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

The impact of COVID-19 and other factors on the usage status of the biologic drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: A study from Vietnam

OBJECTIVES

To describe the status of using biological Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and related factors. In addition, the study determined the impact of COVID-19 on the usage of bDMARDs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study and included 219 RA patients over 18 years old. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test (p<0.05) were used to estimate the retention time and compare between different times. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the factors affecting the retention time of biological drugs (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Out of 1967 courses of treatment, there were 149 (7.6%) drug discontinuations, 760 (38.6%) doses extensions and 64 (3.3%) drug switch. Moderate disease level and choosing tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors initially were associated with retention time of COVID-19. Drug discontinuations and dose extensions increased after COVID-19 emergence. The retention time during COVID-19 was significantly different from that of pre-COVID-19. Gender, type of first-used bDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and corticoid usage status, disease activity levels were associated with retention time.

CONCLUSION

The presence of COVID-19 has a significant effect on usage status of the biologic drug. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 and drug usage as well as related factors.

Patterns in the Sequential Treatment of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Starting a Biologic or Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug: 10-Year Experience From a US-Based Registry

OBJECTIVE

Developing and evaluating new treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on observational data requires a quantitative understanding of patterns in current treatment practice with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

METHODS

We used data from the CorEvitas RA registry to study patients starting their first b/tsDMARD therapy, defined as the first line of therapy, between 2012 and the end of 2021. We identified treatment patterns as unique sequences of therapy changes following and including the first-line therapy. Therapy cycling was defined as switching back to a treatment from a previously used therapeutic class.

RESULTS

A total of 6015 b/tsDMARD-naïve patients (77% female) were included in the analysis. Their median age was 58 years, and their median disease duration was 3 years. In 2012-2014, 80% of the patients started a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as their first b/tsDMARD. However, the use of TNFi decreased in favor of Janus kinase inhibitors since 2015. Although the number of treatment patterns was large, therapy cycling was relatively common. For example, 601 patterns were observed among 1133 patients who changed therapy at least four times, of whom 85.3% experienced therapy cycling. Furthermore, the duration of each of the first three lines of therapy decreased over the past decade. For example, the median duration of the first-line therapy was 153 days in 2018-2021 compared to 208 days in 2015-2017 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

First-line therapy was almost always TNFi, but diversity in treatment choice was high after that. This practice variation allows for proposing and evaluating new guidelines for sequential treatment of RA. It also presents statistical challenges to compare patients with different treatment sequences.

Management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases after treatment failure with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: A narrative review

The emergence of biologics with different modes of action (MoAs) and therapeutic targets has changed treatment patterns in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. While tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are often utilized as the first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, some patients may not respond adequately (primary failure), fail to sustain response over time (secondary failure), or experience intolerable adverse events. Whether these patients would benefit more from cycling to a different TNFi or switching to a biologic with a different MoA is still unclear. We discuss here treatment outcomes of TNFi cycling versus MoA switching after treatment failure with a first TNFi in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, focusing specifically on rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Treatment guidelines for these patients are ambiguous and, at times, contradictory in their recommendations. However, this is due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head data to definitively support cycling between TNFis after failure to a first-line TNFi over switching to a different MoA.

Patterns in the sequential treatment of rheumatoid arthritis patients starting a b/tsDMARD: 10-year experience from a US-based registry

Objectives

Developing and evaluating new treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) based on observational data requires a quantitative understanding of patterns in current treatment practice with biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).

Methods

We used data from the CorEvitas RA registry to study patients starting their first b/tsDMARD therapy-defined as the first line of therapy-between 2012 and the end of 2021. We identified treatment patterns as unique sequences of therapy changes following and including the first-line therapy. Therapy cycling was defined as switching back to a treatment from a previously used therapeutic class.

Results

6,015 b/tsDMARD-naive patients (77% female) were included in the analysis. Their median age was 58 years, and their median disease duration was 3 years. In 2012-2014, 80% of the patients started a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as their first b/tsDMARD. However, the use of TNFi decreased in favour of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) since 2015. While the number of treatment patterns was large, therapy cycling was relatively common. For example, 601 patterns were observed among 1133 patients who changed therapy at least four times, of whom 85.3% experienced therapy cycling. Furthermore, the duration of each of the first three lines of therapy decreased over the past decade.

Conclusion

First-line therapy was almost always TNFi, but diversity in treatment choice was high after that. This practice variation allows for proposing and evaluating new guidelines for sequential treatment of RA. It also presents statistical challenges to compare subjects with different treatment sequences.

Comparison of the efficacy and risk of discontinuation between non-TNF-targeted treatment and a second TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after first TNF inhibitor failure

Objectives:

Despite improved care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many still experience treatment failure with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs [tsDMARDs; typically Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi)], and eventually switch to other agents. We compared the efficacy of a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNF-targeted treatment as the second-line treatment in patients showing an insufficient response to the first TNFi.

Methods:

Patients were included if they had received at least one prescription for a TNFi, and at least one follow-up prescription for a second TNFi or non-TNF-targeted treatment after discontinuation of the first drug. In total, 209 patients were analyzed, including 69 with a second TNFi and 140 with a non-TNF-targeted treatment (106 non-TNFi biologics and 34 JAKi). Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation.

Results:

The mean follow-up period after switching was 28.0 (range: 0–80) months and 24.4% of the 209 patients switched or discontinued the second drug. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the non-TNF-targeted treatment group had a lower likelihood of discontinuing their treatment than the second TNFi group [HR = 0.326, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.170–0.626, p = 0.001]. When analyzed separately, the risk of discontinuation was significantly lower in both the non-TNFi biologic (HR = 0.318, 95% CI: 0.160–0.633, p = 0.001) and JAKi (HR = 0.356, 95% CI: 0.129–0.980, p = 0.046) groups than in the second TNFi group.

Conclusion:

Our study supported switching to a non-TNF-targeted treatment instead of TNF cycling in patients with RA showing an inadequate response to initial TNFi.

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

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

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

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

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

Prescribing Trends of Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-rheumatic Drugs Using a Claims Database from 6 Million People in Japan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are used either when conventional synthetic DMARDs are ineffective or when disease activity is high and with poor prognostic factors, based on various clinical guidelines. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prescribing trends of bDMARDs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Japan, and to clarify whether the pharmacological therapy of bDMARDs is administered based on guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive epidemiological study from 2012 to 2018 using the JMDC Claims Database, a nationwide claims database, and described the annual changes based on the number of patients prescribed bDMARDs. Anti-rheumatic drugs were identified based on the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes, including methotrexate, glucocorticoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and bDMARDs.

RESULTS

From the database including 6,862,244 people, the data of 6407 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were extracted. The present study demonstrated that the proportion of patients prescribed bDMARDs was 1.0 per 1000 people, with those aged ≥ 65 years being the most common age group. The proportion of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were prescribed bDMARDs increased significantly over time (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the concomitant proportions of methotrexate (p < 0.0001), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (p < 0.0001) and glucocorticoids (p = 0.0001) prescribed with bDMARDs decreased significantly over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in bDMARD monotherapy may be attributed to the new bDMARDs that have been launched sequentially; furthermore, physicians have come to recognise monotherapy as the mainstay of treatment. Future studies must accumulate evidence on the long-term efficacy and safety of bDMARDs.

Treatment patterns in rheumatoid arthritis patients newly initiated on biologic and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy and enrolled in a North American clinical registry

Background

Understanding the evolving treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is important for rheumatologists to make the best practice decisions and optimize treatment. Here, we describe treatment patterns among patients newly initiated on biologic and/or nonbiologic RA therapy over time after enrollment in the US Corrona RA registry.

Methods

This was a retrospective, cohort study of adult patients with RA enrolled in the Corrona RA registry. Patients were included in this study if they initiated therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD) monotherapy, TNF inhibitor (TNFi) monotherapy, other (non-TNFi) biologic monotherapy, or combination therapy (index therapy); initiated therapy between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2015 (index date), after enrollment in the Corrona RA registry; had at least 6 months of follow-up time after the index date; and had at least one follow-up visit. Time periods of interest were based on the year of index therapy initiation: 2004–2007, 2008–2011, and 2012–2015.

Results

This study included 8027 patients. csDMARD monotherapy and TNFi + csDMARD combination therapy were the most common index therapies in the registry (39.9% and 44.9%, respectively, in the 2004–2007 period; 38.6% and 38.2%, respectively, in the 2008–2011 period; and 35.2% for both in the 2012–2015 period). At therapy initiation, a higher proportion of patients who initiated other biologics, whether as monotherapies (54.0%) or in combination with csDMARD (49.9%), had high disease activity than those who initiated csDMARD monotherapy (28.4%). For 2012–2015 vs 2004–2007 and 2008–2011 periods, persistence on a given therapy appeared to decrease for the TNFi monotherapy cohort (48.2% vs 64.3% and 52.4%) and other biologic monotherapy cohort (52.3% vs 71.4% and 54.5%) over 12 months; switching from one therapy to another was common in the Corrona RA registry.

Conclusions

Increased switching from one therapy to another and decreased time on a given therapy was observed in the Corrona RA registry in the 2012–2015 period. This observation is most likely due to the increased availability of additional treatment options and/or the change in clinical focus, particularly the emphasis on achievement of treat-to-target goals of remission or low disease activity along with more aggressive treatment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-021-02599-4.

Biologic and Targeted Synthetic DMARD Utilization in the United States: Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

In patients with inadequate response or intolerance to first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to an agent of different mechanism of action or to another bDMARD. However, the reasons behind switching between bDMARD/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD are not well documented in many studies. The objective of this study was to assess the rheumatologists’ perceptions and behaviors towards choice of initial b/tsDMARD treatment and reasons for switching between bDMARDs/tsDMARDs, in the context of present treatment patterns.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from the 12th Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qualified rheumatologists involved in treatment decision-making for ≥ 10 patients a month completed patient record forms (PRFs). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with RA diagnosis and receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD were included. The outcomes assessed were proportion of patients receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at molecule and class levels; rheumatologist-reported reasons for choice of therapy; proportion of patients who switched bDMARDs/tsDMARDs; and rheumatologist-reported reasons for switching therapies.

Results

Eighty-six rheumatologists completed PRFs for 1027 patients. Of these, 621 were receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at data collection. The majority (73%) of patients received first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, and at first-line, 68% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and 21% received a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). The response option of strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting first-line and second-line bDMARD/tsDMARD. A total of 163 patients had switched from first-line b/tsDMARD to second-line b/tsDMARD therapy. Of these, 44, 28, and 17% had switched from TNFi to another TNFi, TNFi to non-TNF biologic, and TNFi to JAKi, respectively. Lack of efficacy and worsening disease were the most frequent reasons for switching therapies.

Conclusions

TNFis remain the most prescribed b/tsDMARD for first-line and second-line treatments. Strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting therapy and loss of efficacy was the primary reason for switching therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00357-1.

Elicitation of Rheumatologist Preferences for the Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After the Failure of a First Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Agent

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical guidelines do not provide strong recommendations for the choice of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX), and only limited evidence is available on factors influencing rheumatologist treatment decisions. We aimed to describe therapeutic preferences after the failure of a first-line strategy of MTX in simulated cases of patients with RA.

Methods

Fictional but realistic case-vignettes (n = 64) of patients with RA and an inadequate response to MTX were developed with a combination of RA-poor prognostic factors and comorbidities. Physicians were presented with eight vignettes and chose the most and least appropriate therapeutic option from the following six options randomly proposed 3 by 3: (1) replacing MTX with another csDMARD; (2) combining MTX with one or more csDMARDs; (3) adding a bDMARD of either TNF inhibitors (TNFi), tocilizumab (TCZ), abatacept (ABA), or rituximab (RTZ). A total of 1605 complete case vignettes were produced and randomly assigned to a representative sample of French rheumatologists. For each vignette, whenever a treatment was preferred, one point was incremented for this treatment; if this treatment was the least desired, one point was removed. Preferences were elicited using a normalized best–worst score.

Results

Two hundred and four French rheumatologists participated in the study with each vignette being assessed 20–28 times for a completion rate of 94%. TNFi was the first-choice strategy (80% of vignettes), except in cases with a history of infection and pulmonary comorbidity, where ABA was the first preference (85%). TCZ came third in 83% of the cases. Other options were never preferred and repeatedly yielded negative scores.

Conclusions

We observed a conservative trend with TNFi as the main therapeutic choice for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX. Preference for bDMARD-based strategies increased with the number of RA-poor prognosis factors, whereas an increase in the number of comorbidities resulted in an increased preference for ABA. Understanding clinical decision-making will be particularly important as the therapeutic landscape for RA continues to evolve.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00311-1.