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

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

A Real-World Claims Database Study Assessing Long-Term Persistence with Golimumab Treatment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in Japan

INTRODUCTION

The persistence of golimumab (GLM) treatment in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been evaluated previously, but evidence of long-term real-world use is lacking. This study assessed the long-term persistence of GLM use, its influencing factors, and impact of prior medications in patients with RA in actual clinical practice in Japan.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with RA using data from a hospital insurance claims database in Japan. The identified patients were stratified as only GLM treatment (naïve), had one biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD)/Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor treatment prior to GLM [switch (1)] and had at least two bDMARDs/JAK prior to GLM treatment [switch (≥ 2)]. Patient characteristics were evaluated using descriptive statistics. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression methods were used to analyze GLM persistence at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years and the associated factors. Treatment differences were compared using a log-rank test.

RESULTS

GLM persistence rate in the naïve group was 58.8%, 32.1%, 21.4%, and 11.4% at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years, respectively. Overall persistence rates in the naïve group were higher than in switch groups. Higher GLM persistence was observed among patients aged 61-75 years and those concomitantly using methotrexate (MTX). Also, women were less likely to discontinue treatment compared to men. Higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, initial GLM dose of 100 mg, and switch from bDMARDs/JAK inhibitor were related to a lower persistence rate. As a prior medication, infliximab showed the longest persistence for subsequent GLM, and using this as a reference, tocilizumab, sarilumab, and tofacitinib subgroups had significantly shorter persistence, respectively (p = 0.001, 0.025, 0.041).

CONCLUSION

This study presents the long-term real-world results for persistence of GLM and its potential determinants. These most recent and long-term observations demonstrated that GLM and other bDMARDs continue to benefit patients with RA in Japan.

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.

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.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy

BACKGROUND

Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab).

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes.

METHODS

We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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.