offs. From 10 domains identified to capture symptoms and disease impact, six domains reached consensus for inclusion: 1) Disease Activity, 2) Joint Involvement, 3) Pain, 4) Fatigue, 5) Functioning and Quality of Life, and 6) Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drug Experiences. Within these domains, 18 components, from an initial pool (n = 73), were identified as related and important to capture multi-faceted presentation of Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis, specifically in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Polyarticular Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Feasibility of the revised definition was established (2022-2023) with good utility as was applied to 82% of datasets (n = 61) incorporating 20 outcome measures, with two further measures added to increase its utility and coverage of Pain and Fatigue.

CONCLUSION

Refractory Inflammatory Arthritis has been found to be broader than not achieving low disease activity, with wider biopsychosocial components and factors incorporating Persistent Inflammation or Symptoms identified as important. This definition needs further refinement to assess utility as a classification tool to identify patients with unmet needs.

Real-Life Retention Rates and Reasons for Switching of Biological DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.

Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).

Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.

Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

Cost-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Real-World Persistence with Tocilizumab Compared to Other Subcutaneous Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Switching from Another Biologic

INTRODUCTION

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to or intolerance of their first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to a different biologic class. The objective of this study was to compare persistence with subcutaneous (SC) tocilizumab to persistence with other SC bDMARDs when these drugs are used as subsequent-line therapy in RA patients who previously received ≥ 1 bDMARD.

METHODS

RA patients in a US administrative claims database who initiated a second- or subsequent-line SC bDMARD between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017 (initiation date = index date) were included. Persistence was defined as the number of days between the bDMARD initiation date and (1) the last supplied day of medication fill (primary) or (2) the day on which the patient switched or there was a gap in treatment of > 90 days (secondary). Parametric survival models utilizing an exponential distribution with a robust variance estimator were used to compare persistence with tocilizumab to persistence with other bDMARDs.

RESULTS

A total of 10,301 patients with 12,704 bDMARD episodes were included. Patients receiving tocilizumab had a significantly higher adjusted median (95% CI) number of days of primary persistence [333 (311-356)] than those receiving adalimumab [280 (268-293); P  < 0.001], certolizumab [262 (241-284); P  < 0.001], and etanercept [289 (274-304); P  = 0.001], and a similar persistence to those receiving abatacept [320 (305-335); P = 0.327] and golimumab [304 (274-333); P = 0.122].

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA who had previously received ≥ 1 bDMARD, tocilizumab-treated patients exhibited a similar or significantly better biologic persistence than those receiving other bDMARDs.

Tuberculosis among patients treated with TNF inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis in Slovenia: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the risk of tuberculosis (TB) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with any of the commercially available tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) in Slovenia.

DESIGN

This is a cohort, registry (biorx.si) cross-linked with the Slovenian National TB Registry.

SETTING

National, involving all Slovenian rheumatology centres (six secondary and two secondary/tertiary).

PARTICIPANTS

2429 patients with RA, AS or PsA exposed to at least one TNFi participated in the study.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were age-adjusted and sex-adjusted TB incidence rates (IRs) and the standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared with the general population exploring different TNFi exposure windows. The secondary outcome measures were a detailed characterisation of the national latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening and TB chemoprophylaxis protocol implementation.

RESULTS

Among the 2429 patients exposed to at least one TNFi for a total of 10 445 (49% RA, 33% AS and 18% PsA) person-years (PY), 99% completed LTBI screening and 6% required TB chemoprophylaxis. Six RA (three adalimumab, three certolizumab), two PsA (two golimumab) and zero AS patients developed TB. Five out of eight had miliary TB, three out of eight had pulmonary TB and two patients died. The age-standardised and sex-standardised TB IR (95% CI) per 100 000 PYs/SIRs (95% CI) compared with the general Slovenian population for the current TNFi exposure were 52 (0 to 110)/6.7 (0.6 to 80), 47 (0 to 110)/6.1 (0.3 to 105), 45 (0 to 109)/5.8 (0.3 to 112) overall, in RA and PsA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The TB IR in the Slovenian patients with RA, AS and PsA treated with TNFi was comparable with TB IRs in TB non-endemic countries with less than a tenth of the patients requiring TB chemoprophylaxis.

Reasons for Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Cessation and Persistence of Second-line Treatment in a Rheumatoid Arthritis Dataset

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence about the reasons why Australian rheumatologists cease biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to assess (1) the primary failure rate for first-line treatment, and (2) the persistence on second-line treatments in patients who stopped first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi).

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective, noninterventional study of patients with RA enrolled in the Australian Optimising Patient outcome in Australian RheumatoLogy (OPAL) dataset with a start date of b/tsDMARD between August 1, 2010, and June 30, 2017. Primary failure was defined as stopping treatment within 6 months of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Data from 7740 patients were analyzed; 6914 patients received first-line b/tsDMARD. First-line treatment was stopped in 3383 (49%) patients; 1263 (37%) were classified as primary failures. The most common reason was "lack of efficacy" (947/2656, 36%). Of the patients who stopped first-line TNFi, 43% (1111/2560) received second-line TNFi, which resulted in the shortest median time to stopping second-line treatment (11 months, 95% CI 9-12) compared with non-TNFi. The longest second-line median treatment duration after first-line TNFi was for patients receiving rituximab (39 months, 95% CI 27-74).

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of patients who stopped first-line TNFi therapy received another TNFi despite evidence for longer treatment persistence on second-line b/tsDMARD with a different mode of action. Lack of efficacy was recorded as the most common reason for making a switch in first-line treatment of patients with RA.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.

RESULTS

Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry

Background

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent).

Methods

Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

Effectiveness of biologics in Australian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a large observational study: REAL

BACKGROUND

The comparative effectiveness of biologic treatment regimens in a real world Australian population is unknown.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate and/or other conventional DMARD (cDMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

A retrospective, non-interventional study was conducted that investigated the use of bDMARD in adult patients with RA in routine clinical practice. Data were extracted from the Optimising Patient Outcomes in Australian Rheumatology - Quality Use of Medicines Initiative database. Real-world effectiveness was measured using the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) by treatment group at baseline, weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

A total of 2970 patients was included with a median (min-max) age of 60.0 (19.0-94.0) years and median (min-max) duration of RA before first bDMARD treatment of 6.0 (0.2-58.3) years. A total of 1177 patients received more than one bDMARD during the analysis period of 1 January 1997 to 15 August 2015. Patients had 4922 treatment 'episodes' (defined as a cycle of continuous individual bDMARD prescribing in a single patient). Patients received a mean (SD) of 1.7 (1.0) episodes of treatment with median (min-max) treatment duration of 0.7 (0-11.8) years; median treatment duration was higher with the first treatment episode. bDMARD were most commonly initiated in combination with methotrexate (73.9% of episodes) and least commonly as monotherapy (9.9% of episodes). Median (min-max) baseline DAS28 decreased from 5.3 (0-8.7) with the first bDMARD to 3.7 (0-8.8) with the second. Median baseline CDAI similarly decreased.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients tended to persist longer on their first bDMARD treatment. bDMARD as monotherapy or in combination appear to be accepted treatment strategies in the real world.

A retrospective review of the persistence on bDMARDs prescribed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Australian population

AIM

To describe the persistence of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in Australian rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, and assess the influence of methotrexate and other conventional DMARD (cDMARD) concomitant medications, and treatment line on bDMARD persistence and glucocorticoids usage.

METHOD

RA patients, from the 10% Australian Medicare random sample, aged ≥18 for whom bDMARDs were dispensed were included. Individual sub-cutaneous (SC) anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) agents were combined as they were equivalent.

RESULTS

Data from 1230 patients were analyzed. For all patients the 12-month persistence rates (based on Kaplan-Meier estimates) were 76% for intravenous (IV) tocilizumab, 63% abatacept (SC/IV), 61% SC-anti-TNFs and 36% IV-infliximab. Persistence rates on first-line bDMARDs were 79% (tocilizumab and abatacept), 64% (SC-anti-TNFs) and 13% (infliximab); rates were sustained for tocilizumab but dropped to 49% for abatacept and 51% for SC-anti-TNFs in the second-line setting. Median treatment persistence was 40 months tocilizumab (95% CI: 30-ND), 33 months abatacept (95% CI: 20-ND); 22 months SC-anti-TNF (95% Cl: 18-27), and 4 months infliximab (95% CI: 2-13). Longer persistence was observed for SC-anti-TNFs and abatacept combined with methotrexate or other cDMARDs. For tocilizumab, persistence was robust with or without concomitant medications. The median oral glucocorticoid doses decreased from 4.1 mg/day (min 0, max 21) to 2.0 mg/day (min 0, max 17.3) over 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment persistence was longer on tocilizumab followed by abatacept then SC-anti-TNF therapy and was influenced by co-therapy. Glucocorticoid dosage decreased with bDMARD use. This real-world data highlights that persistence on bDMARDs differs according to biologics mode of action and co-therapy.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Treatment Persistence and Clinical Outcomes of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Cycling or Switching to a New Mechanism of Action Therapy: Real-world Observational Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in the United States with Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Introduction

To examine treatment persistence and clinical outcomes associated with switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to a medication with a new mechanism of action (MOA) (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) versus cycling to another TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the JointMan^® US clinical database who received a TNFi in April 2010 or later and either cycled to a TNFi or switched to a new MOA therapy by March 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time to non-persistence (switching or discontinuing). An ordinary least squares regression model compared 1-year reduction from baseline for the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

Results

There were 332 (54.2%) TNFi cyclers and 281 (45.8%) new MOA switchers. During a median follow-up of 29.9 months, treatment persistence was 36.7% overall. Compared with new MOA switchers, TNFi cyclers were 51% more likely to be non-persistent (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.511; 95% CI 1.196, 1.908), driven by a higher likelihood of switching again (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.016; 95% CI 1.428, 2.847). Clinical outcomes were evaluable for 239 (53.3%) TNFi cyclers and 209 (46.7%) new MOA switchers. One-year mean reduction in CDAI from baseline to end of follow-up was significantly higher for new MOA switchers than TNFi cyclers (−7.54 vs. −4.81; P = 0.037), but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline CDAI (−6.39 vs. −5.83; P = 0.607).

Conclusion

In this study, TNFi cycling was common in clinical practice, but switching to a new MOA DMARD was associated with significantly better treatment persistence and a trend toward greater CDAI reduction that was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease activity.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

Economic Burden of Switching to a Non-Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Versus a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Biologic Therapy among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to examine healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with switching to another tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) therapy versus a non-TNFi therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) discontinuing use of an initial TNFi biologic therapy.

METHODS

Patients with ≥2 RA diagnoses who used ≥1 TNFi on or after their initial RA diagnosis were identified in a US employer-based insurance claims database. Patients were selected based on ≥1 claim of another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy (occurring after 2010, and within 30 days before to 60 days after discontinuation of the initial TNFi), and continuous insurance ≥6 months before (baseline period) and ≥12 months after the switch date (study period). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were measured during the baseline period. All-cause and RA-related HRU and costs were analyzed during the 12-month study period using multivariable regression analysis controlling for baseline characteristics and selected comorbidities.

RESULTS

Of the 1577 patients with RA that switched therapies, 1169 patients used another TNFi and 408 patients used a non-TNFi biologic. The most commonly used initial TNFi treatments were etanercept (50%) and adalimumab (34%) among the TNFi cohort, and infliximab (39%) and etanercept (28%) among the non-TNFi cohort. The TNFi cohort had significantly fewer outpatient visits [all-cause: 23.01 vs. 29.77 visits/patient/year; adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.78, P < 0.001; RA-related: 7.42 vs. 13.58; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001] and rheumatologist visits (all-cause: 4.01 vs. 6.81; adjusted IRR = 0.66, P < 0.001; RA-related: 3.23 vs. 6.40; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001) than the non-TNFi cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly lower for patients who switched to another TNFi instead of a non-TNFi therapy ($36,932 vs. $44,566; adjusted difference = $7045, P < 0.01), as were total RA-related costs ($26,973 vs. $31,735; adjusted difference = $4904, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Adult patients with RA discontinuing TNFi therapy who switched to an alternative TNFi incurred lower healthcare costs than patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic.

FUNDING

AbbVie, Inc.