NICE guidelines on anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for RA

Coverage for high-cost specialty drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in Medicare Part D

OBJECTIVE

More than 1 in 4 Medicare beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis use high-cost biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and spending for these drugs has risen sharply for Medicare Part D. Our aim was to conduct the first systematic, national investigation of how Part D plans cover biologic DMARDs and to determine patients' financial burden under current cost-sharing structures.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of Part D plan formularies (n = 2,737) in 50 states and Washington, DC using the January 2013 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pharmacy Network Files. We calculated the percentage of plans covering each DMARD as well as the percentage requiring prior authorization and/or coinsurance. We also compared biologic drug coverage in Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans to that in Medicare Part D stand-alone plans.

RESULTS

All plans covered at least 1 biologic DMARD, but the vast majority required prior authorizations (95%). Nearly all plans (81-100%) required patients to pay a coinsurance percentage (averaging 29.6% of drug costs) rather than a fixed dollar copayment. This translated into mean out-of-pocket costs of $2,712-$2,774 before reaching the catastrophic phase of coverage, during which beneficiaries pay 5% of drug costs. Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans covered more individual biologic DMARDs (55-100%) than did Medicare Part D stand-alone plans (22-100%), but Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans required higher average coinsurance (31.1% versus 29.0%). In contrast, 6 of 9 nonbiologic DMARDs were covered by nearly all plans without prior authorizations at fixed copayments averaging $5-$10/month.

CONCLUSION

Nationally, nearly all Part D plans cover at least 1 biologic DMARD, but the vast majority require cost sharing sufficiently high to risk significant financial burden to patients.

TNF and TNF-receptors: From mediators of cell death and inflammation to therapeutic giants - past, present and future

Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF), initially known for its tumor cytotoxicity, is a potent mediator of inflammation, as well as many normal physiological functions in homeostasis and health, and anti-microbial immunity. It also appears to have a central role in neurobiology, although this area of TNF biology is only recently emerging. Here, we review the basic biology of TNF and its normal effector functions, and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of therapeutic neutralization of TNF - now a commonplace practice in the treatment of a wide range of human inflammatory diseases. With over ten years of experience, and an emerging range of anti-TNF biologics now available, we also review their modes of action, which appear to be far more complex than had originally been anticipated. Finally, we highlight the current challenges for therapeutic intervention of TNF: (i) to discover and produce orally delivered small molecule TNF-inhibitors, (ii) to specifically target selected TNF producing cells or individual (diseased) tissue targets, and (iii) to pre-identify anti-TNF treatment responders. Although the future looks bright, the therapeutic modulation of TNF now moves into the era of personalized medicine with society's challenging expectations of durable treatment success and of achieving long-term disease remission.

The effectiveness of anti-TNF-alpha therapies when used sequentially in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives. To systematically review and meta-analyse evidence on the effectiveness of the TNF-α inhibitors when used sequentially.

Methods. Systematic review of comparative and single-arm observational studies. Data were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Treatment effects were estimated using four outcome measures from the included studies: European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and ACR20 response rates and mean improvement in disease activity score-28 (DAS-20) and HAQ. The effect of other factors was explored via meta-regression and sub-group analyses.

Results. Twenty studies comprising 2705 patients were included in the analysis. All studies were observational and most had no control group. Therefore, our primary analysis considered patient changes from baseline. The mean percentage of ACR20 responders was 60.8% (95% CI 53.8, 67.4), EULAR responders 70.5% (95% CI 63.7, 76.6), mean overall improvement in DAS-28 scores was 1.53 (95% CI 1.25, 1.80) and in HAQ scores was 0.25 (95% CI 0.11, 0.40). Four studies made comparisons with patients who received TNF-α inhibitors for the first time. Response rates associated with sequential TNF-α inhibitor treatment were lower than for first-time use.

Conclusions. Sequential TNF-α inhibitor use is likely to lead to treatment benefit in terms of the signs and symptoms of disease and physical function. There is also some evidence to suggest that the probability of achieving a response is lower, and the average magnitude of response is lower than the first use. Further evidence from randomized controlled trials is required to confirm and further quantify the role specific anti-TNF-α agents have when used sequentially.

Canadian recommendations for use of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop recommendations for the use of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Canadian rheumatologists who participated in the international 3e Initiative in Rheumatology (evidence, expertise, exchange) in 2007-2008 formulated 5 unique Canadian questions. A bibliographic team systematically reviewed the relevant literature on these 5 topics. An expert committee consisting of 26 rheumatologists from across Canada was convened, and a set of recommendations was proposed based on the results of systematic reviews combined with expert opinions using a nominal group consensus process.

RESULTS

The 5 questions addressed drug interactions, predictors of response, strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, variables to assess clinical response, and incorporating patient preference into decision-making. The systematic review retrieved 93 pertinent articles; this evidence was presented to the expert committee during the interactive workshop. After extensive discussion and voting, a total of 9 recommendations were formulated: 2 on drug interactions, 1 on predictors of response, 2 on strategies to reduce non-serious side effects, 3 on variables to assess clinical response, and 1 on incorporating patient preferences into decision-making. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendations are reported. Agreement among panelists ranged from 85% to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Nine recommendations pertaining to the use of MTX in daily practice were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert/physician consensus with high level of agreement.