Cost per treated patient for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab across adult indications: a claims analysis

Evaluating Changes in Surgical Outcomes for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Following Medicaid Expansion

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of Medicaid expansion on the surgical care of inflammatory bowel disease. We sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion is associated with improved postsurgical outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing a colorectal resection.

METHODS

We performed a risk-adjusted difference-in-difference study examining postsurgical outcomes for patients ages 26 to 64 with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis undergoing a colorectal resection across 15 states that did and did not expand Medicaid before (2012-2013) and after (2016-2018) policy reform. Primary study outcomes included 30-day readmission and postoperative complication.

RESULTS

Study population included 11 394 patients with inflammatory bowel disease that underwent a colorectal resection. States that underwent Medicaid expansion were associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment following policy reform (11.8% pre-Medicaid expansion vs 19.7% post-Medicaid expansion). Difference-in-difference analysis revealed a statistically significant lower odds of 30-day readmission in patients undergoing a colorectal resection in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.86). No changes in odds of postoperative complication were noted across expansion and nonexpansion states.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion is associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment in expansion states following policy reform. There were greater improvements in postoperative outcomes associated with patients in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform, which may have been related to improved perioperative care and medical management.

Adherence patterns in naïve and prevalent use of infliximab and its biosimilar

Introduction

Although short-term clinical trials have demonstrated that switching from infliximab (INF) bio-originator to its biosimilar is safe with no significant loss of efficacy, there are limited real-world data comparing their patterns of use and adherence.

Methods

Using 2015–2018 IBM Marketscan data, we established 4 cohorts of patients with at least one administration or pharmacy claim for INF bio-originator or biosimilar in 2017, including INF naïve biosimilar users, INF prevalent biosimilar users, INF naïve bio-originator users, and INF prevalent bio-originator users, defined according to their prior use of INF from 2015 to their first INF administration in 2017. The proportion of days covered (PDC) was calculated for patients with at least 6, 12, or 18 months of follow-up time. Factors associated with optimal adherence (PDC > 80%) were evaluated using log-binomial models.

Results

We identified 96 INF naïve biosimilar users, 223 INF prevalent biosimilar users, 2,149 INF naïve bio-originator users, and 10,970 INF prevalent bio-originator users. At the end of 18 months of follow-up, 64% of INF prevalent bio-originators, 48% of INF naïve biosimilars, 41% of INF naïve bio-originators, and 36% of INF prevalent biosimilars had optimal adherence. Depression, previous hospitalization, and greater use of prior biologics were negatively associated with adherence, whereas IBD diagnoses (referent to RA) and age 55–64 (referent to < 35) were positively associated with high adherence.

Conclusion

INF prevalent users had higher adherence in our analyses than INF naïve users. However, further studies with larger sample size are needed to evaluate INF biosimilar users’ adherence.

Missense variants in the TNFA epitopes and their effects on interaction with therapeutic antibodies-in silico analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFA) is an important cytokine that influences multiple biological processes. It is one of the key mediators of acute and chronic systemic inflammatory reactions and plays a central role in several autoimmune diseases. A number of approved monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are widely used to subside these autoimmune diseases. However, there is a high rate of non-responsiveness to treatments with these mAbs. Therefore, it is important to be able to predict responses of the patients in an individualistic manner to these therapeutic antibodies before administration. In the present study, we used in silico tools to explore the effects of missense variants in the respective epitopes of four therapeutic anti-TNFA mAbs-adalimumab (ADA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab (GLM), and infliximab (IFX)-on their interactions with TNFA.

RESULTS

The binding affinities of CZP and ADA to corresponding epitopes appear to be reduced by four (TNFAR131Q, TNFAE135G, TNFAR138Q, and TNFAR138W) and two (TNFAG66C and TNFAG66S) variants, respectively. The binding of GLM and IFX appears to be affected by TNFAR141S and TNFAR138W, respectively. TNFAG66C and TNFAG66S may be associated with autoimmune diseases, whereas TNFAE135G, TNFAR138W, and TNFAR141S may be pathogenic per se.

CONCLUSION

These variants may contribute to the observed inter-individual variability in response to anti-TNFA mAbs treatments and be used as markers to predict responses, and thus optimize therapeutic benefits to the patients.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran.

Methods

This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data.

Results

The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Treatment Sequences After Discontinuing a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Comparison of Cycling Versus Swapping Strategies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sequences of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and non-TNFi used by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients whose initial TNFi therapy has failed, and to evaluate effectiveness and costs.

METHODS

Using the Truven Health MarketScan Research database, we analyzed claims of commercially insured adult patients with RA who switched to their second biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between January 2008 and December 2015. Our primary outcome was the frequency of treatment sequences. Our secondary outcomes were the time to therapy discontinuation, drug adherence, and drug and other health care costs.

RESULTS

Among 10,442 RA patients identified, 36.5% swapped to a non-TNFi drug, most commonly abatacept (54.2%). The remaining 63.5% cycled to a second TNFi, most commonly adalimumab (41.2%). For subsequent switches of therapy, non-TNFi were more common. Patients who swapped to a non-TNFi were significantly older and had more comorbidities than those who cycled to a TNFi (P < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a longer time to discontinuation for non-TNFi than for TNFi (median 605 days compared with 489 days; P < 0.001) when used after initial TNFi discontinuation, but no difference in subsequent switches of therapy. Although non-TNFi were less expensive for adherent patients, cycling to a TNFi was associated with lower costs overall.

CONCLUSION

Even though patients are more likely to cycle to a second TNFi than swap to a non-TNFi, those who swap to a non-TNFi are more likely to persist with the therapy. However, cycling to a TNFi is the less costly strategy.

Psychosocial Interventions and Immune System Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Recent estimates suggest that more than 50% of all deaths worldwide are currently attributable to inflammation-related diseases. Psychosocial interventions may represent a potentially useful strategy for addressing this global public health problem, but which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which we estimated associations between 8 different psychosocial interventions and 7 markers of immune system function, and examined 9 potential moderating factors.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from February 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, for all relevant RCTs published through December 31, 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligible RCTs included a psychosocial intervention, immune outcome, and preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments. Studies were independently examined by 2 investigators. Of 4621 studies identified, 62 were eligible and 56 included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and analyzed from January 1, 2019, to July 29, 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Data were extracted by 2 investigators who were blind to study hypotheses and analyses, and were then analyzed using robust variance estimation. Analysis included 8 psychosocial interventions (behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive behavior therapy [CBT], CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery that augmented the CBT, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation), 7 immune outcomes (proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels, anti-inflammatory cytokine levels, antibody levels, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes), and 9 moderating factors (intervention type, intervention format, intervention length, immune marker type, basal vs stimulated markers, immune marker measurement timing, disease state or reason for treatment, age, and sex).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary a priori outcomes were pretest-posttest-control (ppc) group effect sizes (ppc g) for the 7 immunologic outcomes investigated.

RESULTS

Across 56 RCTs and 4060 participants, psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (ppc g = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.21-0.40; t50.9 = 6.22; P < .001). Overall, being randomly assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition vs a control condition was associated with a 14.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-23.8%) improvement in beneficial immune system function and an 18.0% (95% CI, 7.2%-28.8%) decrease in harmful immune system function over time. These associations persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration. These associations were most reliable for CBT (ppc g = 0.33, 95% CI, 0.19-0.47; t27.2 = 4.82; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (ppc g = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.17-0.88; t5.7 = 3.63; P = .01), and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers (ppc g = 0.33, 95% CI, 0.19-0.48; t25.6 = 4.70; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that psychosocial interventions are reliably associated with enhanced immune system function and may therefore represent a viable strategy for improving immune-related health.

Real world, big data cost of pharmaceutical treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Greece

Introduction

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a highly prevalent autoimmune disease associated with joint inflammation and destruction. Treatment for RA, especially with biologic agents (biologics), improves patient functionality and quality of life and averts costly complications or disease progression. Cost of RA pharmaceutical treatment has rarely been reported on the basis of real-world, big data. This study reports on the real-world, big data RA pharmaceutical treatment cost in Greece.

Methods

The Business Intelligence database of the National Organization for Healthcare Services Provision (EOPYY) was used to identify and provide analytics on patients on treatment for RA. EOPYY is responsible for funding healthcare and pharmaceutical care services for approximately 95% of the population in the country. ICD-10 codes were applied to identify patients with RA and at least one reimbursed prescription between 1 June 2014 and 31 May 2015.

Results

35,873 unique patients were recorded as undergoing treatment for RA. Total reimbursed treatment cost for the study period was €81,206,363.70, of which €52,732,142.18 (64.94%) was for treatment with biologics. Of that cost, €39,724,489.71 (48.32%) accounted for treatment with anti-TNFs and/or methotrexate/corticosteroids.

Conclusion

Real world, big data analysis confirms that the major driver of RA pharmaceutical cost is, as expected, the cost of treatment with biologics. It is critical to be able to match this cost to the treatment outcome it produces to ensure an optimal, no-waste, evidence-based allocation of healthcare resources to need.

Biological therapy in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: economic and epidemiological considerations

Background: Biological therapies have a significant economic and clinical burden but, in general, lose their effectiveness over time. This study evaluated the medication persistence and costs associated to use of anti-TNF agents for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment. Methods: A historical cohort composed of individuals in Brazil with PsA diagnosis was developed during the period between 2010 and 2015. The difference among the anti-TNF agents was verified by the log-rank test. The predictors of medication non-persistence were identified by Cox regression. The costs were compared by variance analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results: 11,008 patients were analyzed. Adalimumab (51%) was the most used anti-TNF agent. Individuals using adalimumab presented higher medication persistence as compared to etanercept and infliximab. The costs with anti-TNF agents corresponded to 90% of the total costs and were similar among anti-TNF agents. The non-persistence predictors were female sex, younger patients, to live in the Northeastern and Northern regions of Brazil, to use infliximab and etanercept, and have more comorbidities. Conclusion: The direct costs with anti-TNF agents were the main component of total costs. Outpatient and inpatient costs increase when medication persistence decreases. A considerable price reduction of anti-TNF agents has been observed over the years.

Biologic Therapy in the Treatment of Cutaneous Sarcoidosis: A Literature Review

Sarcoidosis is an inflammatory disease defined by the presence of non-caseating granulomas. It can affect a number of organ systems, most commonly the lungs, lymph nodes, and skin. Cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis can impose a significant detriment to patients' quality of life. The accepted first-line therapy for cutaneous sarcoidosis consists of intralesional and oral corticosteroids, but these can fail in the face of resistant disease and corticosteroid-induced adverse effects. Second-line agents include tetracyclines, hydroxychloroquine, and methotrexate. Biologics are an emerging treatment option for the management of cutaneous sarcoidosis, but their role in management is not well-defined. In this article, we reviewed the currently available English-language publications on the use of biologics in managing cutaneous sarcoidosis. Although somewhat limited, the data in published studies support the use of both infliximab and adalimumab as third-line treatments for chronic or resistant cutaneous sarcoidosis. There were also scattered reports of etanercept, rituximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab being utilized as third-line agents with varying degrees of success. Larger and more extensive investigations are required to further assess the adverse effect profile and optimal dosing for managing cutaneous sarcoidosis.

Systemic rheumatic diseases: From biological agents to small molecules

The development of biologics and small oral molecules has recently changed the scenario of pharmacologic treatment of systemic rheumatic diseases and it has become a real revolution. These drugs have innovative mechanisms of action, based on the inhibition of specific molecular or cellular targets directly involved in disease pathogenesis. This new scenario has lead to a regular update of the management recommendations of several institutions, such as those for Rheumatoid Arthritis treatment that address the use of conventional and biologic therapies including TNF inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, IL-6 inhibitors (tocilizumab and sarilumab), biosimilars and small oral molecules (the JAK inhibitors tofacitinib and baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (such as treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission or low disease activity are the final goal of the guidelines for rheumatic patients management. In another condition represented by Axial Spondyloarthritis guidelines suggest to start first with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to improve lifestyle and reduce spine inflammation, but if this is not achieved in 2-4 weeks it is important to consider the use of local therapies (i.e. glucocorticoid injections) or to start biologic therapy such as TNF inhibitors and then eventually switching to another TNF inhibitor or swapping to IL-17 inhibitor. In the case of active Psoriatic Arthritis, guidelines suggest to start with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and even local glucocorticoid injections especially for oligoarthritis, then to start conventional therapies if lack of efficacy, and finally start biologics or small oral molecules in the presence of drugs toxicity, unfavorable prognostic factors and still active arthritis. In several cases, active Psoriatic Arthritis patients develop a complex clinical condition with comorbidities such as diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease and high risk of infections, and for this reason the American College of Rheumatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation have developed specific guidelines for their management. Biologic and new small molecules therapies are very expensive, but the availability of biosimilars offers the opportunity of reducing the treatment cost and significantly decreasing the cost of originators as well. In fact, we live in a period characterized by the need to rationalize costs of these drugs, to allow treating a higher number of patients and to maintain a homogeneous possibility of treatment choice. For these reasons, we need to follow scientific guidelines and patients' clinical conditions to choose the correct treatment, also based on the economic burden of therapies.

Review of Biosimilar Trials and Data on Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Etanercept was the first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor approved to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the United States (US) and Europe. The recent patent expiration of the etanercept originator ENBREL in Europe has facilitated the development of biosimilar products, creating the prospect of reduced treatment costs. In this article, we review the original trials for etanercept in RA to facilitate critical appraisal of biosimilar trial data.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two etanercept biosimilars are currently approved in Europe and/or the US, SB4 (Benepali) and GP2015 (Erelzi), having met the pre-specified equivalence criteria for biosimilarity. Trial data demonstrates subtle differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events between the biosimilars and the reference product (RP). The development of etanercept biosimilars may reduce the financial burden of treating RA, but real-world data regarding efficacy and safety in comparison to the RP will be vital to assess for meaningful differences.

Biosimilars: Review of current applications, obstacles, and their future in medicine

Biosimilars are a growing drug class designed to be used interchangeably with biologics. Biologics are created in living cells and are typically large, complex proteins that may have a variety of uses. Within the field of gastroenterology alone, biologics are used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases, cancers, and endocrine disorders. While biologics have proven to be effective in treating or managing many diseases, patient access is often limited by high costs. The development of biosimilars is an attempt to reduce treatment costs. Biosimilars must be nearly identical to their reference biologics in terms of efficacy, side effect risk profile, and immunogenicity. Although the manufacturing process still involves production within living cells, biosimilars undergo fewer clinical trials than do their reference biologics. This ultimately reduces the cost of production and the cost of the biosimilar drug compared to its reference biologic. Currently, seven biosimilars have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and colorectal cancer. There are other biologics involved in treating gastroenterologic diseases for which there are no FDA approved biosimilars. Although biosimilars have the potential to reduce healthcare costs in chronic disease management, they face challenges in establishing a significant market share. Physician comfort in prescribing reference biologics instead of biosimilars and patient reluctance to switch from a biologic to a biosimilar are two common contributing factors to biosimilars’ slow increase in use. More time will be needed for biosimilars to establish a larger and more consistent market share compared to their reference biologics. Additional data confirming the safety and efficacy of biosimilars, increased number of available biosimilars, and further cost reduction of biosimilars will all be necessary to improve physician confidence in biosimilars and patient comfort with biosimilars.

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA^®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel^®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA^®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation.

REVIEW METHODS

Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway.

RESULTS

Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks' follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE's usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children.

CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs in rheumatoid arthritis patients initiating subcutaneous biologics

AIM

Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating first- or second-line subcutaneous abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective, observational cohort study, which included adults with RA who initiated either of the three treatments between 29 July 2011 and 1 July 2015. Total healthcare costs were measured during baseline and follow-up. Biologic persistence was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression.

RESULTS

Subcutaneous abatacept-treated patients had numerically lowest adjusted hazards of nonpersistence and increase from baseline in total healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses measuring outcomes over an alternative follow-up definition produced consistent results.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept-treated RA patients appeared to have the poorest health status yet often had the lowest increase from baseline in healthcare costs and longest duration of biologic persistence.

Genetic polymorphisms predict response to anti-tumor necrosis factor treatment in Crohn’s disease

AIM

To investigate genetic factors that might help define which Crohn’s disease (CD) patients are likely to benefit from anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study. Patients were recruited from a university digestive disease practice database. We included CD patients who received anti-TNF therapy, had available medical records (with information on treatment duration and efficacy) and who consented to participation. Patients with allergic reactions were excluded. Patients were grouped as ever-responders or non-responders. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood, and 7 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were assessed. The main outcome measure (following exposure to the drug) was response to therapy. The patient genotypes were assessed as the predictors of outcome. Possible confounders and effect modifiers included age, gender, race, and socioeconomic status disease, as well as disease characteristics (such as Montreal criteria).

RESULTS

121 patients were included. Twenty-one were non-responders, and 100 were ever-responders. Fas ligand SNP (rs763110) genotype frequencies, TNF gene -308 SNP (rs1800629) genotype frequencies, and their combination, were significantly different between groups on multivariable analysis controlling for Montreal disease behavior and perianal disease. The odds of a patient with a Fas ligand CC genotype being a non-responder were four-fold higher as compared to a TC or TT genotype (P = 0.009, OR = 4.30, 95%CI: 1.45-12.80). The presence of the A (minor) TNF gene -308 allele correlated with three-fold higher odds of being a non-responder (P = 0.049, OR = 2.88, 95%CI: 1.01-8.22). Patients with the combination of the Fas ligand CC genotype and the TNF -308 A allele had nearly five-fold higher odds of being a non-responder (P = 0.015, OR = 4.76, 95%CI: 1.35-16.77). No difference was seen for the remaining SNPs.

CONCLUSION

The Fas-ligand SNP and TNF gene -308 SNP are associated with anti-TNF treatment response in CD and may help select patients likely to benefit from therapy.

Economic Impact of Above-Label Dosing with Etanercept, Adalimumab, or Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis may be treated with above-label doses of biologics in an attempt to optimize outcomes. Dose escalation will have an effect on the cost of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine costs related to above-label use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed using a large U.S. claims database. Patients were included in the study if they were aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of psoriasis (excluding psoriatic arthritis) and had at least 1 medication fill for etanercept, adalimumab, or ustekinumab between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. In addition, patients were required to have continuous enrollment for 12 months before, and 18 months after, the first biologic use (index biologic) during the maintenance period (defined as the period following the induction period in which each agent was titrated to its recommended maintenance dose per label) and at least 1 prescription filled for the index biologic during the 18 months after the maintenance period. Extensive above-label use was defined as taking an above-label dose (at least 10% higher than indicated in the label) for ≥ 180 days over a 12-month period following the maintenance period. Percentages of patients with extensive above-label use, mean number of days of above-label use, and additional costs associated with extensive above-label use (abovelabel cost minus on-label cost) were examined.

RESULTS

The study included 3,310 patients who started treatment with etanercept (n = 1,443), adalimumab (n = 1,447), or ustekinumab (n = 420). Extensive above-label use occurred in 20.0% of etanercept patients, 2.6% of adalimumab patients, and 14.8% of ustekinumab patients. The mean duration of extensive above-label use was roughly similar for the 3 biologics (mean days [±SD]: 282 [±55] for etanercept, 279 [±57] for adalimumab, and 305 [±43] for ustekinumab). Additional annual costs per patient because of extensive above-label use were $19,458 for etanercept, $18,972 for adalimumab, and $21,045 for ustekinumab. Total additional annual costs were $5,623,362 for etanercept, $701,964 for adalimumab, and $1,304,790 for ustekinumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Psoriasis patients treated with etanercept, adalimumab, or ustekinumab had extensive above-label use over the 12-month follow-up period, which subsequently led to higher costs.

DISCLOSURES

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation sponsored this study and the resultant publication. BioScience Communications provided medical writing and editorial support, which was also funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Feldman was engaged by Novartis Pharmaceuticals as a paid clinical expert and scientific advisor for this study. He has received research support and speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Advance Medical, Amgen, Anacor, Astellas, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caremark, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK/Stiefel, Informa, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Merz, Mylan, National Biological, National Psoriasis Foundation, Pfizer, Qurient, Suncare Research, UpToDate, and Valeant; is the founder and majority owner of www.DrScore.com ; and is founder and part owner of Causa Research. Zhao, Herrera, Tian, and Li are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Zhou is a paid consultant for Novartis Pharmaceuticals and is an employee of KMK Consulting. Study concept and design were contributed by Feldman, Zhao, Herrera, and Li. Zhou and Li were responsible for data collection. Data were interpreted by Feldman and Zhao, with assistance from Zhou, Herrera, Tian, and Li. The manuscript was written primarily by Feldman and Zhao, with assistance from Zhou and Li. The manuscript was revised by Feldman and Zhao, assisted by Zhou, Herrera, Tian, and Li. Portions of this work were presented at the 34th Anniversary Fall Clinical Dermatology Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, October 1-4, 2015.

Comparing employer-sponsored and federal exchange plans: wide variations in cost sharing for prescription drugs

Just under seven million Americans acquired private insurance through the new health insurance exchanges, or Marketplaces, in 2014. The exchange plans are required to cover essential health benefits, including prescription drugs. However, the generosity of prescription drug coverage in the plans has not been well described. Our primary objective was to examine the variability in drug coverage in the exchanges across plan types (health maintenance organization or preferred provider organization) and metal tiers (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). Our secondary objective was to compare the exchange coverage to employer-sponsored coverage. Analyzing prescription drug benefit design data for the federally facilitated exchanges, we found wide variation in enrollees' out-of-pocket costs for generic, preferred brand-name, nonpreferred brand-name, and specialty drugs, not only across metal tiers but also within those tiers across plan types. Compared to employer-sponsored plans, exchange plans generally had lower premiums but provided less generous drug coverage. However, for low-income enrollees who are eligible for cost-sharing subsidies, the exchange plans may be more comparable to employer-based coverage. Policies and programs to assist consumers in matching their prescription drug needs with a plan's benefit design may improve the financial protection for the newly insured.

Hepatotoxicity Associated with the Use of Anti-TNF-α Agents

Medications to inhibit the actions of tumour necrosis factor alpha have revolutionized the treatment of several pro-inflammatory autoimmune conditions. Despite their many benefits, several serious side effects exist and adverse reactions do occur from these medications. While many of the medications' potential adverse effects were anticipated and recognized in clinical trials prior to drug approval, several more rare adverse reactions were recorded in the literature as the popularity, availability and distribution of these medications grew. Of these potential adverse reactions, liver injury, although uncommon, has been observed in some patients. As case reports accrued over time and ultimately case series developed, the link became better established between this family of medicines and various patterns of liver injury. Interestingly, it appears that the majority of cases exhibit an autoimmune hepatitis profile both in serological markers of autoimmune liver disease and in classic autoimmune features seen on hepatic histopathology. Despite the growing evidence of this relationship, the pathogenesis of this reaction remains incompletely understood, but it appears to depend on characteristics of the medications and the genetic composition of the patients; it is likely more complicated than a simple medication class effect. Because of this still incomplete understanding and the infrequency of the occurrence, treatments have also been limited, although it is clear that most patients improve with cessation of the offending agent and, in certain cases, glucocorticoid use. However, more needs to be done in the future to unveil the underlying mechanisms of this adverse reaction.

Comparing Biologic Cost Per Treated Patient Across Indications Among Adult US Managed Care Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The relative cost of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis, is a key consideration for managed care payers.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to estimate biologic costs and treatment patterns in US managed care patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study used administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD^SM) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis who received abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, or ustekinumab between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2013. Biologic costs (based on drug utilization) and treatment patterns (discontinued, restarted after a >45-day gap, switched to another biologic, or persisted without switching or stopping) were analyzed for the first year post-index.

RESULTS

Most of the 24,460 patients received etanercept (48 %), adalimumab (29 %), or infliximab (12 %) as the index biologic. On the index date, 44 % were new to biologic therapy and 56 % were continuing biologic therapy. Biologic cost per treated patient for 1 year was as follows: etanercept $US24,859, adalimumab $US26,537, and infliximab $US26,468. Treatment patterns across indications for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were as follows: persistent (52, 49, 67 %), restarted (23, 21, 12 %), switched (12, 13, 11 %), and discontinued (14, 18, 10 %).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings from a large health benefits organization in the USA are similar to those of several previous cost analyses assessing different populations, which demonstrates the external validity of the results from the previous studies, both over time and across large populations.

Costs of Drug Therapy in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis in Brazil

Introduction

The Brazilian Public Health System offers free-of-charge drug treatment for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to all Brazilian citizens. We report here the first population-based cohort study on patients with AS in Brazil. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs of the tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) blockers and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) that were used in the treatments of patients with AS in Brazil between March 2010 and September 2013.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using administrative databases. All patients with a diagnosis of AS who were aged 18 years or older and had been dispensed anti-TNF or DMARDs were included in the analysis. The cost analysis was carried out from the health system perspective, and the results were described as median monthly cost per capita and the annual cost over the study period.

Results

A search of the databases identified 1251 patients with AS who were treated during the study period, of whom 63.3% were male; the median age was 41 years. During the study period, 78.0% of patients initiated treatment with anti-TNF drugs and 22.0% with DMARDs. The median monthly cost per capita was US$ 1650 for anti-TNF therapy and US$ 25 for treatment with DMARDs. Among the anti-TNF drugs, therapy with etanercept was associated with the lowest cost per patient, followed by adalimumab and infliximab. No difference in monthly cost was observed in relation to gender and age.

Conclusion

The cost per patient of treating AS in this study cohort was lower with etanercept than with adalimumab and infliximab. These results highlights the economic burden of treating patients with AS.

Treatment patterns and annual biologic costs in US veterans with rheumatic conditions or psoriasis

OBJECTIVE

To determine annual biologic drug and administration costs to the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who received abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, or ustekinumab.

METHODS

Adults with at least one biologic claim between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2011 were included. Evidence of enrollment in the VHA was required from 365 days before (pre-index) to 360 days after (post-index) the date of the first biologic claim (index date). Included patients had pre-index diagnoses of RA, PsO, PsA, and/or AS. Drug costs were from Federal Supply Schedule or 'Big Four' in November 2014. Administration costs were VHA fixed costs for infused ($169) and subcutaneous ($25) biologics.

RESULTS

Of the 20,465 patients in the analysis, 10,711 received etanercept, 7838 received adalimumab, and 1196 received infliximab as the index biologic. In these patients, across all uses studied, the VHA incurred greater annual cost per treated patient for infliximab ($18,066) compared with adalimumab ($16,523) and etanercept ($16,526). In the first year post-index, ∼80% of patients were either persistent on these index biologics or re-started these index biologics after a ≥45-day treatment gap. Other biologics comprised <5% of the study population, with sample sizes ranging from 3-374 patients each. Cost by indication for biologics used by >20 patients ranged from $15,056 (etanercept) to $17,050 (abatacept) for RA; $16,697 (adalimumab) to $33,163 (ustekinumab) for PsO; $15,035 (etanercept) to $20,465 (infliximab) for PsA; and $14,239 (etanercept) to $18,536 (infliximab) for AS.

LIMITATIONS

The model was limited to the VHA. Results for biologics other than adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab were difficult to interpret because of small sample sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

Infliximab has higher cost to the VHA than adalimumab or etanercept.

Fiber optic-SPR platform for fast and sensitive infliximab detection in serum of inflammatory bowel disease patients

Infliximab (IFX) is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody used for treating patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In order to improve therapeutic outcomes it is recommended to monitor IFX trough concentrations. Although ELISA is currently widely used for this purpose, this method is not suitable for single patient testing. In this paper we describe the development of a fast bioassay for determining IFX concentration in serum using an in-house developed fiber-optic surface plasmon resonance (FO-SPR) biosensor. Studies were first conducted to optimize covalent immobilization of the IFX-specific antibody on the sensor surface as well as to select an optimal blocking buffer for restraining the non-specific binding. In order to reach clinically relevant sensitivity for detecting IFX in patients' serum, the SPR signal was amplified by employing gold nanoparticles functionalized with another set of IFX specific antibodies. Using the optimized sandwich bioassay, calibration curves were made with series of IFX concentrations spiked in buffer and 100-fold diluted serum, reaching the limit of detection of 0.3 and 2.2ng/ml, respectively. The established bioassay was finally validated using five IFX treated IBD patients samples. Results from the FO-SPR platform were compared with an in-house developed, clinically validated ELISA resulting in excellent Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.998 and 0.983, respectively. Furthermore, the assay time of the FO-SPR platform was significantly reduced compared to ELISA, demonstrating the potential of this platform to be used as a point-of-care diagnostic tool for improving therapeutic outcomes of IBD patients.

Drug usage analysis and health care resources consumption in naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The use of biologic agents has revolutionized the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the past 2 decades. These biologic agents directly target molecules and cells involved in the pathogenesis of RA. The purpose of this study was to assess the usage of biologic agents in terms of persistence to treatment, dose escalation, and consumption of health care resources (hospitalizations, drugs, and outpatients service) in the real clinical practice in naïve patients with RA.

METHODS

We conducted a real-world, retrospective, observational cohort study based on data obtained from administrative databases of three Local Health Units in Italy. The population included adults diagnosed with RA who had at least one prescription between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, for a biologic that was approved for treatment of RA. The patients were followed for 12 months after enrollment. The clinical characteristics of the patients enrolled in this study were also investigated in the 1-year period before the index date. The main and secondary endpoints were evaluated only in biologic-naïve patients without switches. The overall health care costs for patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 594 patients met the study criteria (mean age 53.5±13.5, female:male ratio =3:1). Thirty-nine percent received etanercept, 25% adalimumab, 14% infliximab, 10% abatacept, 9% tocilizumab, and 3% golimumab. After 1 year of observation, patients showed similar use of other RA-related medication. For the naïve patients without switches, the persistence levels were: 78% for etanercept, 72% for tocilizumab, 71% for adalimumab, 69% for infliximab, and 64% for abatacept. For all agents, dose escalation was 21.4% for infliximab, 11.5% for adalimumab, 5.6% for abatacept, 4% for tocilizumab, and 3.8% for etanercept. The annual costs per treated patients were €12,803 for adalimumab, €11,924 for etanercept, €11,830 for tocilizumab, €11,201 for infliximab, and €10,943 for abatacept.

CONCLUSION

The role of biologic therapies in the treatment of RA continues to evolve; our study reflects real-world drug utilization data in adult patients with RA. These observations could be used by decision makers to support formulary decisions, although further research is needed using a larger sample to validate these results.

Analysis and Breakdown of Overall 1-Year Costs Relative to Inpatient and Outpatient Care Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Biotherapies Using Health Insurance Claims Database in Alsace

Background

The economic burden linked to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has greatly increased since the inclusion of biotherapies in the therapeutic arsenal.

Objectives

This study aimed first to look at the breakdown of the rheumatoid arthritis patients on biotherapy in Alsace, France, in 2012, then to evaluate the annual cost per treated patient for each management pathway: inpatient care with intravenous biotherapies and/or outpatient care through the use of subcutaneous drugs, and finally to conduct a cost comparison with a focus on infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept.

Methods

This observational study was conducted in Alsace using 2012 health claims data from the DCIR (Données de Consommation Inter Régime) and PMSI (Programme de Médicalisation des Systèmes d’Information) databases, taking into account direct medical and non-medical costs in a real-life setting and from a National Health Insurance perspective.

Results

There were 5702 RA patients, i.e. 0.31 % of the Alsace population in 2012, including 1075 subjects (18.85 %) receiving biotherapy treatment. The most frequently prescribed biotherapies were etanercept and adalimumab. The estimated overall cost of care of these 5702 patients was €30.3 million, with about 50 % for the care of the 18.85 % patients on biotherapy. Average costs for inpatient, outpatient and mixed care ranged from €14,197 to €16,873 per patient per year. Annual average cost for management of a single RA patient with infliximab was significantly higher than with adalimumab and etanercept: €16,480 versus €14,116 and €14,338, respectively.

Conclusion

These findings confirm the trends of initial modelling approaches and quantify the cost difference between various biotherapy management pathways.

The use of adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab in rheumatic pathologies: variation between label dosage and real-world use

Rheumatoid arthritis (AR), psoriatic arthritis (PSA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) are autoimmune systemic diseases characterized by inflammation, pain and joint degeneration. The objective of this study is to evaluate, under the actual conditions of use, dosing patterns of adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab in these pathologies, and compare them with the label regimens recommended, as well as evaluating the financial implications of these regimen modifications. The study population included all adult patients diagnosed with RA, PSA or AS who had been treated with adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab for at least 6 months between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2013. The main variable of this study was to assess the dose dispensed for drugs administered subcutaneously and the dose prepared/administered for drugs administered intravenously, and the annual costs of the treatment. A total of 5,428 episodes were included. The mean weekly dose was lower than the standard dose in the three pathologies studied in the patients treated with adalimumab and etanercept (84.3% vs 81.2% for RA, 85.0% vs 78.0% for PSA and 87.8% vs 81.6% for AS). The drugs with highest dose optimization in RA are etanercept (46.3%) followed by adalimumab (46%); however, the highest percentage of patients with major dose optimization corresponds to etanercept (11.6%). Both in the PA and the AS group, we also observed that etanercept is the drug more optimized, corresponding to 53.9 and 43% of patients, respectively. By contrast, 48.5% of patients with RA treated with infliximab required dose intensification; however, infliximab dose intensification in PSA and AS is not so pronounced. The practice of optimization of dose regimens in patients with rheumatic diseases under treatment with anti-TNFα is spreading among professionals, resulting in annual cost reduction in the treatment of rheumatic arthropathies. However, long term follow-up will be necessary to assess the influence of this optimization on health outcomes.

Cost per patient-year in response using a claims-based algorithm for the 2 years following biologic initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate cost per patient-year in response during 2 years following biologic initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Adults newly initiating biologics for RA (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2009 and July 2011 were identified in the MarketScan Commercial Database. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled 6 months before (pre-index) and 24 months after (post-index) their first (index) biologic claim. Biologic effectiveness was assessed using six criteria during 2-year follow-up: treatment adherence ≥80%, no biologic dose escalation, no biologic switch, no new disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no new/increased glucocorticoid dose, and limited intra-articular joint injections (≤2). After a 90-day period of non-response for a treatment failure, effectiveness or failure of subsequent treatment was assessed again for the index biologic or new biologic (after switching). Post-index RA-related medical, pharmacy, and drug administration costs were attributed to the index biologic. Cost per patient-year in response was calculated as RA-related costs divided by duration of response.

RESULTS

Overall, 15.0% of patients (1229/8193) did not fail any criterion for 2 years and were effectively treated. Mean duration of response was highest for etanercept (538.3 days), followed by golimumab (537.0 days; p = 0.864), adalimumab (534.7 days; p = 0.301), certolizumab (524.0 days; p = 0.165), infliximab (480.0 days; p < 0.001), and abatacept (482.3 days; p < 0.001). Total disease-related cost per patient-year in response was lower for patients initiated on etanercept ($25,086) than for patients initiated on adalimumab ($25,960), certolizumab ($26,339), golimumab ($26,332), abatacept ($35,581), or infliximab ($36,107).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited to employer-paid commercial insurance. Database analyses cannot determine reasons for failing criteria. The algorithm was not designed and validated for 2 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An effectiveness algorithm estimated that initiating etanercept was the most effective treatment during 2 years of follow-up, with the lowest cost per patient-year in response.

Patterns of medication utilization and costs associated with the use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Dose escalations of biologic agents may be attempted in the management of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. This has implications for the real-world cost of treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the utilization patterns and costs associated with the use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study. Patients with 2 or more medical claims with a diagnosis of psoriasis (excluding psoriatic arthritis) who were enrolled in large employer-sponsored health plans (including a pharmacy benefit) in the United States from January 2007 to March 2012 were identified and extracted from the MarketScan Commercial Encounters Database. Patients aged at least 18 years were required to have 2 or more pharmacy claims for etanercept, adalimumab, or ustekinumab; the index date was the first biologic fill date. Demographics and comorbidities were identified during the 1-year pre-index period, and medication utilization and costs were evaluated in the 1-year post-index period after a titration period according to the product prescribing information (2 weeks to 12 weeks). Medication utilization parameters such as dose escalation, dose reduction, persistence, switching, discontinuation, and restarts were assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months from the end of the dose titration window.

RESULTS

A total of 4,309 patients were included with a mean average age of 46 years, and 55% were male. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were started on etanercept, 39% on adalimumab, and 5% on ustekinumab. Patients had substantial dose escalation rates (etanercept: 41%; adalim-umab: 37%; ustekinumab: 36%, P  less than  0.05) and discontinuation rates (etanercept: 35%; adalimumab: 27%; ustekinumab: 16%, P  less than  0.05) over the 12-month post-titration period. Many patients also restarted the same biologic (etanercept: 37%; adalimumab: 10%; ustekinumab: 6%, P  less than  0.05) or switched to another biologic (etanercept: 15%; adalimumab: 10%; ustekinumab: 5%, P  less than  0.05) over the 12-month post-titration period. The persistence rates over 12 months were 19%, 53%, and 71% for etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab, respectively (P  less than  0.05). Close to one-third of the patients at 6 months and 39% at 12 months postdose titration experienced a dose escalation. Approximately half of the patients who experienced a dose escalation also had a discontinuation or a dose reduction over the 12-month post-titration period.

CONCLUSIONS

Over one-third of psoriasis patients experienced a dose escalation of their biologic agents, and most of the dose escalation occurred during the first 6 months. Restarting, switching, and discontinuing index biologics were also common.

Funding a smoking cessation program for Crohn's disease: an economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who smoke are at a higher risk of flaring and requiring surgery. Cost-effectiveness studies of funding smoking cessation programs are lacking. Thus, we performed a cost-utility analysis of funding smoking cessation programs for CD.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed comparing five smoking cessation strategies: No Program, Counseling, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), NRT+Counseling, and Varenicline. The time horizon for the Markov model was 5 years. The health states included medical remission (azathioprine or antitumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF), dose escalation of an anti-TNF, second anti-TNF, surgery, and death. Probabilities were taken from peer-reviewed literature, and costs (CAN$) for surgery, medications, and smoking cessation programs were estimated locally. The primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained associated with each smoking cessation strategy. Threshold, three-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), and budget impact analysis (BIA) were carried out.

RESULTS

All strategies dominated No Program. Strategies from most to least cost effective were as follows: Varenicline (cost: $55,614, QALY: 3.70), NRT+Counseling (cost: $58,878, QALY: 3.69), NRT (cost: $59,540, QALY: 3.69), Counseling (cost: $61,029, QALY: 3.68), and No Program (cost: $63,601, QALY: 3.67). Three-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that No Program was only more cost effective when every strategy's cost exceeded approximately 10 times their estimated costs. The PSA showed that No Program was the most cost-effective <1% of the time. The BIA showed that any strategy saved the health-care system money over No Program.

CONCLUSIONS

Health-care systems should consider funding smoking cessation programs for CD, as they improve health outcomes and reduce costs.

Comparison of Healthcare Costs Between Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Infused Biologics After Switching from Another Biologic

Introduction

While there is a substantial body of literature on the comparative healthcare costs of biologics used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), nearly all of these investigations have been exclusively focused on anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF) agents in the setting of first-line biologic treatment. This study compared healthcare costs between RA patients treated with infused biologics after previously using at least one other biologic agent.

Methods

Using a large US administrative claims dataset, adult RA patients initiating an infused biologic (abatacept, infliximab, tocilizumab) between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 (initiation = index) were identified. Rituximab was excluded because of unique dosing intervals, which make it difficult to determine treatment discontinuation using a claims database. Patients were required to have used one or more other biologic (infused or injected) at any time before index. Patients could contribute multiple observations to the dataset; one for each infused biologic they initiated between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012. A 6-month period before index was used to measure patient characteristics. A variable-length follow-up period after index was used to measure per-patient per-month (PPPM) healthcare costs, including biologic costs, RA-related healthcare costs, and all-cause healthcare costs. Generalized estimating equations models compared healthcare costs between the biologic agents, adjusting for patients’ demographics and clinical characteristics.

Results

The sample comprised 3,771 infused biologic initiations (abatacept = 1,759; infliximab = 922; tocilizumab = 1,090); the mean age of participants was 55 years, 82 % were female, and the median follow-up ranged from 251 to 280 days. Compared with other patients, patients treated with tocilizumab had significantly lower (all P < 0.05) PPPM biologic costs (abatacept = $2,597, infliximab = $3,141, tocilizumab = $1,894), RA-related healthcare costs (abatacept = $2,929, infliximab = $3,598, tocilizumab = $2,236), and all-cause healthcare costs (abatacept = $3,735, infliximab = $4,600, tocilizumab = $3,042).

Conclusions

Among RA patients treated with infused biologics after previously using at least one other biologic, patients treated with tocilizumab had the lowest real-world healthcare costs, largely driven by lower costs directly related to biologic treatment. Such biologic-related cost differences may be driven by variations in real-world treatment patterns (e.g., dose, escalation, treatment frequency).

Cost of tumor necrosis factor blockers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis in a multistate Medicaid population

Background

The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual cost per treated patient for the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients covered by Medicaid.

Methods

The MarketScan Medicaid Multistate Database was used to identify adult RA patients who used etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab (index agents) from 2007 to 2011. The index date was the first claim preceded by 180 days and followed by 360 days of continuous enrollment. Patients with other conditions for which these agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration were excluded. “Continuing” patients had one or more pre-index claim for their index biologic, and “new” patients did not. Cost per treated patient was calculated in the 360 day post-index period for each index agent as the total index drug and administration cost to the payer and the costs of switched-to agents divided by the number of patients who received the index agent.

Results

A total of 1,085 patients met the study criteria. Forty-eight percent received etanercept (n=521); 37% received adalimumab (n=405); and 15% received infliximab (n=159). Patient characteristics were similar across groups (mean age 47.4 years, 83% female). The annual cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept ($18,466), followed by adalimumab ($20,983) and infliximab ($26,516). For all agents, annual costs were lower for new patients ($17,996 for etanercept, $18,992 for adalimumab, and $24,756 for infliximab) than for continuing patients ($19,004 for etanercept, $24,438 for adalimumab, and $28,127 for infliximab).

Conclusion

Etanercept had lower costs per treated patient than adalimumab or infliximab in both new and continuing Medicaid enrollees with RA.

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch.

RESULTS

Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching.

CONCLUSIONS

When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.

Cost of biologics per treated patient across immune-mediated inflammatory disease indications in a pharmacy benefit management setting: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Pharmacy benefits management companies have emerged as the national standard for the management of prescription drugs in the United States. The objective of this study was to estimate the annual costs per treated patient of 8 biologics indicated for select immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and/or active ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

Using the Medco pharmacy benefits-management database, data from patients aged 18 to 63 years with ≥1 claim for abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab, dated between January 1, 2008 and August 31, 2011, were collected. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled for ≥180 days before and 360 days after the date of the first biologic claim (index date), and had ≥1 claim associated with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, active psoriatic arthritis, and/or active ankylosing spondylitis in the 180 days before or 30 days after the index date. The annual total costs per treated patient were calculated as the total dose of the index biologic and all other biologics for which there was a claim in the postindex period, multiplied by the wholesale acquisition cost as of October 1, 2013, plus the costs associated with administrations (calculated as number of infusions multiplied by the 2013 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule costs).

FINDINGS

Within the study population (N = 8306; 5356 (64.5%) women, 2950 men (35.5%), average age: 42.3 years (SD: 10.0)), the most commonly used biologics were etanercept (43.1%), adalimumab (31.0%), and infliximab (17.0%), which accounted for 91.1% of all biologic prescriptions. Total costs per treated patient across indications were as follows: adalimumab, $23,427 to $26,304; infliximab, $22,824 to $28,907; and etanercept, $21,468 to $27,748, whereas abatacept, certolizumab, golimumab, rituximab, and ustekinumab were associated with a larger range: $17,017 to $41,888.

IMPLICATIONS

The present study provides insight into the prescribing patterns and cost differences among 8 biologic agents used for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. This information may prove useful when designing a pharmacy benefits-management formulary.

Medication adherence and persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with adalimumab and etanercept. Six years of analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate medication adherence and persistence of patients treated with Etanercept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis, also giving economic evaluations on therapy costs for Received Daily Dose (RDD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study took into account 6 years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was quantified utilizing the ratio between RDD and Prescribed Daily Dose (PDD). Persistence has been reckoned taking into account the actual days of therapy comparing posology with supplied dose. The persistence has been graphed according to Kaplan-Meier method. The cost per RDD was reckoned starting from the expense incurred by Pescara General Hospital.

RESULTS

Medication adherence gave results in values between 0.88-0.97 for Etanercept and 0.83-0.90 for Adalimumab. The value of persistence was 100% for Etanercept and 90% for Adalimumab for the first year, and 70% for Etanercept and 80% for Adalimumab for the second year. In the 3rd year the persistence for Etanercept was 50% while for Adalimumab it was 60%. In the fourth year the persistence for Etanercept was 21% while for Adalimumab it was 27%. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Log rank test. The average cost per RDD was €32.97 for Etanercept and for Adalimumab it was €32.00 as an average of 6 years.

CONCLUSION

The medication adherence was good for both Etanercept and Adalimumab. The rate of persistence decreased strictly in the fourth year of treatment. This data suggests the need for continuous monitoring of patients in treatment with TNF blockers.

Treatment of psoriasis: focus on clinic-based management with infliximab

Psoriasis is a disabling chronic inflammatory condition of the skin and joints that typically requires long-term treatment. Recommended treatments for psoriasis include a wide range of topical and systemic options, from topical agents and targeted phototherapy for mild psoriasis to traditional systemic agents such as methotrexate, cyclosporine and acitretin for more serious disease. The introduction of targeted biological agents such as T-cell-modulating agents, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα) antagonists and interleukin (IL)-12 and IL-23 inhibitors has provided new choices for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that may offer better long-term efficacy and tolerability than traditional approaches. Most biological agents are administered by subcutaneous injection. Infliximab, a TNFα antagonist, is the only biological agent approved for psoriasis that is administered by intravenous infusion, in the setting of hospital-based or specialized infusion center-based clinics. Infliximab allows weight-based dosing and may offer more rapid disease control than other biological agents, with significant improvements seen as early as 1 week after treatment initiation. This article gives an overview of psoriasis management, focusing on clinic-based infusion therapy with infliximab.

Cost-of-illness and quality of life in patients with ankylosing spondylitis at a tertiary hospital in Korea

The objectives of this study were to estimate the cost-of-illness (COI) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in Korea and to evaluate the effects of socio-demographic and clinical factors on the COI and the HRQOL. Face-to-face interview surveys were taken from patients with AS at the Rheumatology Clinic of Seoul National University Hospital. Direct medical and non-medical costs, indirect costs (productivity loss due to job loss and sick leave), and deterioration of HRQOL in patients with AS were measured. Factors associated with COI and HRQOL were analyzed with multiple regression and multivariate logistic regression. A total of 191 patients with AS was enrolled in the study. The COI in patients with AS amounted to 11,646,180 Korean Won (KRW) per patient, and their HRQOL was 0.62. As functional severity worsened, the total costs increased (class I, KRW 7.7 million; class II, KRW 12.9 million; classes III & IV, KRW 25.2 million) and the HRQOL scores decreased (class I, 0.72; class II, 0.61; classes III & IV, 0.24). Functional severity is the major determinant of the COI and HRQOL in patients with AS.

Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

RESULTS

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n = 32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n = 20,582; 30%), infliximab (n = 11,157; 16%), abatacept (n = 2633; 4%), rituximab (n = 1359; 2%), golimumab (n = 687; <1%), ustekinumab (n = 388; <1%), and certolizumab (n = 245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

LIMITATIONS

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.

Emerging drugs for axial spondyloarthritis including ankylosing spondylitis

INTRODUCTION

Only non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and TNF inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). However, not all patients successfully respond to these drugs and a subset may have contraindications to their use.

AREAS COVERED

In the last decade, an earlier diagnosis of AS has been achieved due to the increasing availability of MRI. This has led to prompt treatment initiation with improved outcomes. NSAIDs and TNFi are the current treatments for AS which lead to sustained clinical responses in the long term. Recent studies have shown other potential biomarkers in AS, such as the IL-17/IL-23 axis. This has translated into the development of new drugs which interfere with these pathways, such as apremilast and secukinumab, which have shown efficacy in early clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

AS carries considerable short- and long-term disabilities. Anti-TNF-α therapies reduce pain, improve function and decrease inflammation as seen by MRI. New treatment options are being developed which may prove efficacious on those patients not responding to anti-TNF. The ultimate research goal should focus on treatments to prevent and stop new bone formation.

Pharmacogenomics in clinical practice and drug development

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of responses to drugs, including clopidogrel, pegylated-interferon and carbamazepine, have led to the identification of specific patient subgroups that benefit from therapy. However, the identification and replication of common sequence variants that are associated with either efficacy or safety for most prescription medications at odds ratios (ORs) >3.0 (equivalent to >300% increased efficacy or safety) has yet to be translated to clinical practice. Although some of the studies have been completed, the results have not been incorporated into therapy, and a large number of commonly used medications have not been subject to proper pharmacogenomic analysis. Adoption of GWAS, exome or whole genome sequencing by drug development and treatment programs is the most striking near-term opportunity for improving the drug candidate pipeline and boosting the efficacy of medications already in use.