Comparative effectiveness of cycling of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitors versus switching to non-TNF biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to TNF-α inhibitor using a Bayesian approach

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.

Comparative effectiveness and persistence of TNFi and non-TNFi in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a large paediatric rheumatology centre in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the persistence and effectiveness of TNF inhibitors (TNFi) vs non-TNFi among newly diagnosed JIA patients after initiation of biologic DMARD (bDMARD).

METHODS

Using longitudinal patient-level data extracted from electronic medical records in a large Midwestern paediatric hospital from 2009 to 2018, we identified JIA patients initiating TNFi and non-TNFi treatment. Treatment effectiveness was assessed based on disease activity. Inverse probability of treatment weighting of propensity score was used to estimate the treatment effectiveness and Kaplan-Meier analyses were conducted to assess persistence.

RESULTS

Of 667 JIA patients, most (92.0%) were prescribed one of the class of TNFi as their initial biologic treatment. Etanercept was the most frequently prescribed (67.1%) treatment, followed by adalimumab (27.5%). Only around 5% of patients were prescribed off-label bDMARDs as their first-course treatment; however, >20% were prescribed off-label biologics as their second-course therapy. Some 7.2% of patients received four or more bDMARDs. The median persistence of the first-course bDMARD is 320 days, with TNFi being significantly longer than the non-TNFi (395 vs 320 days, P = 0.010). The clinical Juvenile Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) reduction of TNFi users (6.6, 95% CI 5.7, 7.5) was significant greater compared with non-TNFi users (3.0, 95% CI 1.5, 4.6, P < 0.0001) at 6-month follow-up visit.

CONCLUSION

Persistence was significantly longer among patients initiating TNFi as their first biologic therapy than those receiving non-TNFi. Patients receiving TNF therapy had significant greater reduction of cJADAS at the 6-month follow-up visit compared with patients in the non-TNF cohort.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).

METHODS

An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.

RESULTS

Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

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.

Effectiveness of golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy: Results from a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the real-world effectiveness of golimumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had previously received first-line biologic therapy.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of post-marketing surveillance was performed. The effectiveness of golimumab was assessed in 731 patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy stratified by their prior biologic agents. Outcome variables included DAS28-CRP, DAS28-ESR, SDAI and CDAI, and medication persistence. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the likelihood of achieving a DAS28-CRP response (good/moderate) after 24 weeks of golimumab treatment.

RESULTS

Patients demonstrated significant improvement in the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by the reduction of DAS28-CRP (Δ0.87), DAS28-ESR (Δ0.85), SDAI (Δ7.32), and CDAI (Δ6.98) scores. This result was consistent across the subgroups stratified by previous biologic therapy. Multivariate analysis failed to identify any factors associated with response to golimumab.

CONCLUSION

In the real-world clinical setting, switching to golimumab was effective for Japanese patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy regardless of the biologic agent, including both TNF and non-TNF inhibitors.

Real-world treatment persistence of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in South Korea

Aims: We aimed to assess treatment persistence of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and non-TNF inhibitors in two groups of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) initiators and switchers.Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized a national health insurance claims database. Patients aged ≥18 years initiating/switching bDMARD between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014, the index period, were followed for 12 months. Initiators who began treatment with a bDMARD during the index period were defined as having no bDMARD prescriptions for the previous year. Switchers who changed treatment from the previous bDMARD to the index bDMARD were defined as having different bDMARDs during the index period. Treatment persistence rates during the follow-up period were measured, and factors associated with non-persistence were assessed with the Cox proportional hazard model.Results: Of 2684 patients, treatment persistence rates were the highest for abatacept in initiators (69.3%) and tocilizumab in switchers (77.0%), while adalimumab showed the lowest persistence rates for both initiators and switchers (48.2%, 28.8%), followed by etanercept (51.3%, 41.0%). Adalimumab and etanercept were significantly more likely to show non-persistence (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.96; HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.76) compared to infliximab for initiators, while tocilizumab was significantly more likely to show persistence (HR 0.411, 95% CI 0.206-0.819) in switchers.Conclusions: Non-TNF inhibitors showed higher persistence rates than TNF inhibitors in South Korean RA patients, and tocilizumab especially was associated with higher persistence in patients with inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. Good persistence with non-TNF inhibitors indicates the potential for long-term efficacy as first-line treatment.

Assessments of the unmet need in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from the NOR-DMARD registry

Objective

To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry.

Methods

Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months.

Results

The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0–34.1%), 33.9–47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7–22.1% over 24 months).

Conclusion

An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication.

METHODS

A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs.

RESULTS

Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Responses to Cytokine Inhibitors Associated with Cellular Composition in Models of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Arthritis

Objective

Immune‐mediated inflammatory arthritis (IMIA) is a heterogeneous group of diseases including rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and spondyloarthritis (SpA). Disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) target very different cellular components of the disease processes. Characterization of the pathobiological subtypes of IMIA could provide more specific treatment approaches for each disease. For example, RA has been proposed to consist of at least three synovial pathotypes (lymphoid, myeloid, and fibroid), and only a subgroup of RA patients have erosive disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of various DMARDs on different synovial cell subsets using human ex vivo models of IMIA.

Methods

Synovial fluid and blood samples were obtained from a study population consisting of patients with RA, PsA, or peripheral SpA with at least one swollen joint (n = 18). The DMARDs used in this study were methotrexate, adalimumab, etanercept, tocilizumab, anakinra, ustekinumab, secukinumab, tofacitinib, and baricitinib. Paired synovial fluid mononuclear cells (SFMCs), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and fibroblast‐like synovial cells (FLSs) were used in three different previously optimized ex vivo models.

Results

In SFMCs cultured for 48 hours, all DMARDs except anakinra decreased the production of monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)‐1. In SFMCs cultured for 21 days, only the two tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) inhibitors adalimumab and etanercept decreased the secretion of tartrate‐resistant acid phosphatase (P < 0.01, P < 0.001). In the FLS and PBMC 48‐hour co‐cultures, only tocilizumab (P < 0.001) and the two Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib (both P < 0.05) decreased the production of MCP‐1 by around 50%.

Conclusion

TNFα inhibition was effective in preventing inflammatory osteoclastogenesis, whereas tocilizumab, tofacitinib, and baricitinib had superior efficacy in cultures dominated by FLSs. Taken together, this study reveals that responses to cytokine inhibitors associate with cellular composition in models of IMIA. In particular, this study provides new evidence on the differential effect of DMARDs on leukocytes compared with stromal cells.

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.

Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders

Current guidelines recommend treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to reach low disease activity or remission, however, most biologic-naive RA patients fail to reach treatment targets on their first biologic therapy. Approximately 90% of biologic-naive RA patients receive a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (anti-TNF) as their first biologic treatment, even though several alternative mechanism of action (MOA) therapies are approved as first-line options. After 3 months of therapy, patients may remain on anti-TNF therapy even if they fail to achieve the treatment target, mainly due to formulary structures. This means patients have to endure a second and even a third ineffective anti-TNF-called anti-TNF cycling-before changing MOA. This significantly delays patients from reaching their treatment targets. All anti-TNF drugs target the same molecular and inflammatory pathways; thus, it is not surprising that most patients who are primary non-responders to their initial anti-TNF therapy fail to achieve their treatment targets when cycled through alternative anti-TNFs. This suggests that primary non-responders should be switched to an alternative MOA therapy rather than enduring anti-TNF cycling. Avoiding anti-TNF cycling would prevent disease progression and improve quality of life for RA patients who are primary non-responders to anti-TNFs. The development of a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders to anti-TNFs prior to treatment would allow significantly more patients to reach their treatment target by treating them with alternative MOA therapies as first-line therapies.

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.

Remission rate and predictors of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis under treat-to-target strategy in real-world studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the remission rate of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world studies and to summarize potential predictors of remission in RA. Studies reporting remission rate in patients with RA were searched from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies according to eligibility criteria and extracted data. Generally, observational studies reporting remission rate in adult (≥ 18 years) patients with RA were included. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled analyses of remission rate were conducted using a random-effects model and data were analyzed in subgroups to identify potential source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses were performed by serially excluding each study. Potential predictors of remission were summarized. Thirty-one studies with ~ 82,450 RA patients in total were included. Using the DAS28 remission criteria, the pooled 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month remission rates were 17.2%, 16.3%, 21.5%, and 23.5%, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed that 11.7% and 13.8% of TNFi inadequate responders reached remission after 6- and 12-month use of non-TNFi biologics. Predictors of remission included male, higher education level, and lower baseline disease activity, while initial use of corticosteroids was negative predictors of remission. Sustained remission was rare regardless of different criteria used. Remission was a reachable target in real-world studies, while attention should also be paid to achieve sustained remission.

2017 recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology for the pharmacological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

The objective of this document is to provide a comprehensive update of the recommendations of Brazilian Society of Rheumatology on drug treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on a systematic literature review and on the opinion of a panel of rheumatologists. Four general principles and eleven recommendations were approved. General principles: RA treatment should (1) preferably consist of a multidisciplinary approach coordinated by a rheumatologist, (2) include counseling on lifestyle habits, strict control of comorbidities, and updates of the vaccination record, (3) be based on decisions shared by the patient and the physician after clarification about the disease and the available therapeutic options; (4) the goal is sustained clinical remission or, when this is not feasible, low disease activity. Recommendations: (1) the first line of treatment should be a csDMARD, started as soon as the diagnosis of RA is established; (2) methotrexate (MTX) is the first-choice csDMARD; (3) the combination of two or more csDMARDs, including MTX, may be used as the first line of treatment; (4) after failure of first-line therapy with MTX, the therapeutic strategies include combining MTX with another csDMARD (leflunomide), with two csDMARDs (hydroxychloroquine and sulfasalazine), or switching MTX for another csDMARD (leflunomide or sulfasalazine) alone; (5) after failure of two schemes with csDMARDs, a bDMARD may be preferably used or, alternatively a tsDMARD, preferably combined, in both cases, with a csDMARD; (6) the different bDMARDs in combination with MTX have similar efficacy, and therefore, the therapeutic choice should take into account the peculiarities of each drug in terms of safety and cost; (7) the combination of a bDMARD and MTX is preferred over the use of a bDMARD alone; (8) in case of failure of an initial treatment scheme with a bDMARD, a scheme with another bDMARD can be used; in cases of failure with a TNFi, a second bDMARD of the same class or with another mechanism of action is effective and safe; (9) tofacitinib can be used to treat RA after failure of bDMARD; (10) corticosteroids, preferably at low doses for the shortest possible time, should be considered during periods of disease activity, and the risk-benefit ratio should also be considered; (11) reducing or spacing out bDMARD doses is possible in patients in sustained remission.

Identification of a transitional fibroblast function in very early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Synovial fibroblasts actively regulate the inflammatory infiltrate by communicating with neighbouring endothelial cells (EC). Surprisingly, little is known about how the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) alters these immunomodulatory properties. We examined the effects of phase of RA and disease outcome (resolving vs persistence) on fibroblast crosstalk with EC and regulation of lymphocyte recruitment.

METHODS

Fibroblasts were isolated from patients without synovitis, with resolving arthritis, very early RA (VeRA; symptom ≤12 weeks) and established RA undergoing joint replacement (JRep) surgery. Endothelial-fibroblast cocultures were formed on opposite sides of porous filters. Lymphocyte adhesion from flow, secretion of soluble mediators and interleukin 6 (IL-6) signalling were assessed.

RESULTS

Fibroblasts from non-inflamed and resolving arthritis were immunosuppressive, inhibiting lymphocyte recruitment to cytokine-treated endothelium. This effect was lost very early in the development of RA, such that fibroblasts no longer suppressed recruitment. Changes in IL-6 and transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β₁) signalling appeared critical for the loss of the immunosuppressive phenotype. In the absence of exogenous cytokines, JRep, but not VeRA, fibroblasts activated endothelium to support lymphocyte.

CONCLUSIONS

In RA, fibroblasts undergo two distinct changes in function: first a loss of immunosuppressive responses early in disease development, followed by the later acquisition of a stimulatory phenotype. Fibroblasts exhibit a transitional functional phenotype during the first 3 months of symptoms that contributes to the accumulation of persistent infiltrates. Finally, the role of IL-6 and TGF-β₁ changes from immunosuppressive in resolving arthritis to stimulatory very early in the development of RA. Early interventions targeting 'pathogenic' fibroblasts may be required in order to restore protective regulatory processes.

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.

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi ("TNFi cyclers") or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) ("new MOA switchers").

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were "effectively treated" if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

RESULTS

The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.74; p = .003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.51-0.81; p < .001). New MOA switchers were 43% more likely than TNFi cyclers to be effectively treated (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.11-1.85; p = .006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.79-0.88; p < .001) and 11% lower total costs of rheumatoid arthritis-related medical care (cost ratio = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84-0.94; p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.

Treatment effectiveness and treatment patterns among rheumatoid arthritis patients after switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to another medication

Objectives

After treatment failure with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can switch to another TNFi (TNFi cyclers) or to a targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with a non-TNFi mechanism of action (non-TNFi switchers). This study compared treatment patterns and treatment effectiveness between TNFi cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with RA.

Methods

The analysis included a cohort of patients from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial database with RA who switched from a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) either to another TNFi or to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014. A claims-based algorithm was used to estimate treatment effectiveness based on six criteria (adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional therapy, no switch to another targeted DMARD, no new/increased oral glucocorticoid, and intra-articular injections on <2 days).

Results

The cohort included 5,020 TNFi cyclers and 1,925 non-TNFi switchers. Non-TNFi switchers were significantly less likely than TNFi cyclers to switch therapy again within 6 months (13.2% vs 19.5%; P<0.001) or within 12 months (29.7% vs 34.6%; P<0.001) and significantly more likely to be persistent on therapy at 12 months (61.8% vs 58.2%; P<0.001). Non-TNFi switchers were significantly more likely than TNFi cyclers to achieve all six of the claims-based effectiveness algorithm criteria for the 12 months after the initial switch (27% vs 24%; P=0.011).

Conclusion

Although the absolute differences were small, these results support switching to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD instead of TNFi cycling when patients with RA require another therapy after TNFi failure.

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

METHODS

The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

RESULTS

The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.

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.

Real-world evaluation of TNF-inhibitor utilization in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate 12-month treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU), and costs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), following initiation of index TNF inhibitors (TNFi) and subsequent biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adults with RA newly initiating TNFi in the Truven Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases during 2010-2013. A sub-group of patients who switched to a bDMARD within 12 months post-index and within 180 days of last index TNFi were subsequently evaluated over 12 months. TNFi/bDMARD treatment patterns were characterized as: continuers, no gap >180 days in prescription/administration of index TNFi; discontinuers, gap >180 days; switchers, initiated new bDMARD. Concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, co-morbid chronic illnesses, and RA severity were assessed. All-cause/RA-related HCRU and costs were evaluated 12 months post-index.

RESULTS

Of 9567 identified patients, 67.2%, 17.3%, and 15.4% were continuers, discontinuers, and switchers, respectively. Switchers had the highest 12-month unadjusted mean all-cause costs of $34,585 vs $33,051 for continuers (p = 0.1158) and $24,915 for discontinuers (p < 0.0001; discontinuers vs continuers, p < 0.0001). RA-related costs comprised 82.8%, 31.4%, and 85.7% of total costs for continuers, discontinuers, and switchers, respectively. Of 764 switchers, 68.2% switched to alternative TNFi (cyclers), the rest to non-TNFi bDMARDs; 36.7% of patients who switched to TNFi switched again (to third-line bDMARD) vs 27.6% (p = 0.0313) of those who switched to non-TNFi bDMARDs. Switchers to non-TNFi bDMARDs had higher mean 12-month all-cause costs of $76,580 compared with $50,689 for switchers to alternative TNFi (p < 0.0001); biologic-administration visits comprised 78.8% of the greater total RA-related costs of switchers to non-TNFi bDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world TNFi discontinuation/switching rates correspond to randomized controlled trial non-response rates. TNFi cycling is common and associated with an increased likelihood of switching to third-line bDMARD. Switching to non-TNFi bDMARDs was associated with higher costs, mostly attributed to in-office administrations.

Cost-effectiveness of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in South Korea

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of introducing tofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, to the treatment of Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

METHODS

In this cost-utility analysis model, patients transitioned through treatment sequences based on Korean guidelines for RA patients with inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Lifetime health-related quality of life and costs were evaluated. Characteristics of the model cohort were based on those reported by the Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis phase 3 triaL (ORAL) Standard randomized Controlled trial of tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo. Efficacy was assessed using American College of Rheumatology response rates, converted to the changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores, based on tofacitinib clinical trials data. Published clinical trial data on discontinuation rates of the indicated drugs were incorporated in the model. The HAQ-DI scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); HAQ-DI-to-utility (EuroQoL 5D) mapping was based on data from 5 tofacitinib clinical trials. Costs were analyzed from a societal perspective, with values expressed in 2013 Korean won (KRW). Cost-effectiveness is presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

FINDINGS

First-line tofacitinib used before the standard of care (base-case analysis) increased both treatment costs and QALYs gained versus the standard-of-care treatment sequence, resulting in an ICER of KRW 13,228,910 per QALY. Tofacitinib also increased costs and QALYs gained when incorporated as a second-, third-, or fourth-line therapy. The inclusion of first-line tofacitinib increased the duration of active immunomodulatory therapy from 9.4 to 13.2 years. Tofacitinib-associated increases in costs were attributable to the increased lifetime drug costs. In sensitivity analyses, variations in input parameters and assumptions yielded ICERs in the range of KRW 6,995,719 per QALY to KRW 37,450,109 per QALY.

IMPLICATIONS

From a societal perspective, the inclusion of tofacitinib as a treatment strategy for moderate to severe RA is cost-effective; this conclusion was considered robust based on multiple sensitivity analyses. The study was limited by the lack of clinical data on follow-up therapy after tofacitinib administration and a lack of long-term data on discontinuation of drug use.

2014 update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To establish recommendations for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to serve as a reference for all health professionals involved in the care of these patients, and focusing on the role of available synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Consensual recommendations were agreed on by a panel of 14 experts selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER). The available scientific evidence was collected by updating three systematic reviews (SR) used for the EULAR 2013 recommendations. A new SR was added to answer an additional question. The literature review of the scientific evidence was made by the SER reviewer's group. The level of evidence and the degree of recommendation was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. A Delphi panel was used to evaluate the level of agreement between panellists (strength of recommendation).

RESULTS

Thirteen recommendations for the management of adult RA were emitted. The therapeutic objective should be to treat patients in the early phases of the disease with the aim of achieving clinical remission, with methotrexate playing a central role in the therapeutic strategy of RA as the reference synthetic DMARD. Indications for biologic DMARDs were updated and the concept of the optimization of biologicals was introduced.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the fifth update of the SER recommendations for the management of RA with synthetic and biologic DMARDs.

Patterns of use and dosing of tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine clinical practice: the ACT-LIFE study

The aim of the study was to identify and describe the patterns of use of tocilizumab in clinical practice to ensure safety and optimal management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This is a 12-month prospective observational study in patients with moderate or severe RA of ≥6 months' duration who have started tocilizumab after failure of at least one previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) including TNF inhibitors. For some analyses, patients were categorized by the use of tocilizumab as monotherapy or in combination, and by previous use of biological therapy. Overall, 379 were evaluable (84.4 % received tocilizumab after prior biologics and 78.4 % in combination with classic DMARDs). Tocilizumab was discontinued in 68/379 (17.9 %) patients after a median of 6.7 (3.7-10.4) months, mainly due to a lack of efficacy (24/379, 6.3 %) and adverse events (23/379, 6.1 %). Of 131 temporary interruptions of tocilizumab required in 101/379 (26.6 %) patients, 81/131 (61.8 %) were related to adverse events, and in 120/131 (91.6 %) cases, tocilizumab was reintroduced at 8 mg/kg. Thirty-six tocilizumab dose reductions occurred in 34/379 (9 %) patients due to abnormal laboratory values in 20/34 (55.6 %) cases. DAS28-ESR scores decreased from baseline (5.6 ± 1.0) to week 24 (3.0 ± 1.4) and week 52 (2.7 ± 1.3). DAS28 response differed between biologics-naive and biologics-experienced patients, both at weeks 24 and 52. In clinical practice, tocilizumab is effective in RA while retaining the expected safety and tolerability profile. Tocilizumab seems to be more effective for biologics-naive patients than for biologics-experienced patients, while it proves to be similarly effective when used in combination or monotherapy.

Response to Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs after Discontinuation of Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Agents for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the response between subsequent use of anti-tumor necrosis factor α (anti-TNF) agents and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD) with other mechanism of action (MOA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with history of anti-TNF treatment as their first bDMARD.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted at eight community-based rheumatology practices in the United States in 2012. Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) response was measured by comparing baseline and 6-month scores. Poor response was defined as decrease <1.8 points, follow-up score >12, or treatment discontinuation before 6 months. Percentages of patients with good and good or moderate RAPID3 response were compared for second and third biologics. Multivariate models controlled for potential confounders.

Results

Of 176 patients whose charts were abstracted, 122 (69.3%) received another anti-TNF agent after they discontinued their first anti-TNF. RAPID3 scores were available for 160 patients. A patient receiving a second bDMARD with another MOA had a higher good or moderate response than a patient receiving anti-TNF (53.5 vs. 30.7%, p = 0.01). In the multivariate models, treatment with another MOA was more likely to produce a good RAPID3 response [odds ratio (OR), 2.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05–5.58] or a good or moderate response (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.23–3.97) than treatment with an anti-TNF.

Conclusion

In patients who have discontinued anti-TNF agents as their first bDMARD, RAPID3 response rates are better for those receiving agents with a different MOA rather than another anti-TNF. Physicians should consider using a bDMARD with a different MOA as the next bDMARD for RA patients whose anti-TNF agent has failed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-014-0002-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.