Real-World Persistence, Maintenance Dosing, and Pre-Post Corticosteroid and Opioid Use Among Crohn's Disease Patients with Prescription Claims for Ustekinumab in the USA

Meta-analysis: Persistence of advanced therapies in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND

The expanding options in advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) present challenges in treatment selection. Persistence analysis assesses drug durability in real-world settings, acting as a surrogate marker for medication efficacy and tolerance. Unlike traditional comparative studies, persistence analysis provides insights extending beyond the initial year of treatment.

AIM

To provide real-world evidence on treatment effectiveness, tolerability and preferences of physicians and patients regarding various advanced therapies for IBD.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of observational studies up to March 2023 assessing advanced therapies' persistence in UC and CD. Advanced therapies under examination included infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, golimumab, certolizumab and tofacitinib. We pooled the persistence of each agent and conducted a meta-analysis to compare the persistence of newer agents with traditional TNF inhibitors (TNFi)-specifically infliximab and adalimumab.

RESULTS

Among 63 observational studies, vedolizumab had the highest 1-year persistence in UC (73.8%, 95% CI: 70.0%-77.6%) and ustekinumab in CD (77.5%, 95% CI: 72.9%-82.1%). Compared to TNFi, vedolizumab demonstrated increased persistence with a relative risk (RR) of 1.30 (95% CI: 1.19-1.41) for UC and 1.14 (95% CI: 1.09-1.20) for CD at 1 year, while ustekinumab demonstrated a RR of 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23) for CD at 1 year. Vedolizumab exhibited sustained increased persistence in UC over 2 years compared to TNFi (RR: 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.54).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis highlights the superior persistence of ustekinumab and vedolizumab over TNFi, and offers valuable insights for clinicians navigating the challenging landscape of UC and CD therapeutic choices.

Healthcare resource utilization following ustekinumab initiation among bio-naïve Canadian patients with moderately-to-severely active Crohn's disease

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving ustekinumab was assessed.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective chart review study of bio-naïve Canadian adult patients with moderately-to-severely active CD treated with ustekinumab was conducted. CD-related HCRU (i.e., surgery, hospitalization, or emergency room [ER] visits) was evaluated at Months 4, 6, and 12 post-ustekinumab initiation, and associated costs were sourced from a provincial database. Proportion of patients with HCRU events and ustekinumab persistence were summarized at each timepoint. Paired analysis compared HCRU events and associated costs incurred by the same patient whilst in remission vs. when not in remission.

RESULTS

By Month 12, 11.1 % (17/153) of patients had record(s) of any CD-related HCRU event, with ER visits being the most common (7.7 %; 12/155). Hospitalization had the highest average cost (CAD $436.10; SD $2,089.25) across all patients, accounting for 82.2 % of the mean total annual cost/patient (CAD $530.47; SD $2,229.92). While in remission, ≤5 % of patients experienced some healthcare encounter, compared with 7 % when not in remission (P = 0.289). Finally, 93.5 % of patients persisted on ustekinumab at Month 12.

CONCLUSIONS

HCRU rates and associated total annual costs were lower for bio-naïve CD patients receiving ustekinumab, and when patients were in remission. Most patients continued with ustekinumab at Month 12.

Evaluation of Treatment Patterns and Maintenance Dose Titration Among Patients With Crohn's Disease Initiating Biologics With 3 Years of Follow-Up

Background: There is limited real-world evidence on treatment patterns of patients with Crohn's disease (CD) initiating biologics with an extensive follow-up period. This study describes persistence and dose titration among CD patients with 3 years of follow-up. Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted using the STATinMED RWD Insights all-payer medical and pharmacy data. Adult patients with at least 1 CD medical claim and at least 1 medical/pharmacy claim for a biologic (adalimumab [ADA], certolizumab pegol (CZP), infliximab [IFX] and its biosimilar products [IFX-BS], ustekinumab [UST], and vedolizumab [VDZ]) between September 2016 and October 2018 were identified. Commercially insured patients with continuous capture for at least 12 months before and at least 36 months after biologics initiation were selected. Confirmed CD patients were included in the final cohort. Baseline patient characteristics and treatment patterns over the 3-year follow-up period were evaluated. Results were summarized using means and SD or counts and percentages. Results: A total of 2309 confirmed patients with CD were identified (847 [36.7%] IFX, 534 [23.1%] ADA, 486 [21.1%] VDZ, 394 [17.1%] UST, 85 [3.7%] CZP, and 72 [3.1%] IFX-BS). CZP and IFX-BS were excluded due to small sample sizes. Approximately half of CD patients were between ages 35 and 54. Patients on UST had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score. Common comorbidities (>10%) included anemia, anxiety, depression, and hypertension. Persistence over 3 years' follow-up was highest for UST (61.4%) patients, followed by VDZ (58.0% ), ADA (52.1% , and IFX (48.1%). The discontinuation rate without switch or restart was highest for ADA (37.3%), followed by UST (30.7%), IFX (28.1%), and VDZ (25.3%). Over the 3 years of follow-up, the dose titration rate was highest for IFX (76.5%) and lowest for UST (50.8%). In particular, UST had the lowest dose escalation rate (35.5%) and highest dose-reduction rate (16.5%). Conclusions: Patients with CD on UST had the highest persistence and lowest dose escalation across different biologic users over the 3-year follow-up period, possibly suggesting a better clinical response of UST. Future studies with longer follow-up adjusting for confounders are needed to better understand treatment patterns among biologics users.

Decline in Prenatal Buprenorphine/Naloxone Fills during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Pregnancy provides a critical opportunity to engage individuals with opioid use disorder in care. However, before the COVID-19 pandemic, there were multiple barriers to accessing buprenorphine/naloxone during pregnancy. Care disruptions during the pandemic may have further exacerbated these existing barriers. To quantify these changes, we examined trends in the number of individuals filling buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We estimated an interrupted time series model using linked national pharmacy claims and medical claims data from prepandemic (May 2019 to February 2020) to the pandemic period (April 2020 to December 2020). We estimated changes in the growth rate in the monthly number of individuals filling buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions in the 6 months preceding a delivery claim, per 100,000 pregnancies, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

We identified 2947 pregnant individuals filling buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions. Before the pandemic, there was positive growth in the monthly number of individuals filling buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions (4.83%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.82-5.84%). During the pandemic, this monthly growth rate declined for both individuals on commercial insurance and individuals on Medicaid (all payers: -5.53% [95% CI, -6.65% to -4.41%]; Medicaid: -7.66% [95% CI, -10.14% to -5.18%]; Commercial: -3.59% [95% CI, -5.32% to -1.87%]).

CONCLUSION

The number of pregnant individuals filling buprenorphine/naloxone prescriptions was increasing, but this growth has been lost during the pandemic.

Long-term persistence and other treatment patterns among bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease treated with ustekinumab or adalimumab

OBJECTIVE

To estimate long-term persistence among bio-naïve patients with CD initiated on ustekinumab or adalimumab.

METHODS

Adults with CD initiating ustekinumab or adalimumab (index date, between September 23, 2016 and August 1, 2019) were sampled from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Database. Patients without CD-indicated biologics (bio-naïve) and with no diagnoses for other autoimmune diseases 12 months pre-index date (baseline) were included. Cohorts were balanced on baseline characteristics with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Persistence was defined as the absence of therapy exposure gaps >120 days (ustekinumab) or >60 (adalimumab) between days of supply. Composite endpoints were persistence and being corticosteroid-free (no corticosteroids >14 days of supply after day 90 post-index) and persistence while on monotherapy (no immunomodulators/non-index biologics). Persistence was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox's models.

RESULTS

Ustekinumab and adalimumab cohorts included 671 and 2,975 patients. At 12 months post-index, ustekinumab patients were significantly more persistent (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.33-1.93), persistent while on monotherapy (HR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.24-1.65), and trended toward being more persistent and corticosteroid-free (HR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.99-1.30) vs adalimumab. At 24 months post-index, ustekinumab patients were significantly more persistent (HR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.40-1.97), persistent while on monotherapy (HR = 1.44; 95% CI = 1.26-1.64), and persistent and corticosteroid-free (HR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01-1.31) vs adalimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Bio-naïve patients with CD initiated on ustekinumab demonstrated significantly more persistence than patients initiated on adalimumab at 12 and 24 months of treatment. Long-term persistence is a measure of a drug's real-world performance and findings may aid clinical decision-making.

Persistence and other treatment patterns among bio-experienced patients with Crohn's disease initiated on ustekinumab or adalimumab

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on persistence on ustekinumab and adalimumab among bio-experienced patients with Crohn's disease (CD) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment persistence and describe switching, restart, and dose titration among bio-experienced patients with CD initiated on ustekinumab or adalimumab. METHODS: IBM MarketScan Commercial Database was used to identify bio-experienced adults with CD who were assigned to either the ustekinumab or adalimumab cohort based on the agent first initiated (index date) after September 23, 2016. Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weights-average treatment effect on treated. Persistence on index agent (absence of exposure gap > 120 days for ustekinumab or > 60 days for adalimumab), persistence while corticosteroid-free, and persistence while receiving monotherapy were assessed at 12 months after index date and compared between cohorts using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards model analyses. RESULTS: Among 903 patients in the ustekinumab cohort and 525 patients in the adalimumab cohort, baseline characteristics were balanced after weighting. At 12 months post-index, ustekinumab was associated with higher persistence (80.1% vs 64.6%; hazard ratio = 2.02 [95% CI = 1.60-2.56]; P < 0.001) and persistence while receiving monotherapy (51.6% vs 40.0%; 1.51 [1.28-1.78]; P < 0.001) vs adalimumab. Persistence while corticosteroid-free was similar in the ustekinumab vs adalimumab cohort (50.1% vs 48.2%; 1.19 [1.00-1.41]; P = 0.0516). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective real-world study demonstrated that among bio-experienced patients with CD, initiation of ustekinumab was associated with better persistence at 12 months of follow-up, including persistence while receiving monotherapy, compared with adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Drs Zhao, Ding, and Kachroo are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson. Dr Manceur, Mr Lefebvre, Ms Zhdanava, and Mr Pilon are employees of Analysis Group, Inc., a consulting company that has provided paid consulting services to Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, which funded the development and conduct of this study and article. Mr Holiday was an employee of Analysis Group, Inc., at the time of study conduct.

Persistence Among Patients with Crohn Disease Previously Treated with an Anti-tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor and Switching or Cycling to Another Biologic Agent

PURPOSE

Nonresponse to an anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) agent in patients with Crohn disease (CD) is often managed by either a switch to a different class of biologic (ie, ustekinumab, vedolizumab) or by cycling to another anti-TNF agent (ie, adalimumab, infliximab, certolizumab pegol). Persistence after a switch to a different biologic class or after cycling within the anti-TNF class was assessed in patients with nonresponse to an anti-TNF agent.

METHODS

Adults with CD who discontinued from an anti-TNF agent and either switched to a different class of biologic (ie, anti-interleukin/integrin; the switching cohort) or cycled within the anti-TNF class (the cycling cohort) between September 23, 2016, and August 1, 2019, were selected from a commercial database. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim of the subsequent-line biologic (index biologic) after an anti-TNF. The switching and cycling cohorts were balanced with regard to baseline characteristics, using inverse probability of treatment weights-average treatment effect (IPTW-ATE). Persistence with the index biologic was defined as consistent use with no gaps of >120 days (ustekinumab, vedolizumab, infliximab) or of >60 days (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol) in biologic supply. Composite end points were persistence while being corticosteroid-free (defined as no use of corticosteroids with ≥14 days of supply after day 90 post-index) and persistence while on monotherapy (no immunomodulators/nonindex biologics). Weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used to assess outcomes at 12 months post-index.

FINDINGS

There were 444 patients in the weighted switching cohort (mean age, 40.4 years; 56.3% female) and 441 in the weighted cycling cohort (mean age, 39.5 years; 58.4% female). At 12 months post-index, the rate of persistence with the index biologic was 75.7% in the switching cohort compared to 67.5% in the cycling cohort (log-rank P = 0.023); the rate of persistence while on monotherapy was 58.2% compared to 44.2%, respectively (log-rank P < 0.001). The rate of persistence was 44% greater in the switching compared to that in the cycling cohort (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88; P = 0.007); the rate of persistence while on monotherapy was 56% greater in the switching cohort (HR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.28-1.90; P < 0.001). The between-cohort difference in persistence while being corticosteroid-free was not statistically significant (HR = 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32; P = 0.426).

IMPLICATIONS

Patients with CD who switched to a different biologic class were more persistent than were patients who cycled to another anti-TNF agent. These findings may be useful for physicians when considering the treatment of patients who have experienced nonresponse or loss of response to the first-line anti-TNF agent.

Dose Escalation Patterns of Advanced Therapies in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation is one of the treatment approaches studied and suggested in advanced therapies for Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). This study aimed to identify and characterize the dosing escalation patterns of advanced therapies in CD and UC.

METHODS

Two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) were conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE®, Embase®, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2011 and October 2021 and limited to non-interventional studies in English language. Congress and bibliographic searches were also conducted. Articles were screened by two independent researchers. Dose escalation patterns were described and summarized considering the regional regulatory label recommendation (in North America [NA] or outside of North America [ONA]).

RESULTS

Among 3190 CD and 2116 UC articles identified in the Ovid searches, 100 CD and 54 UC studies were included in the SLR, with more studies conducted ONA. Most studies reported an initial maintenance dose pattern aligned with the lower starting dose per local regulatory label; however, several ONA studies (n = 13 out of 14) reported ustekinumab every 8 weeks as starting maintenance pattern in CD. In ONA studies, the median within-guideline escalation rates in CD and UC were 43% in ustekinumab (CD only), 33% and 32% for vedolizumab; 29% and 39% for adalimumab; and 14% and 10% for infliximab. Evidence regarding dose escalation patterns for tofacitinib, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab was limited. Some dose escalation patterns outside of label recommendations were observed including ustekinumab every 8 weeks to every 4 weeks and vedolizumab every 8 weeks to every 6 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Dose escalation strategies are widely documented in the literature. The reported dose escalation patterns and escalation rates vary by region and by CD and UC. Most escalation patterns reported were aligned with regulatory recommendations while some reported more diverse or aggressive dose escalation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021289251.

Treatment persistence among bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease initiated on ustekinumab or adalimumab

OBJECTIVES

To compare persistence and describe dose titration among bio-naïve patients with Crohn's disease (CD) initiated on ustekinumab or adalimumab.

METHODS

Bio-naïve adults with CD who initiated ustekinumab or adalimumab (index date) from 23 September 2016 (ustekinumab US approval for CD) to 1 August 2019 were selected from IQVIA PharMetrics Plus. Cohorts were balanced on baseline characteristics measured over 12 months pre-index using inverse probability of treatment weights. Persistence was defined as no gaps (ustekinumab: >120 days; adalimumab: >60 days) between days of supply. Dose escalation was defined as ≥2 consecutive sub-cutaneous claims 100% above the US label daily dose in the maintenance phase; de-escalation was a return to the daily dose for ≥2 consecutive claims. Outcomes were described using weighted Kaplan-Meier models; persistence outcomes were compared using Cox's proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

At 12 months post-index, patients in the ustekinumab (n = 948) versus adalimumab (n = 4143) cohort had a significantly higher rate of persistence on index biologic (hazard ratio [HR] 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-1.74). A total of 830 (87.6%) patients in the ustekinumab cohort and 3713 (89.6%) in the adalimumab cohort began the maintenance phase; within 12 months, 11.2% and 16.9%, underwent a dose escalation, and 26.6% and 6.3%, respectively, subsequently de-escalated to the per US label daily exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Bio-naïve patients with CD initiated on ustekinumab were more persistent than patients initiated on adalimumab; moreover, these patients had numerically lower dose escalation and higher de-escalation rates than patients initiated on adalimumab. Findings support the use of ustekinumab as a first-line treatment for bio-naïve patients with CD.

Inconsistencies in the days supply values reported in pharmacy claims databases for biologics with long maintenance intervals

BACKGROUND: Days supply values reported in large administrative claims databases are commonly used to estimate drug exposure and quantify adherence and persistence with prescribed therapy. In recent claims database studies assessing treatment patterns for biologic therapies, a high frequency of 28-31-days supply values has been observed for therapies with label-recommended maintenance dosing intervals longer than 4 weeks. Such inconsistencies suggest potential inaccuracy of days supply data. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the existence and describe the extent of inconsistencies in the reported days supply values and the documented fill intervals among prescription claims from administrative claims databases for 2 different biologics with label-recommended maintenance dosing intervals longer than 4 weeks and 2 biologics with intervals less than or equal to 4 weeks. METHODS: Using data from 2 large US administrative claims databases (IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart Socio-economic Status [SES]), the reported days supply values and associated intervals between consecutive fills for 2 biologics with maintenance dosing intervals longer than 4 weeks (guselkumab and ustekinumab) and 2 with intervals less than or equal to 4 weeks (adalimumab and ixekizumab) were described. For all fill pairs with reported days supply values of 28-31 days, the percentage with inconsistent fill intervals (defined as >45 days or >60 days) was calculated. RESULTS: Across all datasets, the proportions of fill pairs with inconsistent days supply values and fill intervals (ie, days supply values of 28-31 days but fill intervals of >45 days) were 41.8%-73.4% for guselkumab, 33.4%-59.4% for ustekinumab, 8.5%-9.5% for adalimumab, and 7.3%-11.4% for ixekizumab. The same trend was observed across these biologics when using more than 60 days to define an inconsistent fill interval. Unlike adalimumab and ixekizumab, a wide distribution of fill intervals was observed among guselkumab and ustekinumab fill pairs with 28-31 days supply values, with peaks evident at approximately 28-31 days as well as around the label-recommended maintenance dosing intervals for these therapies (56 or 84 days). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a large discrepancy between days supply values and fill intervals reported in administrative claims data for biologics with label-recommended maintenance dosing intervals longer than 4 weeks (ie, guselkumab and ustekinumab), potentially suggesting widespread underestimation of days supply values for these therapies. Such inconsistencies in the reported days supply values may lead to underestimation of treatment adherence and persistence for these biologics, which could be mitigated by systematic data imputation. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Ms Xu and Drs Ferrante, Fitzgerald, Pericone, and Wu are employees of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and shareholders of Johnson & Johnson, of which Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary. Funding for programming support and medical writing and editorial assistance was provided by Janssen.

Ustekinumab versus adalimumab for induction and maintenance therapy in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Active-comparator trials are important to inform patient and physician choice. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy with either ustekinumab or adalimumab in biologic-naive patients with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, active-comparator, phase 3b trial (SEAVUE) at 121 hospitals or private practices in 18 countries. We included biologic-naive patients aged 18 years or older with moderately to severely active Crohn's disease and a Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220-450, who had not responded to or were intolerant to conventional therapy (or were corticosteroid dependent) and had at least one ulcer of any size at baseline endoscopic evaluation. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1; via an interactive web response system) to receive ustekinumab (approximately 6 mg/kg intravenously on day 0, then 90 mg subcutaneously once every 8 weeks) or adalimumab (160 mg on day 0, 80 mg at 2 weeks, then 40 mg once every 2 weeks, subcutaneously) through week 56. Study treatments were administered as monotherapy and without dose modifications. Patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were in clinical remission (CDAI score <150) at week 52 in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients who were randomly assigned to a treatment group). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03464136, and EudraCT, 2017-004209-41.

FINDINGS

Between June 28, 2018, and Dec 12, 2019, 633 patients were assessed for eligibility and 386 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive ustekinumab (n=191) or adalimumab (n=195). 29 (15%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and 46 (24%) of 195 in the adalimumab group discontinued study treatment before week 52. There was no significant difference between the ustekinumab and adalimumab groups in the occurrence of the primary endpoint; at week 52, 124 (65%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group versus 119 (61%) of 195 in the adalimumab group were in clinical remission (between-group difference 4%, 95% CI -6 to 14; p=0·42). Safety for both groups was consistent with previous reports. Serious infections were reported in four (2%) of 191 patients in the ustekinumab group and five (3%) of 195 in the adalimumab group. No deaths occurred through week 52 of the study.

INTERPRETATION

Both ustekinumab and adalimumab monotherapies were highly effective in this population of biologic-naive patients, with no difference in the primary outcome between the drugs.

FUNDING

Janssen Scientific Affairs.