The comparative effectiveness of biologics among older adults and disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Medicare population

Validation of new medication use algorithms as proxies for worsening disease activity in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

PURPOSE

To facilitate claims-based research on populations with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), we sought to validate an algorithm of new medication use as a proxy for worsening JIA disease activity.

METHODS

Using electronic health record data from three pediatric centers, we defined new JIA medication use as (re)initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or glucocorticoids (oral or intra-articular). Data were collected from 201 randomly selected subjects with (101) or without (100) new medication use. We assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) based on a reference standard of documented worsening of JIA disease activity. The algorithm was refined to optimize test characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, the medication-based algorithm had suboptimal performance in representing worsening JIA disease activity (PPV 69.3%, NPV 77.1%). However, algorithm performance improved for definitions specifying longer times after JIA diagnosis (≥1-year post-diagnosis: PPV 82.9%, NPV 80.0%) or after initiation of prior JIA treatment (≥1-year post-treatment: PPV 89.7%, NPV 80.0%).

CONCLUSION

An algorithm for new JIA medication use appears to be a reasonable proxy for worsening JIA disease activity, particularly when specifying new use ≥1 year since initiating a prior JIA medication. This algorithm will be valuable for conducting research on JIA populations within administrative claims databases.

Comparative effectiveness of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis stratified by body mass index: a cohort study in a Swiss registry

OBJECTIVES

Obesity is associated with lower treatment response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In patients with obesity, abatacept was suggested as a preferable option to tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in patients with RA with obesity. Secondarily, we also investigated this in patients with overweight and normal weight for completeness.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Swiss Clinical Quality Management in Rheumatic Diseases (SCQM) registry (1997-2019).

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with RA from the SCQM registry who received etanercept, infliximab, abatacept or adalimumab as their first biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug were classified based on their body mass index (BMI) at the start of that treatment in three cohorts: obese, overweight, normal weight. They were followed for a maximum of 1 year.

EXPOSURE

The study exposure of interest was the patients' first biological, particularly: etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary study outcome was remission within 12 months, defined as 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) <2.6. Missingness was addressed using confounder-adjusted response rate with attrition correction. Logistic regression was used to compare the effectiveness of etanercept, infliximab and abatacept versus adalimumab. Each BMI cohort was addressed and analysed separately.

RESULTS

The study included 443 obese, 829 overweight and 1243 normal weight patients with RA. There were no statistically significant differences in the odds of DAS28-remission at ≤12 months for etanercept, infliximab and abatacept, compared with adalimumab, in any of the BMI cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in DAS28-remission were found between the study drugs and adalimumab as first biologic in patients with RA, independently of the BMI cohort. We did not find evidence that treatment with abatacept increased the likelihood of remission compared with adalimumab among obese patients with RA.

Accuracy of administrative claims prescription fill data to estimate glucocorticoid use and dose in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

PURPOSE

To assess accuracy of administrative claims prescription fill-based estimates of glucocorticoid use and dose, and approximate bias from glucocorticoid exposure misclassification.

METHODS

We identified adults with rheumatoid arthritis with linked Medicare and CorEvitas registry data. An algorithm identifying glucocorticoid use and average dose over 90 days from Medicare prescription fills was compared to physician-reported measures from a CorEvitas visit during the same period, using weighted kappa to compare doses (none, ≤5 mg, 5-10 mg, >10 mg/day). A deterministic sensitivity analysis examined the effect of exposure misclassification on estimated glucocorticoid-associated infection risk from a prior study.

RESULTS

We identified 621 observations among 494 patients. Prescription fills identified glucocorticoid use in 41.9% of observations versus 31.1% identified by CorEvitas physician-report. For glucocorticoid use (yes/no), prescription fills had sensitivity 88.1% (95% CI 82.7-92.3), specificity 79.0% (74.8-82.7), PPV 65.4% (59.3-71.2), NPV 93.6% (90.6-95.9), and 81.8% agreement with CorEvitas, with kappa 0.61 (moderate to substantial agreement). There was 89.5% agreement between prescription fills and physician-reported doses, with weighted kappa 0.56 (moderate agreement). Applying these results to a prior Medicare study evaluating glucocorticoid-associated infection risk [risk ratio 1.44 (95% CI 1.41-1.48)] led to an externally adjusted risk ratio of 1.74 when accounting for exposure misclassification, representing -17% bias in infection risk estimate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the use of claims data to estimate glucocorticoid use and dose, but investigators should account for exposure misclassification, which may lead to underestimates of glucocorticoid risks. Our results could be applied to adjust risk estimates in other studies that use prescription fills to estimate glucocorticoid use.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating etanercept, adalimumab, or Janus kinase inhibitor as first-line therapy: results from the real-world CorEvitas RA Registry

BACKGROUND

Real-world studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) as first-line targeted therapy are scarce. We analyzed the real-world persistence and effectiveness of etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) as first-line therapy in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Adults (≥ 18 years) enrolled in the CorEvitas RA Registry and initiating ETN, ADA, or a JAKi (alone or in combination with csDMARDs) between November 2012 and June 2021 were included if they had 6 and/or 12 months' follow-up. Treatment persistence and effectiveness outcomes including the change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at follow-up, adjusting for covariates using linear and logistic regression models. An exploratory analysis for patients on monotherapy was also conducted.

RESULTS

Of 1059 ETN, 1327 ADA, and 581 JAKi initiators; 803 ETN, 984 ADA, and 361 JAKi initiators had 6 months' follow-up. JAKi initiators were older and had a relatively longer disease duration than ETN or ADA initiators (mean age: 61.3 vs 54.5 and 55.5 years; mean duration of RA: 8.1 vs 5.7 and 5.6 years). Unadjusted mean improvements in CDAI and PROs were similar between the groups at 6 months, except the proportion achieving LDA, remission, and MCID in CDAI, which were numerically higher in the ETN and ADA groups vs JAKi group (LDA: 43.4% and 41.9% vs 32.5%; remission: 18.2% and 15.1% vs 11.5%; MCID: 46.5% and 47.8% vs 38.0%). Adjusted effectiveness results did not reveal statistically significant differences between treatment groups at 6 months, with an exception in MCID (odds ratio [95% CI] for JAKi vs ETN: 0.65 [0.43-0.98]). At 6 months, 68.2% of ETN, 68.5% of ADA, and 66.5% of JAKi initiators remained on therapy. The findings at 12 months' follow-up and sensitivity analysis among monotherapy initiators also showed no differences in effectiveness outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of real-world data from the CorEvitas RA Registry did not show differences in clinical effectiveness and treatment persistence rates in b/tsDMARD-naïve patients initiating ETN, ADA, or JAKi as first-line targeted therapy either alone or in combination with csDMARDs.

Real-world effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a chronic systemic inflammatory autoimmune disease, is based on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Typically, it starts with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), and depending on the patient's response to the treatment and the adverse events experienced, biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are initiated. bDMARDs are more specific to inflammatory factors than csDMARDs and more efficient in inducing remission and low disease activity. Thus, this study aimed to assess the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in administrative health databases. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 21 October 2021, to identify observational studies that evaluated the effectiveness of biological therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using administrative databases and real-world data. The methodological quality was assessed by the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). A fixed or random-effects model estimated risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. The analysis was divided into four groups: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) versus non-TNFi; TNFi versus TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab versus infliximab); bDMARDs versus Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi); and bDMARDs monotherapy versus combination therapy (bDMARDs and MTX). Results: Twenty-one records were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis; seven population-based cohorts, eight prospective, and six retrospective cohort studies. Overall, 182,098 rheumatoid arthritis patients were evaluated. In the meta-analysis, lower effectiveness was observed among TNFi users than in non-TNFi (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95; p < 0.01; I2 = 94.0%) and bDMARDs than in JAKi (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79-0.94; p < 0.01; I2 = 93.0%). Higher effectiveness among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab than in infliximab (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.05-1.36; p < 0.01; I2 = 96.0%) was found. No significant differences in the effectiveness of bDMARD monotherapy compared to combination therapy (RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.68-1.00; p < 0.01; I2 = 81.0%) was observed. E-value analysis indicated that the estimates were not robust against unmeasured confounding. Conclusion: According to the available real-world data, our results suggest that biological therapy effectively treats patients with rheumatoid arthritis, indicating higher effectiveness with non-TNFi and JAKi than with TNFi. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID#CRD42020190838, identifier CRD42020190838.

Prevalence of Frailty in Ankylosing Spondylitis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Data from a National Claims Dataset

OBJECTIVE

Frailty is associated with disability and mortality independent of age. Although studies have evaluated frailty in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information on the prevalence of frailty in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is limited. We aimed to determine the prevalence of frailty in AS and PsA and to evaluate whether characteristics known to be associated with frailty, including anxiety, differ among these three types of inflammatory arthritis.

METHODS

We performed a cross sectional study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS, PsA, or RA enrolled in 2014. We operationalized frailty using a validated claims-based frailty index. We also explored the prevalence of frailty among CMS beneficiaries younger than age 65 years with work disability, a younger population that also may be at risk of frailty.

RESULTS

The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with AS and PsA was 45.2% and 46.7%, respectively, significantly lower than in RA (65.9%, P < 0.05). The prevalence of frailty in beneficiaries less than 65 years old was much lower overall, though still highest in RA; 11.7%, 4.4%, and 7.0% in RA, AS, and PsA, respectively (P < 0.05). Anxiety was significantly associated with frailty in subjects of all ages, particularly among those less than 65 years old (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Almost half of beneficiaries with AS or PsA aged 65 years old or older were frail, higher than in younger disabled beneficiaries. Further studies are needed to understand the risks of developing frailty in these diseases. Frailty was associated with anxiety, particularly in the younger age groups.

Clinical utility of therapy selection informed by predicted nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors: an analysis from the Study to Accelerate Information of Molecular Signatures (AIMS) in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) is a blood-based precision medicine test that predicts nonresponders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) so that patients with a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi can be directed to a treatment with an alternative mechanism of action.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study evaluated decision choice and treatment outcomes resulting from MSRC-informed treatment selection within a real-world cohort.

RESULTS

Therapy selection by providers was informed by MSRC results for 73.5% (277/377) of patients. When MSRC results were not incorporated into decision-making, 62.0% (62/100) of providers reported deviating from test recommendations due to insurance-related restrictions. The 24-week ACR50 responses in patients prescribed a therapy in alignment with MSRC results were 39.6%. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response had significantly improved responses to non-TNFi therapies compared with TNFi therapies (ACR50 34.8% vs 10.3%, p-value = 0.05). This indicates that predicted non-responders to TNFi therapies are not nonresponders to other classes of RA targeted therapy. Significant changes were also observed for CDAI, ACR20, ACR70, and for responses at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of the MSRC into patient care could fundamentally shift treatment paradigms in RA, resulting in substantial improvements in real-world treatment outcomes.

Clinical Utility and Cost Savings in Predicting Inadequate Response to Anti-TNF Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The PrismRA® test identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are unlikely to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies. This study evaluated the clinical and financial outcomes of incorporating PrismRA into routine clinical care of RA patients.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was created to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in the 12-month period following first biologic treatment. Two treatment strategies were compared: (1) observed clinical decision-making based on a 175-patient cohort receiving an anti-TNF therapy as their first biologic after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and (2) modeled clinical decision-making of the same population using PrismRA results to inform first-line biologic treatment choice. Modeled costs include biologic drug pharmacy, non-biologic pharmacy, and total medical costs. The odds of inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies and various components of patient care were calculated based on PrismRA results.

RESULTS

Identifying predicted inadequate responders to anti-TNF therapies resulted in a modeled 38% increase in ACR50 response to first-line biologic therapies. The fraction of patients who achieved an ACR50 response to any therapy (TNFi and others) within the 12-month period was 33% higher in the PrismRA-stratified population than in the unstratified population (59 vs. 44%, respectively). When therapy prescriptions were modeled according to PrismRA results, cost savings were modeled for all financial variables: overall costs (4% decreased total, 19% decreased on ineffective treatments), total biologic drug pharmacy (4% total, 23% ineffective), non-biologic pharmacy (2% total, 19% ineffective), and medical costs (6% total, 19% ineffective). Female sex was the clinical metric that showed the greatest association with inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.20, 4.88).

CONCLUSIONS

If PrismRA is implemented into routine clinical care as modeled, predicting which RA patients will have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies could save > $7 million in overall ineffective healthcare costs per 1000 patients tested and increase targeted DMARD response rates in RA.

Effectiveness and Costs Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Targeted Immunomodulators Using Real-World U.S. Data

BACKGROUND

Targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) are used for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include biologic and nonbiologic medications with different mechanisms of action. Data describing disease activity levels in RA are not directly available in claims databases but can be determined using a claims-based effectiveness algorithm. Rheumatology has benefited from the recent introduction of new drugs, many with new mechanisms of action. We provide an analysis of this broader range of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe and summarize the effectiveness of available TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe RA and (b) determine the RA-related health care costs per effectively treated patient, using recent data.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis using data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016. Index date was the new prescription claim for a TIM (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib). A 6-month pre-index baseline period was used to determine demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients without a TIM claim during the baseline period were considered naive; patients with a TIM claim in the baseline period that was different than the index TIM were assessed as receiving second-line therapy. A claims-based algorithm was used to assess 12-month treatment effectiveness and total RA-related costs. Costs included RA-related pharmacy costs and medical costs.

RESULTS

Data from 14,775 patients were analyzed, including patients prescribed abatacept (n = 1,250), adalimumab (n = 4,986), certolizumab pegol (n = 387), etanercept (n = 5,266), golimumab (n = 577), infliximab (n = 969), tocilizumab (n = 451), and tofacitinib (n = 889). Of these, 705 were receiving second-line therapy. TIM effectiveness by first-line and second-line therapy, respectively, were abatacept 27.1%, 18.1%; adalimumab 30.9%, 22.1%; certolizumab pegol 20.9%, 14.3%; etanercept 31.4%, 31.5%; golimumab 32.7%, 22.2%; infliximab 21.9%, 21.3%; tocilizumab 30.9%, 30.6%; and tofacitinib 26.0%, 21.6%. The main reason for failing effectiveness was not achieving an 80% medication possession ratio or being nonadherent. The 1-year total RA-related cost per effectively treated patient for first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, were abatacept $121,835, $174,090; adalimumab $112,708, $154,540; certolizumab pegol $149,946, $236,743; etanercept $102,058, $94,821; golimumab $108,802, $140,651; infliximab $155,123, $185,369; tocilizumab $93,333, $109,351; and tofacitinib $100,306, $130,501.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of TIMs from this real-world experience showed that the range of patients who were effectively treated with first-line therapy was higher for certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tocilizumab. The percentages of effectively treated patients were generally lower in second-line treatment compared with first-line except for etanercept, which had the same percentage between lines of therapy. Etanercept had the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient among tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in first-line use and the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient compared with all second-line treatments.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Amgen. Amgen employees contributed to study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Maksabedian Hernandez and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen; Gharaibeh was employed by Amgen at the time of this study. Bonafede was employed by IBM Watson Health, at the time of this study, and McMorrow is employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Data from this study were presented at AMCP Nexus, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.

Management of inflammatory rheumatic conditions in the elderly

The number of elderly people with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases is increasing. This heterogeneous and comorbid population is at particular risk of cardiovascular, neoplastic, infectious and iatrogenic complications. The development of biotherapies has paved the way for innovative therapeutic strategies, which are associated with toxicities. In this review, we have focused on the scientific and therapeutic changes impacting the management of elderly patients affected by RA, SpA or PsA. A multidimensional health assessment resulting in an integrated therapeutic strategy was identified as a major research direction for improving the management of elderly patients.

Refining a Claims-based Algorithm to Estimate Biologic Medication Effectiveness and Cost per Effectively Treated Patient with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Claims data generally lack information on clinical outcomes. However, a validated claims-based algorithm for estimating the effectiveness of biologic agents in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was recently developed and applied to various databases.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to implement a claims-based algorithm in a large nationwide database to estimate medication effectiveness and cost for patients with RA using biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and to assess the effect of eliminating one criterion from the algorithm on results.

METHODS

The DMARD groups included patients initiated on etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, or infliximab. Patients were categorized as effectively treated if they met these six criteria: a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater; no escalation in biologic dose; no switch in biologics; no new nonbiologic DMARD; no new or increased oral glucocorticoid treatment; and no more than one glucocorticoid injection. In a follow-up analysis, the dose-escalation criterion was removed because an increase in dose for infliximab may be appropriate. Average costs for RA-related medications were calculated for each DMARD patient group and divided by the number of patients who met all six effectiveness criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 1196 individuals were included in the analysis. Using the algorithm, the index biologic was categorized as effective for 25.4% of patients overall: 30.3% (102/337) of etanercept, 27.6% (104/377) of adalimumab, 32.7% (37/113) of abatacept, and 16.5% (61/369) of infliximab patients. Total costs for RA medication costs per effectively treated patient ranged from more than $80,000 for infliximab to ~$43,000-$46,000 for the other three groups. Removing the no dose-escalation criterion drastically reduced the cost per effectively treated patient in the infliximab group (to ~$42,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the original six-criteria claims-based algorithm in a large claims database, infliximab was the least-effective biologic agent and had the highest medication cost per effectively treated patient. However, when a follow-up analysis removed the dose-escalation exclusion criterion, the four groups had similar effectiveness and medication costs per effectively treated patient with RA.

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.

Treatment effectiveness and treatment patterns among rheumatoid arthritis patients after switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to another medication

Objectives

After treatment failure with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can switch to another TNFi (TNFi cyclers) or to a targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with a non-TNFi mechanism of action (non-TNFi switchers). This study compared treatment patterns and treatment effectiveness between TNFi cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with RA.

Methods

The analysis included a cohort of patients from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial database with RA who switched from a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) either to another TNFi or to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014. A claims-based algorithm was used to estimate treatment effectiveness based on six criteria (adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional therapy, no switch to another targeted DMARD, no new/increased oral glucocorticoid, and intra-articular injections on <2 days).

Results

The cohort included 5,020 TNFi cyclers and 1,925 non-TNFi switchers. Non-TNFi switchers were significantly less likely than TNFi cyclers to switch therapy again within 6 months (13.2% vs 19.5%; P<0.001) or within 12 months (29.7% vs 34.6%; P<0.001) and significantly more likely to be persistent on therapy at 12 months (61.8% vs 58.2%; P<0.001). Non-TNFi switchers were significantly more likely than TNFi cyclers to achieve all six of the claims-based effectiveness algorithm criteria for the 12 months after the initial switch (27% vs 24%; P=0.011).

Conclusion

Although the absolute differences were small, these results support switching to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD instead of TNFi cycling when patients with RA require another therapy after TNFi failure.

The comparative effectiveness of biologics among older adults and disabled rheumatoid arthritis patients in the Medicare population

AIMS

Older and disabled rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are often not present in large numbers in clinical trials or registries. A novel, claims-based clinical effectiveness algorithm provides the potential to compare the effectiveness of different biologics among this population using large administrative databases.

METHOD

Using Medicare 2006-2010 data for 100% of patients with RA, we identified biologic naïve users of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab, defined as no biologic use during the 12 months before the biologic initiation. The effectiveness was evaluated at 365 days after biologic initiation, determined using a validated claims-based algorithm. We compared the proportion meeting effectiveness criteria for each biologic using robust Poisson regression to compute risk ratios (RRs) adjusted for potential confounders. One year cost per effectively treated patient was calculated by different biologics.

RESULTS

The study included biologic naïve users of abatacept (n = 2129), adalimumab (n = 2944), etanercept (n = 3517) and infliximab (n = 5654). The algorithm classified the medications as 26% effective for abatacept, 24% for adalimumab, 28% for etanercept and 23% for infliximab, indicating comparable effectiveness. However, after adjustment and compared with infliximab, the RRs for effectiveness were 1.17 (95% CI 1.06, 1.30) for abatacept, 1.11 (95% CI 1.02, 1.23) for adalimumab and 1.27 (95% CI 1.17, 1.39) for etanercept. Older patients had a higher effectiveness than patients who were disabled (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.08, 1.28). Infliximab had highest cost per effectively treated patient.

CONCLUSION

Abatacept, adalimumab and etanercept are more effective than infliximab among RA patients initiating biologics. Effectiveness was significantly higher among older patients compared with disabled RA Medicare patients.