Estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss among rheumatoid arthritis patients undergoing tofacitinib treatment: post hoc analyses of two randomized clinical trials

Objectives. RA causes high disability levels and reduces health-related quality of life, triggering increased costs and risk of unemployment. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. These post hoc analyses of phase 3 data aimed to assess monthly medical expenditure (MME) and risk of job loss for tofacitinib treatment vs placebo.

Methods. Data analysed were from two randomized phase 3 studies of RA patients (n = 1115) with inadequate response to MTX or TNF inhibitors (TNFi) receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab (one study only) or placebo, in combination with MTX. Short Form 36 version 2 Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores were translated into predicted MME via an algorithm and concurrent inability to work and job loss risks at 6, 12 and 24 months, using Medical Outcomes Study data.

Results. MME reduction by month 3 was $100 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated TNFi inadequate responders (P < 0.001); >20 and 6% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾16%, and risk of future job loss decreased ∼20% (P < 0.001 vs placebo). MME reduction by month 3 was $70 greater for tofacitinib- than placebo-treated MTX inadequate responders (P < 0.001); ⩾23 and 13% reductions from baseline, respectively. By month 3 of tofacitinib treatment, the odds of inability to work decreased ⩾31% and risk of future job loss decreased ⩾25% (P < 0.001 vs placebo).

Conclusion. Tofacitinib treatment had a positive impact on estimated medical expenditure and risk of job loss for RA patients with inadequate response to MTX or TNFi.

Investigating the value of abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies

Background. Rheumatoid arthritis is a progressive inflammatory disease that affects greatly patients' quality of life and demands for aggressive management early on during the course of the disease. The discovery of biologics has equipped rheumatologists with evolutionary treatment tools but has also impacted greatly management costs. Objectives. To conduct a systematic review in order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of abatacept in the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. Methods. Pubmed, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Outcomes Research Digest, the National Health System Economic Evaluation Database, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched. Results. In total 301 studies were identified and 42 met the inclusion criteria. Half of the selected studies evaluated abatacept in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, after failure of or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors. Of those, 82% were in favor of abatacept as a cost-effective or dominant strategy versus varying alternatives, whereas 18% favored other treatments. Conclusion. The majority of evidence from the published literature supports that abatacept can be a cost-effective alternative in the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis, especially in patients that have demonstrated inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF agents or conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Decision tool to improve the quality of care in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Despite the importance of achieving tight control, many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are not effectively treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The objective of this study was to develop a decision support tool to inform RA patients with ongoing active disease about the risks and benefits related to biologic therapy.

METHODS

We developed a balanced, web-based, decision support tool. Options, values, and probabilistic information were described using theoretically supported formulations. We conducted a pre-/posttest study to assess preliminary evidence of the tool's efficacy in improving knowledge related to biologics, clarity of values, willingness to take a biologic, and informed choice.

RESULTS

We interviewed 104 subjects (mean age 62 years, 84% women, 87% white, and median duration of RA 8 years). Knowledge (coded on a 0-20 scale) and willingness to take a biologic (coded on a 0-10 scale) significantly increased after viewing the tool (mean differences 2.3 and 1.4, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). Perceived knowledge and values clarity (coded on 0-100 scales) also significantly improved (mean differences 20.4 and 20.8, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). The proportion of subjects making an informed value-concordant choice increased substantially from 35% to 64%.

CONCLUSION

A tool designed to effectively communicate the risks and benefits associated with biologic therapy increased knowledge, patient willingness to escalate care, and the likelihood of making an informed choice. The results of this study support the need for a clinical trial to examine the impact of the tool in clinical practice.

Therapeutic agents for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonists

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a disabling autoimmune disease; unless adequately controlled, patients have a poor long-term prognosis. Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha antagonists have provided relief for many RA patients; however, despite their efficacy, some patients do not respond or fail to maintain initial response. In the UK, patients with an inadequate response to TNF-alpha antagonists have limited options, as the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) currently only recommend switching to an alternative TNF-alpha antagonists if discontinuation occurs due to safety during the first 6 months of treatment. The EU has approved three biological agents, rituximab, abatacept, and tocilizumab, for patients with RA with an inadequate response to TNF-alpha antagonists.

OBJECTIVE

This review examines the clinical experience with two therapies targeting key immune cells involved in RA -- rituximab (lyses B-cells), and abatacept (T-cell co-stimulation modulator) -- specifically focusing on patients with an inadequate response to TNF-alpha blockade.

METHODS

Phase II/III clinical trials and original studies were identified using Medline and Pubmed; articles assessing the efficacy and/or safety of rituximab or abatacept in patients with RA refractory to TNF-alpha blockade were reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical data for rituximab and abatacept demonstrate that both reduce disease activity in TNF-alpha antagonist inadequate responders, suggesting that agents with alternative mechanisms of action, such as those targeting key immune cells, may be useful in this patient population.

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of efficacy and safety of abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, and Biosis Previews for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing abatacept alone or in combination with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)/biologics to placebo or other DMARD/biologics in patients with RA. Two reviewers independently assessed search results, risk of bias, and extracted data.

RESULTS

Seven trials with 2908 patients were included. Compared with placebo, patients with RA treated with abatacept were 2.2 times more likely to achieve an American College of Rheumatology 50% response (ACR50) at one year (relative risk 2.21, 95% CI 1.73, 2.82) with a 21% (95% CI 16%, 27%) absolute risk difference between groups. The number needed to treat to achieve an ACR50 response was 5 (95% CI 4, 7). Significantly greater improvements in physical function, disease activity, pain, and radiographic progression were noted in abatacept-treated patients compared to placebo. Total adverse events (AE) were greater in the abatacept group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01, 1.08). Other harm outcomes were not significant, with the exception of serious infections at 12 months, which were more common in the abatacept group versus control group (Peto odds ratio 1.91, 95% CI 1.07, 3.42). Serious AE were more numerous in the abatacept + etanercept group versus the placebo + etanercept group (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.15, 4.62).

CONCLUSION

Abatacept seems to be efficacious and safe in the treatment of RA. Abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat RA. Further longterm studies and postmarketing surveillance are required to assess for longer-term harms and sustained efficacy.

Abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Abatacept inhibits the co-stimulation of T cells and disrupts the inflammatory chain of events that leads to joint inflammation, pain, and damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in reducing disease activity, pain, and improving function in people with rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1966), EMBASE (from 1980), ACP Journal Club (from 2000), and Biosis Previews (from 1990) in March 2007 and December 2008. We contacted authors of included studies and the abatacept manufacturer.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing abatacept alone, or in combination with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or biologics, to placebo or other DMARDs or biologics in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed search results and risk of bias, and extracted data. We obtained adverse event data from trials, long-term extension studies, and regulatory agencies.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials with 2908 patients were included. Compared with placebo, patients in the abatacept group were 2.2 times more likely to achieve an ACR 50 response at one year (RR 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73 to 2.82) with a 21% (95% CI 16% to 27%) absolute risk difference between groups. The number needed to treat to achieve an ACR 50 response was 5 (95% CI 4 to 7). Significant improvements in physical function and a reduction in disease activity and pain were found in abatacept-treated patients compared to placebo. One RCT found abatacept significantly slowed the radiographic progression of joint damage at 12 months compared to placebo, although it is not clear what the clinical relevance of this difference may be. There may be a risk of attrition bias. Total adverse events were greater in the abatacept group (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08). Other harm outcomes were not significant with the exception of a greater number of serious infections at 12 months in the abatacept group (Peto odds ratio 1.91 (95% CI 1.07 to 3.42). Serious adverse events were increased when abatacept was given in combination with other biologics (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.62).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-level evidence that abatacept is efficacious and safe in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Abatacept should not be used in combination with other biologics to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The withdrawal and toxicity profile appears acceptable at the present time but further long-term studies and post-marketing surveillance are required to assess harms and sustained efficacy.