Variations in criteria regulating treatment with reimbursed biologic DMARDs across European countries. Are differences related to country's wealth?

Cost-Effectiveness of Biosimilars vs Leflunomide in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Importance

Among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate, a treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) provides better clinical efficacy compared with conventional synthetic DMARDs recommended by current treatment guidelines; but its cost-effectiveness evidence remains unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment sequence initiated with biosimilar DMARDs after failure with methotrexate vs leflunomide and inform formulary listing decisions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This economic evaluation's cost-effectiveness analysis was performed at a Hong Kong public institution using the Markov disease transition model to simulate the lifetime disease progression and cost for patients with RA, using monetary value in 2022. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to test the internal validity of the modeling conclusion. Participants included patients diagnosed with RA from 2000 to 2021 who were retrieved retrospectively from local electronic medical records to generate model input parameters. Statistical analysis was performed from January 2023 to March 2024.

Interventions

The model assesses 3 competing treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13), biosimilar adalimumab (ABP-501), and leflunomide; all used in combination with methotrexate.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Lifetime health care cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the simulated cohort.

Results

In total, 25 099 patients with RA were identified (mean [SD] age, 56 [17] years; 19 469 [72.7%] women). In the base-case analysis, the lifetime health care cost and QALYs for the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide were US $154 632 and 14.82 QALYs, respectively; for biosimilar infliximab, they were US $152 326 and 15.35 QALYs, respectively; and for biosimilar adalimumab, they were US $145 419 and 15.55 QALYs, respectively. Both biosimilar sequences presented lower costs and greater QALYs than the leflunomide sequence. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (US$/QALY) comparing biosimilar infliximab sequence vs leflunomide sequence and biosimilar adalimumab sequence vs leflunomide sequence ranged from -15 797 to -8615 and -9088 to 10 238, respectively, all below the predefined willingness-to-pay threshold (US $48 555/QALY gain). In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide, biosimilar infliximab, and biosmilar adalimumab being cost-effective out of 10 000 iterations was 0%, 9%, and 91%, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this economic evaluation study, the treatment sequences initiated with biosimilar DMARDs were cost-effective compared with the treatment sequence initiated with leflunomide in managing patients with RA who experienced failure with the initial methotrexate treatment. These results suggest the need to update clinical treatment guidelines for initiating biosimilars immediately after the failure of methotrexate for patients with RA.

Factors influencing choice of b/ts DMARDs in managing inflammatory arthritis from a patient perspective: a systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey from Hong Kong

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors concerning patients regarding biological/target synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/ts DMARDs) in treating inflammatory arthritis (IA).

DESIGN

This study consists of a systematic review and a cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. A systematic review of literature following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase between 1 January 2000 and 1 January 2022. Content analysis was conducted to summarise factors grouped by four themes-social aspects (SA), clinical aspects (CA), medicine characteristics (MC) and financial aspects (FA) in the decision-making process. One cross-sectional survey among Hong Kong patients with IA was conducted to add to global evidence.

SETTING

A systematic review of global evidence and a patient-based survey in Hong Kong to complement scarce evidence in Asia regions.

RESULTS

The systematic review resulted in 34 studies. The four themes were presented in descending order consistently but varied with frequency throughout decision-making processes. During decision-making involving medication initiation, preference and discontinuation, MC (reported frequency: 83%, 86%, 78%), SA (56%, 43%, 78%) and FA (39%, 33%, 56%) were the three most frequently reported factors, whereas CA was less studied. Local survey also revealed that MC factors such as treatment efficacy and the probability of severe adverse events, and SA factors such as the availability of government or charity subsidy, influenced patients' initiation and preference for b/ts DMARDs. Meanwhile, self-estimated improvement in disease conditions (SA), drug side effects (MC) and drug costs (FA) were associated with treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Global and local evidence consistently indicate that MC and SA are important considerations in patients' decisions regarding novel DMARDs. Health policies that reduce patients' financial burden and enhances healthcare professionals' engagement in decision-making and treatment delivery should be in place with an efficient healthcare system for managing IA optimistically.

Exploring the impact of the national tender system on the use of costly drugs treating rheumatoid arthritis patients in ten rheumatology centers in Norway (2010-2019)

BACKGROUND

Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are highly effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), albeit high drug cost has restricted their use in many countries. As a countermeasure, Norway implemented pharmaceutical tendering as a cost-reducing strategy. The aim of this study was to assess the annual proportion of different b/tsDMARDs registered to treat RA patients under the influence of a Norwegian pharmaceutical tendering between 2010 and 2019.

METHOD

The data is collected from ten Norwegian outpatient centers. The included patients are categorized as naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users. 13 individual b/tsDMARDs are assessed and compared with the tender rankings from each year. Overview of subcutaneous (sc) with per oral vs. intravenous (iv) and biosimilars vs. non-biosimilar are also described.

RESULT

The tender-winning b/tsDMARD was the most or second most used drug in nine out of ten years for naïve users, seven for non-naïve users, and twice for current users. The average sum of the highest and second highest proportion among naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users were 75%, 53%, and 50% during the ten years, respectively. The tender-winning drug was iv in eight out of ten years. However, the average total proportion of sc and per oral b/tsDMARDs was about 70% for naïve b/tsDMARD users, 50% for non-naïve b/tsDMARD users, and 60% for current b/tsDMARD users. The main contributors to sc and per oral b/tsDMARD were etanercept (reference and biosimilar) and certolizumab pegol. The main contributors to iv b/tsDMARD were rituximab reference and infliximab biosimilar. Despite low-ranking offers, rituximab reference (offered as a second-line drug) often achieved a high proportion among non-naïve and current b/tsDMARD users. After the introduction of biosimilars, their average proportion was about 40%, 40%, and 20% for naïve, non-naïve, and current b/tsDMARD users, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Based on observed data, a higher tender rank was associated with a higher proportion among naïve and non-naïve b/tsDMARD users. However, in most cases, sc b/tsDMARDs achieved a higher proportion with lower tender ranks than iv b/tsDMARDs with higher tender ranks.

Effectiveness and Persistence in SB4- and Reference Etanercept-Treated Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Ordinary Clinical Practice in Norway

OBJECTIVE

Biosimilars represent cost-effective alternatives to reference biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Our objective was to compare drug effectiveness and drug persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), assessing the etanercept biosimilar SB4 in efficacy and safety compared with reference etanercept in a Phase III, randomized controlled trial. We applied EULAR Points to Consider for Comparative Effectiveness Research in a retrospective database study of etanercept and SB4 in patients treated in clinical practice in Norway.

METHODS

Patients with RA (n = 1,455) treated with etanercept or SB4 between 2010 and 2018 at 5 centers in Norway with ≥1 year of follow-up were included. Disease outcomes (Disease Activity Score in 28 joints [DAS28] at week 52) and drug persistence were compared between unmatched etanercept (n = 575) and SB4 (n = 299) cohorts and matched analyses (n = 172, both cohorts) using propensity score (PS) matching to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

In unmatched analyses, the difference in change from baseline between etanercept (n = 221) and SB4 (n = 106) for DAS28 at week 52 was mean -0.02 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.32, 0.27), demonstrating equivalence by the predetermined equivalence margin (±0.6). In PS-matched analyses, the difference between etanercept (n = 49) and SB4 (n = 49) was 0.03 (95% CI -0.46, 0.52), within the predefined equivalence margin. Persistence using the drug at week 52 was similar between etanercept (0.62 [95% CI 0.57, 0.65]) and SB4 (0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.71]) cohorts in the unmatched analysis; in PS-matched cohorts, persistence at week 52 was 0.52 (95% CI 0.44, 0.59) for etanercept and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61, 0.75) for SB4.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes for disease status/drug persistence at week 52 were similar between patients with RA treated with etanercept or SB4.

Administrative Databases and Diagnostic Therapeutic and Assistance Paths -PDTA- in the Monitoring Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Experience of ATS Pavia

Background

The current flows of the SSN represent the set of interest whose interconnection alone justifies the current study. These flows can be interconnected with other sources, institutional or otherwise, in order to answer well-defined questions.

Objective

The objective of the study is to verify, through the analysis of administrative databases, any differences in the consumption of health resources between biological off-patent originator drugs and biosimilars in real clinical practice, with particular reference to the rheumatology area.

Methods

Through the use of assisted databases (BDA) of ATS Pavia we evaluated the differences in terms of consumption of health resources related to the different drugs under analysis. Annual and daily costs were calculated by total patient cost, stratified for different treatments, considering the sum of total costs for the prescriptions of drugs subject to the analysis. Another objective was to evaluate the adherence of the drugs of interest, by utilizing specific indicators (MPR).

Results

A total of 145 patients were analyzed. Among enrolled patients, 26.9% of users were treated with a biosimilar drug, while 73.1% with a biologic originator. Adherence is higher if it is considered the population treated with biosimilar drugs (82.1%). Total cost (including drug prescriptions, hospitalizations, outpatient services, tests for any cause) during the observation period of 1 year is 14,274.08. 87.7% of the total is attributable to drugs. Non-hospitalized patients are the least expensive, whether they were treated with biologics or biosimilars.

Conclusion

In our sample, biosimilar drugs tend to be underused: the treatment of a patient with a chronic autoimmune disease is a clinical process that involves many health professionals, and a criticality could also derive from the difficult communication between the various professional figures who get involved with the whole patient treatment.

The burden of rheumatoid arthritis in the Middle East and North Africa region, 1990-2019

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disease. The present study reported the burden of RA in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region from 1990 to 2019 by age, sex, and socio-demographic index (SDI). Publicly available data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2019 study was used to report the modelled point prevalence, annual incidence, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) of RA, as counts and age-standardised rates with their corresponding 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In 2019, RA had an age-standardised point prevalence of 120.6 per 100,000 population (107.0-135.7) and an annual incidence rate of 5.9 (5.2-6.6) in MENA, which have increased 28.3% and 25.2%, respectively, since 1990. In 2019, the number of DALYs due to RA in the region was 103.6 thousand (74.2-136.7), with an age-standardised rate of 19.0 (13.9-24.9) DALYs per 100,000 population, which has increased by 18.6% since 1990 (6.7-28.2). The highest point prevalence was found in females aged 50-54, and in males aged 45-49. The highest number of DALYs was observed in the 50-54 age group. The MENA DALY rate was lower than the global rate (19.0 vs. 39.6 per 100,000), but the rate was higher in all age groups in 2019, when compared with 1990. In addition, from 1990 to 2019 an increased burden from RA was associated with an increase in SDI. In line with global trends, the burden of RA in the MENA region showed a steady increase from 1990 to 2019. This highlights the increasing need for updating the available health data to design more accurate guidelines to enable the early detection and treatment of RA in the MENA countries.

Perspectives on the use of non-biological pharmacotherapy for adult-onset Still's disease

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of the patients with adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) remains largely empirical and it is based on the administration of immunosuppressive drugs. In this work, we described the use of non-biological pharmacotherapies for AOSD.

AREA COVERED

Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are employed during the diagnostic phase, glucocorticoids (GCs) are the first-line therapy, administered at the beginning of the disease. As second-line therapy, conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) are used when GCs do not fully control the disease and/or to reduce the dosage of concomitant GCs. Methotrexate (MTX) is the most commonly administered csDMARDs whereas calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) are used in severe patients. The lack of achievement of clinical response may lead to the administration of biologic DMARDs, with or without csDMARDs.

EXPERT OPINION

The management of AOSD may benefit from the administration of non-biological pharmacotherapies, including GCs, MTX, and CNIs. These therapies showed efficacy in inducing a clinical response, in managing life-threatening complications, and may be well tolerated in combination with biologic DMARDs. However, further specific studies are needed to fully clarify the specific role of such drugs in clinical practice to improve the management of AOSD and to provide a more tailored treatment.

Assessment on Treatments With Conventional Synthetic Disease-modifying Drugs Before Initiating Biologics in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea: A Population-based Study

Objective

To assess pre-biologic treatments with conventional synthetic disease-modifying drugs (csDMARDs) prior to biologics initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Using Korea National Health Insurance database, we examined pre-biologic treatments of RA patients on the following four items whether 1) initial methotrexate (MTX) therapy was given, 2) MTX dose was escalated up to ≥15 mg/week within 1-year post-diagnosis, 3) prednisone-equivalent glucocorticoid was used at a dose of ≤7.5 mg/day, and 4) glucocorticoid was discontinued within 6 months of treatment. Multivariable logistic regressions identified predictors of items 2) and 4) fulfillment.

Results

Among 6,986 biologics initiators with RA, 54.9% used MTX as the 1st csDMARD. Within 1-year post-diagnosis, 85.2% used MTX with half of them achieving a dose of ≥15 mg/week. The majority (75.2%) of patients used glucocorticoids initially and 64.5% were still on glucocorticoids at 6 months, mostly at a dose of ≤7.5 mg/day. csDMARD combination was observed in 85.7%. Item 2) fulfillment was associated with males, younger age, glucocorticoid, combination therapy, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, and viral hepatitis. Item 4) fulfillment was associated with males, MTX dose of ≥15 mg/week, combination therapy, viral hepatitis, and hospitalizations.

Conclusion

RA patients in Korea were predominantly treated with MTX-based csDMARD combination plus glucocorticoids before initiating biologics, without sufficient MTX dose escalation or glucocorticoid discontinuation. Items 2) and 4) fulfillments were associated with patient age and gender, concomitant treatments, and comorbidities.

Exploring drug cost and disease outcome in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs in Norway in 2010-2019 - a country with a national tender system for prescription of costly drugs

Background

In Norway, an annual tender system for the prescription of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) has been used since 2007. This study aimed to explore annual b/tsDMARDs costs and disease outcomes in Norwegian rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients between 2010 and 2019 under the influence of the tender system.

Methods

RA patients monitored in ordinary clinical practice were recruited from 10 Norwegian centers. Data files from each center for each year were collected to explore demographics, disease outcomes, and the prescribed treatment. The cost of b/tsDMARDs was calculated based on the drug price given in the annual tender process.

Results

The number of registered RA patients increased from 4909 in 2010 to 9335 in 2019. The percentage of patients receiving a b/tsDMARD was 39% in 2010 and 45% in 2019. The proportion of b/tsDMARDs treated patients achieving DAS28 remission increased from 42 to 67%. The estimated mean annual cost to treat a patient on b/tsDMARDs fell by 47%, from 13.1 thousand euros (EUR) in 2010 to 6.9 thousand EUR in 2019. The mean annual cost to treat b/tsDMARDs naïve patients was reduced by 75% (13.0 thousand EUR in 2010 and 3.2 thousand EUR in 2019).

Conclusions

In the period 2010–2019, b/tsDMARD treatment costs for Norwegian RA patients were significantly reduced, whereas DAS28 remission rates increased. Our data may indicate that the health authorities’ intention to reduce treatment costs by implementing a tender system has been successful.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07425-w.

Inequality of access to advanced therapies for patients with inflammatory arthritis: a postcode lottery?

OBJECTIVES

Advanced therapies (AT), including biologics, biosimilars and Janus kinase inhibitors, have dramatically improved the quality of life of patients with RA, PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Evidence-based criteria for prescribing these drugs in England and Wales is formulated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) through health technology appraisals and guidelines, with the aim of providing equitable access to AT for patients with severe or resistant disease. Similar bodies exist in some, but not all European countries, with disparities in AT access between countries for RA. We examined whether this disparity was mirrored in England for RA, PsA and axSpA despite the National Health Service in England and Wales being legally obliged to provide funding for AT recommended by NICE's Health Technology Appraisal board, through the commissioning bodies, the clinical commissioning groups (CCGs).

METHODS

We requested AT pathways from CCGs in England. Where these were not available, individual hospital Trusts were contacted using freedom of information requests.

RESULTS

We found marked variability in the way that CCGs in England interpret NICE guidance. We found 41, 29 and 25 different pathways for RA, PsA and axSpA, respectively. Similar disparities existed with sequential prescribing where one AT did not work, with limits on the numbers of sequential AT in 54%, 59% and 59% of CCGs for RA, PsA and axSpA, respectively, and with these limits being different for the same condition between CCGs.

CONCLUSION

Although patients at identical stages of their disease course should have access to the same NICE-approved AT, we found this is not the case for large parts of England. Inequality of access was found between regions, mirroring the variability that occurs between countries throughout Europe. Harmonization of access needs to be addressed by policymakers to ensure fairness in the way that clinicians and patients can access AT.

Availability and accessibility of monoclonal antibodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Findings and implications

Background:

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) represent the most numerous and significant group of biotherapeutics. While mAbs have undoubtedly improved treatment for many chronic diseases, including inflammatory diseases, they are typically expensive for health care systems and patients. Consequently, access to mAbs has been a problem for many patients especially among Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. However, biosimilars can potentially help with costs, although there are concerns with their effectiveness and safety. This includes biosimilars for long-acting insulin analogues.

Aim:

Assess the availability and use of biological medicines, including biosimilars within Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H).

Methods:

Assess the availability of mAbs via the current lists of approved and accessed mAbs versus those licenced in Europe and the United States and their utilisation, as well as specifically insulin glargine and its biosimilars, within B&H.

Results:

The availability of the mAbs in B&H appears satisfactory, which is encouraging. However, current usage is limited to a few mAbs which is a concern for subsequent patient care especially with limited use of biosimilars to address issues of affordability. We also see limited use of biosimilar insulin glargine.

Conclusion

The limited use of mAbs including biosimilars needs to be addressed in B&H to improve the future care of patients within finite resources. We will monitor these developments.

The Efficacy and Safety of Switching From Originator Infliximab to Single or Double Switch Biosimilar Among a Nationwide Cohort of Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients

Background

Data on safety and efficacy of switching to Renflexis (SB2) from originator Infliximab (IFX) (single switch) or from originator IFX to Inflectra (CT-P13) to Renflexis (double switch) are limited.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a nationwide cohort of patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in remission who were switched to SB2. The main exposure was the treatment course of SB2. There are 2 levels in this variable: single switch (IFX to SB2) and double switch (IFX to CT-P13 to SB2). The outcome is SB2 drug discontinuation rate and/or not being in remission after 1 year. Logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted and unadjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals to study the efficacy difference between single switch and double switch.

Results

A total of 271 IBD patients were started on SB2. Among them 52 (19.2%) patients did not achieve remission at 1 year and 14 (5.1%) patients had to discontinue SB2 due to adverse events). In logistic regression analysis after controlling for covariates, there was no statistically significant difference observed in regard to efficacy or safety of the single switch versus double switch to SB2 (adjusted odds ratio for double switch compared to single switch = 1.33 (95% confidence interval 0.74-2.41, P = 0.3432).

Conclusions

Among IBD patients in remission, double switch was equally effective as compared to a single switch. This will help reassure the gastroenterologists who have concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of switching between multiple biosimilars for treating IBD.

Regional variations in adverse event reporting rates and ACR responses in placebo/standard-of-care arms of rheumatoid arthritis trials

Objective

Clinical trials are increasingly globalized, and adverse event (AE) rates and treatment responses may differ by geographical region. This study assessed regional differences in AE reporting rates and ACR response rates (ACR20/50) in patients with RA who received placebo/standard-of-care treatment in clinical trials.

Methods

Patients from the placebo arms of 7 RA trials in the TransCelerate Biopharma Inc database were grouped into 5 geographical regions (Asia, Latin America, Russian Federation and Eastern Europe [RFEE], USA, and Western Europe). Differences in demographics, AE reporting rates and ACR response were evaluated using descriptive statistics and omnibus tests for significance; pairwise comparisons were made between regions, with false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons.

Results

Among 970 patients included, week 12 AE rates were significantly lower in the RFEE than in Asia, Latin America and the USA (22% vs 51%, 49% and 53%, respectively; P < 0.05 after false discovery rate correction). Similar differences in AE rates across geographical regions were seen at week 52. Among 747 patients with ACR data, the lowest response rates were observed in the USA (ACR20, 22%) and RFEE (ACR50, 3%); the highest response rates were seen in Western Europe (ACR20, 43%) and Latin America (ACR50, 15%). Only the differences in ACR50 response between the RFEE and Latin America remained significant after false discovery rate correction.

Conclusion

These placebo/standard-of-care arm data revealed significant regional differences in AE reporting rates and ACR50 response rates. Regional distribution of patients should be considered when conducting RA clinical trials, particularly during recruitment.

Efficacy and safety of a single switch from etanercept originator to etanercept biosimilar in a cohort of inflammatory arthritis

AntiTNF-α biosimilars are broadly available for the treatment of inflammatory arthritis. There are a lot of data concerning the maintenance of clinical efficacy after switching from originators to biosimilars; therefore, such a transition is increasingly encouraged both in the US and Europe. However, there are reports about flares and adverse events (AE) as a non-medical switch remains controversial due to ethical and clinical implications (efficacy, safety, tolerability). The aim of our work was to evaluate the disease activity trend after switching from etanercept originator (oETA-Enbrel) to its biosimilar (bETA-SP4/Benepali) in a cohort of patients in Turin, Piedmont, Italy. In this area, the switch to biosimilars is stalwartly encouraged. We switched 87 patients who were in a clinical state of stability from oETA to bETA: 48 patients were affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA),26 by Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) and 13 by Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS).We evaluated VAS-pain, Global-Health, CRP, number of swollen and tender joints, Disease Activity Score on 28 joints (DAS28) for RA, Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) for PsA, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and Health Assessment Questionnaire for the spondyloarthropathies (HAQ-S),Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) for AS patients. 11/85 patients (12.6%) stopped treatment after switching to biosimilar etanercept. No difference was found between oETA and bETA in terms of efficacy. However, some arthritis flare and AE were reported. Our data regarding maintenance of efficacy and percentage of discontinuation were in line with the existing literature.

EULAR/eumusc.net standards of care for rheumatoid arthritis: cross-sectional analyses of importance, level of implementation and care gaps experienced by patients and rheumatologists across 35 European countries

Objective

As part of European League against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Musculoskeletal Conditions Surveillance and Information Network, 20 user-focused standards of care (SoCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) addressing 16 domains of care were developed. This study aimed to explore gaps in implementation of these SoCs across Europe.

Methods

Two cross-sectional surveys on the importance, level of and barriers (patients only) to implementation of each SoC (0–10, 10 highest) were designed to be conducted among patients and rheumatologists in 50 European countries. Care gaps were calculated as the difference between the actual and maximum possible score for implementation (ie, 10) multiplied by the care importance score, resulting in care gaps (0–100, maximal gap). Factors associated with the problematic care gaps (ie, gap≥30 and importance≥6 and implementation<6) and strong barriers (≥6) were further analysed in multilevel logistic regression models.

Results

Overall, 26 and 31 countries provided data from 1873 patients and 1131 rheumatologists, respectively. 19 out of 20 SoCs were problematic from the perspectives of more than 20% of patients, while this was true for only 10 SoCs for rheumatologists. Rheumatologists in countries with lower gross domestic product and non-European Union countries were more likely to report problematic gaps in 15 of 20 SoCs, while virtually no differences were observed among patients. Lack of relevance of some SoCs (71%) and limited time of professionals (66%) were the most frequent implementation barriers identified by patients.

Conclusions

Many problematic gaps were reported across several essential aspects of RA care. More efforts need to be devoted to implementation of EULAR SoCs.

Risk factors associated with initiation of a biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A nested case-control study on 34,925 patients

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Using the 2002-2016 Korea National Health Insurance database, we conducted a nested case-control study on seropositive RA patients. Cases (bDMARD users) and controls (users of conventional synthetic DMARDs only) were 1:4 matched on the calendar year/month of RA diagnosis and index dates (bDMARD initiation dates). Potential risk factors from two time periods, 1-year post-RA-diagnosis and 1-year pre-index, were separately assessed on the association with bDMARD initiation by conditional logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The study included 6985 cases and 27,940 controls. Older age, female gender, use of methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, or tacrolimus as a first csDMARD, higher initial MTX dose, and initial csDMARD combination during 1-year post-diagnosis were negatively associated with later bDMARD initiation, while use of sulfasalazine as a first csDMARD, corticosteroid therapy, and higher maximal MTX dose were positively associated. Among covariates from 1-year period before bDMARD initiation, use of leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or tacrolimus, parenteral MTX, higher maximal MTX dose, corticosteroid, and csDMARD combination were positively associated with subsequent bDMARD initiation. Effects of comorbidities on bDMARD initiation were heterogenous across involved systems.

CONCLUSION

In this population-based nationwide study, we identified period-specific risk factors of bDMARD initiation among RA patients in Korea. Overall, initial aggressive RA treatment after diagnosis was associated with less use of later bDMARD, while highly intensive therapy observed just before bDMARD initiation rather reflects refractory nature of RA during this period, and did not prevent bDMARD use.

Identifying Patient Access Barriers for Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha Inhibitor Treatments in Rheumatoid Arthritis in Five Central Eastern European Countries

Introduction

Although there is a significant utilization gap of biologic medicines in the EU, many studies estimate equity in patient access to biopharmaceuticals only based on their availability on the national list of reimbursed medicines. Hidden access barriers may facilitate financial sustainability of pharmaceuticals in less affluent EU countries; however, they have rarely been documented in scientific publications. Our objective was to explore these access barriers for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in five Central and Eastern European countries.

Methods

A detailed interview guide was developed based on multi-stakeholder workshops and a targeted literature review. In each participant country 3-3-3-3 interviews with payers, rheumatologists, patients/patient representatives, and industry representatives were conducted. Responses were aggregated at a country level and validated by primary investigators in each country.

Results

Limited number of RA centers and consequently significant travelling time and cost for patients in distant geographical areas, uneven budget allocation among centers, limited capacity of nurses, narrowed patient population in national financial protocols compared to international clinical guidelines in initiating or continuing biologics, high administrative burden in prescribing biologics and limited health literacy of patients were the most relevant barriers to timely patient access in at least three participant countries.

Conclusion

Assessing only the availability of TNF alpha inhibitors on the national list of reimbursed medicines provides limited information about real-world patient access to these medicines. Revealing hidden access barriers may contribute to initiate policy actions which could reduce inequity in patient access.

Up to 5-year retention of abatacept in Belgian patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a sub-analysis of the international, observational ACTION study

Favorable efficacy and safety profiles have been demonstrated for abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in randomized controlled trials, but these data require validation during long-term follow-ups in routine clinical practice. This study explored long-term safety and retention rates in RA patients treated with intravenous abatacept in the Belgian cohort of the international AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION) study (NCT02109666). This non-interventional, observational, longitudinal study included Belgian patients aged ≥ 18 years with moderate-to-severe RA who started intravenous abatacept treatment as first- or second/further-line biologic therapy in routine clinical practice. Between October 2010 and December 2012, 141 patients were enrolled in this cohort, of whom 135 evaluable patients (6 biologic-naïve; 129 previously exposed to ≥ 1 prior biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) were eligible for the descriptive analysis; 131/135 were included in the effectiveness analysis. Mean disease duration was 10.5 years (standard deviation 9.7) before abatacept initiation. RA patients presented with high disease activity and comorbidity rate, having failed multiple previous treatment options. In this cohort, the 5-year abatacept retention rate was 34% (95% confidence interval, 23-45%) per protocol, and 51% (95% confidence interval, 40-61%) when temporary discontinuations of abatacept > 84 days (n = 24) were not considered as treatment discontinuations. After 5 years of abatacept treatment, clinical outcomes were favorable [good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses in 91.7% patients]. No new safety signals were detected for abatacept in routine clinical practice. In this difficult-to-treat Belgian RA population, high retention rates, good clinical outcomes and favorable safety profile were observed with abatacept.

Two-year cost-effectiveness of different COBRA-like intensive remission induction schemes in early rheumatoid arthritis: a piggyback study on the pragmatic randomised controlled CareRA trial

Objectives

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies among recently diagnosed patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using methotrexate (MTX) and a step-down glucocorticoid (GC) scheme (COBRA Slim) compared with (1) this combination with either sulphasalazine (COBRA Classic) or leflunomide (COBRA Avant-Garde) in high-risk patients and (2) MTX without GCs (Tight-Step-Up, TSU) in low-risk patients.

Methods

The incremental cost-utility was calculated from a healthcare perspective in the intention-to-treat population (n=379) of the 2-year open-label pragmatic randomised controlled Care in early RA trial. Healthcare costs were collected prospectively through electronic trial records. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated using mapping algorithms for EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data and bootstrapping to calculate CIs. Robustness was tested with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs at biosimilar prices.

Results

In the high-risk group, Classic (∆k€1.464, 95% CI −0.198 to 3.127) and Avant-Garde (∆k€0.636, 95% CI −0.987 to 2.258) were more expensive compared with Slim and QALYs were slightly worse for Classic (∆−0.002, 95% CI −0.086 to 0.082) and Avant-Garde (∆−0.009, 95% CI −0.102 to 0.084). This resulted in the domination of Classic and Avant-Garde by Slim. In the low-risk group, Slim was cheaper (∆k€−0.617, 95% CI −2.799 to 1.566) and QALYs were higher (∆0.141, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.274) compared with TSU, indicating Slim dominated. Results were robust against the price of biosimilars.

Conclusions

The combination of MTX with a GC bridging scheme is less expensive with comparable health utility than more intensive step-down combination strategies or a conventional step-up approach 2 years after initial treatment.

Trial registration number

NCT01172639.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.

METHODS

An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

Association of Patient, Prescriber, and Region With the Initiation of First Prescription of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Among Older Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Identical Health Insurance Coverage

IMPORTANCE

Prescribing the first biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an important decision for patients, their physicians, and payers, with considerable costs and clinical implications. Conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) have known effectiveness and safety profiles and are less expensive; therefore, determining the variables contributing to csDMARD treatment duration is an essential question for patients, physicians, and payers.

OBJECTIVES

To describe access to the first biologic DMARD prescription in a population of patients with RA and identical comprehensive health insurance coverage in Ontario, Canada, and to explore the associations of patient, prescriber, and geographic region with differences in time to first biologic prescription.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of incident patients with RA used administrative data with surveillance and patient-level data collected at yearly intervals. A total of 17 672 patients were included in the study; they were residents of Ontario, Canada, had an incident RA diagnosis at age 67 or older between 2002 and 2015, and received at least 1 csDMARD. Data were analyzed in November 2017.

EXPOSURE

Patient variables were age, sex, disease duration, socioeconomic status, distance to care, and supply of care in the patient's area of residence. Prescriber covariates were year of graduation, specialty of practice, and supply of rheumatologic care in the patient's geographic region.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Time from first csDMARD prescription to receipt of first biologic medication.

RESULTS

Of 17 672 patients, 11 598 (65.6%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 75.2 (5.8) years. Characteristics associated with longer time to receipt of a biologic prescription were older age (HR for every 5-year increase, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.62-0.71; P < .001), male sex (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89; P < .001), and distance to the nearest rheumatologist (HR per 10-km increase, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99; P < .001). Prescribers were primarily rheumatologists (151 of 214 [70.6%]) and primary care physicians (26 of 214 [12.1%]). After adjusting for the number of patients eligible to receive biologic DMARDs, rheumatologists' preferences (ie, yearly prescription rates) for using biologic DMARDs increased over time, from 1.7% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2015. After adjusting for calendar year and patient-, prescriber-, and region-level characteristics, substantial variation between prescribers in rates of prescribing a first biologic DMARD were found (65% variance).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found variation in time to receipt of first biologic DMARD after prescription of first csDMARD in a population with RA after adjustment for individual-level patient, prescriber, and geographic area covariates, despite identical universal health insurance coverage.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in Austrian patients with rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the 2-year ACTION study

BACKGROUND

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was a 2-year international observational study of patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Baseline characteristics, abatacept retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the Austrian cohort of ACTION.

RESULTS

Of 100 patients enrolled in Austria, 98 (98.0%) were evaluable: 33/98 (33.7%) biologic naïve and 65/98 (66.3%) with ≥1 prior biologic failure. At baseline, biologic-naïve patients had shorter disease duration and lower concomitant corticosteroid use than biologic-failure patients. Overall crude abatacept retention rate was 60.5% and retention rate was higher in biologic-naïve (65.1%) versus biologic-failure (58.0%) patients. Good/moderate EULAR (European League Against Rheumatism) response rates were 85.7% in biologic-naïve and 100% in biologic-failure patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Austrian cohort of ACTION, overall abatacept retention at 2 years was high, with higher retention rates in patients receiving abatacept as an earlier treatment line. Good/moderate EULAR response rate was higher in biologic-failure than in biologic-naïve patients.

The effects of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine combination therapy vs methotrexate monotherapy in early rheumatoid arthritis patients

Objectives

To investigate the added value of MTX-HCQ combination therapy (CTG) in early RA in a controlled cohort study. MTX monotherapy (MTG) is recommended as (part of) first choice treatment but no head-to-head comparisons are available comparing MTX-HCQ CTG with MTG.

Methods

RA patients from the Sint Maartenskliniek and Radboudumc Nijmegen who started MTX with or without concomitant HCQ from April 2010 to October 2015 were included. The primary outcome was the between-group ΔDAS28-CRP at 6 months, and secondary outcomes were ΔDAS28-CRP at 12 months, EULAR response at 6 and 12 months, and treatment intensification. Regression modelling was used to correct for confounding.

Results

We included 325 patients, with only small between-group differences at baseline. The DAS28-CRP improvement at 6 months was larger in the CTG (Δ = 0.38 (CI: 0.01, 0.76)), and the difference between groups in DAS28-CRP improvement was smaller at 12 months (Δ = 0.22 points (CI:-0.19, -0.62)). At 6 months, a higher percentage of patients had a good EULAR response in the CTG (Δ = 15% (CI: 2.7%, 27%)). This difference was reduced at 12 months (Δ = 6% (CI -6.4%, 19%)). Treatment intensification with conventional synthetic DMARDs was more likely in the MTG (Δ = 31% (CI: -43%, 19%)). The proportion of patients starting biologic DMARD treatment during the observation period was comparable (Δ = 2% (CI: -8%, 12%)).

Discussion

In contrast to indirect comparison review data, MTX-HCQ seems somewhat more effective after 6 months than MTX monotherapy in early RA patients. After 12 months, we observed no significant differences between the two strategies, probably due to treat-to-target efforts.

AURIEL-PsO: a randomized, double-blind phase III equivalence trial to demonstrate the clinical similarity of the proposed biosimilar MSB11022 to reference adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis

BACKGROUND

MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 with reference adalimumab.

METHODS

AURIEL-PsO was a double-blind randomized controlled equivalence trial, in which patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis were randomized 1 : 1 to MSB11022 or reference adalimumab. The primary end point was ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at week 16, with a prespecified equivalence interval of ± 18%. Patients with a ≥50% improvement in PASI at week 16 were eligible to enter a double-blind extension period: patients receiving MSB11022 continued treatment, and patients receiving reference adalimumab were rerandomized 1 : 1 either to continue reference adalimumab or to switch to MSB11022. Other efficacy end points and safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were evaluated at scheduled visits up to weeks 52 (efficacy and immunogenicity), 54 and 66 (safety).

RESULTS

In total, 443 patients were randomized. The difference in PASI 75 response rates at week 16 between the treatment arms was -1·9%, and the 95% confidence interval (-7·8% to 4·1%) was within the prespecified equivalence interval. No notable difference in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was observed between treatment arms up to the end of the trial, and no new safety signals were observed. Following treatment switch at week 16, no clinically meaningful differences in safety or immunogenicity were seen between treatment arms through to the end of the observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic equivalence between MSB11022 and reference adalimumab was demonstrated. AURIEL-PsO provides evidence to support the similarity of both products with regard to efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. What's already known about this topic? Adalimumab is a fully human antitumour necrosis factor-α monoclonal antibody, indicated for the treatment of multiple inflammatory disorders, including psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel diseases and ankylosing spondylitis. MSB11022 is a proposed adalimumab biosimilar that has shown structural and functional similarity to the reference product in an extensive analytical comparability exercise. MSB11022 has demonstrated bioequivalence and comparable safety and immunogenicity profiles in a phase I study in healthy volunteers. What does this study add? This phase III study confirmed equivalent efficacy for MSB11022 and reference adalimumab in patients without any immunomodulation comedication in moderate-to-severe chronic plaque-type psoriasis at week 16. The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of MSB11022 and reference adalimumab were similar over the respective observation periods (week 52 for efficacy and immunogenicity, week 66 for safety). A switch from reference adalimumab to MSB11022 at week 16 did not impact efficacy, safety or immunogenicity.

Abatacept retention and clinical outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: real-world data from the German cohort of the ACTION study and a comparison with other participating countries

INTRODUCTION

AbataCepT In rOutiNe clinical practice (ACTION; NCT02109666) was an observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who initiated intravenous abatacept in clinical practice. We aimed to compare abatacept retention rates and clinical outcomes in patients from Germany versus other countries.

METHOD

Baseline characteristics, crude retention rates, and clinical outcomes were compared by treatment line in the German cohort at 2 years. In addition, biologic-naïve patients were compared with biologic-naïve patients pooled from other participating countries.

RESULTS

In the German cohort, 677/680 (99.6%) patients enrolled were evaluable and 171/677 (25.3%) were biologic naïve. At baseline, abatacept monotherapy was received by a similar proportion of biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients in the German cohort, but by a greater proportion of biologic-naïve patients in German versus other countries cohort (27.5 vs. 12.9%). The overall crude abatacept retention rate at 2 years in the German cohort was 39.9%; retention rate did not differ significantly by treatment line, but among biologic-naïve patients it was lower in Germany than in the other countries cohort (42.1 vs. 58.7%; log-rank test p < 0.001). At 2 years, good/moderate European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response rates in biologic-naïve patients were 85.5% in the German and 92.1% in other countries cohort (p = 0.163).

CONCLUSIONS

In the German cohort of ACTION, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. Biologic-naïve patients in German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than those in the other countries cohort.

KEY POINTS

• Analyses of data from national patient cohorts provide insight on local treatment patterns. • In the German cohort of the ACTION study, abatacept retention at 2 years was similar in biologic-naïve and biologic-failure patients. • Biologic-naïve patients from the German cohort had a significantly lower abatacept retention rate and a trend of lower good/moderate EULAR response rate than patients from other countries. • Data from large international studies may not be directly applicable to individual countries.

Long-term efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) after switching from originator infliximab: open-label extension of the NOR-SWITCH trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The 52-week, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, government-funded NOR-SWITCH trial demonstrated that switching from infliximab originator to less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator. The NOR-SWITCH extension trial aimed to assess efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients on CT-P13 throughout the 78-week study period (maintenance group) versus patients switched to CT-P13 at week 52 (switch group). The primary outcome was disease worsening during follow-up based on disease-specific composite measures.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from 24 Norwegian hospitals, 380 of 438 patients who completed the main study: 197 in the maintenance group and 183 in the switch group. In the full analysis set, 127 (33%) had Crohn's disease, 80 (21%) ulcerative colitis, 67 (18%) spondyloarthritis, 55 (15%) rheumatoid arthritis, 20 (5%) psoriatic arthritis and 31 (8%) chronic plaque psoriasis.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups at the time of switching (week 52). Disease worsening occurred in 32 (16.8%) patients in the maintenance group vs. 20 (11.6%) in the switch group (per-protocol set). Adjusted risk difference was 5.9% (95% CI -1.1 to 12.9). Frequency of adverse events, anti-drug antibodies, changes in generic disease variables and disease-specific composite measures were comparable between arms. The study was inadequately powered to detect noninferiority within individual diseases.

CONCLUSION

The NOR-SWITCH extension showed no difference in safety and efficacy between patients who maintained CT-P13 and patients who switched from originator infliximab to CT-P13, supporting that switching from originator infliximab to CT-P13 is safe and efficacious.

Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis continuing on an etanercept biosimilar (LBEC0101) or switching from reference etanercept to LBEC0101: an open-label extension of a phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study

Background

To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of continuing LBEC0101; the etanercept (ETN) biosimilar; or switching from the ETN reference product (RP) to LBEC0101 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This multicentre, single-arm, open-label extension study enrolled patients who had completed a 52-week randomised, double-blind, parallel phase III trial of LBEC0101 vs ETN-RP. Patients treated with ETN-RP during the randomised controlled trial switched to LBEC0101; those treated with LBEC0101 continued to receive LBEC0101 in this study. LBEC0101 (50 mg) was administered subcutaneously once per week for 48 weeks with a stable dose of methotrexate. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of LBEC0101 were assessed up to week 100.

Results

A total of 148 patients entered this extension study (70 in the maintenance group and 78 in the switch group). The 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were maintained in both groups from week 52 to week 100 (from 3.068 to 3.103 in the maintenance group vs. from 3.161 to 3.079 in the switch group). ACR response rates at week 100 for the maintenance vs. switch groups were 79.7% vs. 83.3% for ACR20, 65.2% vs. 66.7% for ACR50 and 44.9% vs. 42.3% for ACR70. The incidence of adverse events and the proportion of patients with newly developed antidrug antibodies were similar in the maintenance and switch groups (70.0% and 70.5%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Administration of LBEC0101 showed sustained efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with RA after continued therapy or after switching from ETN-RP to LBEC0101.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715908. Registered 22 March 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1910-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Biosimilars for the Management of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Economic Considerations

Biological drugs revolutionized the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. However, not all clinically eligible patients have access to biologicals due to significant costs and budget impact. Biosimilars are highly comparable to their originator product in terms of clinical efficacy and safety. Biosimilars are priced 15-75% lower than their reference product, which makes them a less costly alternative and is expected to offer better patients access to biologicals. The total projected cost savings are significant. If the achieved budget savings were used to cover more biological therapy, several additional IBD patients could be treated. Currently, the main barriers to the increasing uptake of biosimilars are the few incentives of the key stakeholders, while physicians' and patients' skepticism towards biosimilars seems to be changing. Over the coming years, biosimilars are expected to gain a growing importance in the treatment of IBD, contributing to a better access to treatment, improving population-level health gain and sustainability of health systems. This review summarizes the results of the literature on the economic considerations of biosimilars in IBD and the role of biosimilar infliximab in the treatment of IBD.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.

Validity of a two-component imaging-derived disease activity score for improved assessment of synovitis in early rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Imaging of joint inflammation provides a standard against which to derive an updated DAS for RA. Our objectives were to develop and validate a DAS based on reweighting the DAS28 components to maximize association with US-assessed synovitis.

METHODS

Early RA patients from two observational cohorts (n = 434 and n = 117) and a clinical trial (n = 59) were assessed at intervals up to 104 weeks from baseline; all US scans were within 1 week of clinical exam. There were 899, 163 and 183 visits in each cohort. Associations of combined US grey scale and power Doppler scores (GSPD) with 28 tender joint count and 28 swollen joint count (SJC28), CRP, ESR and general health visual analogue scale were examined in linear mixed model regressions. Cross-validation evaluated model predictive ability. Coefficients learned from training data defined a re-weighted DAS28 that was validated against radiographic progression in independent data (3037 observations; 717 patients).

RESULTS

Of the conventional DAS28 components only SJC28 and CRP were associated with GSPD in all three development cohorts. A two-component model including SJC28 and CRP outperformed a four-component model (R2 = 0.235, 0.392, 0.380 vs 0.232, 0.380, 0.375, respectively). The re-weighted two-component DAS28CRP outperformed conventional DAS28 definitions in predicting GSPD (Δtest log-likelihood <-2.6, P < 0.01), Larsen score and presence of erosions.

CONCLUSION

A score based on SJC28 and CRP alone demonstrated stronger associations with synovitis and radiographic progression than the original DAS28 and should be considered in research on pathophysiological manifestations of early RA. Implications for clinical management of RA remain to be established.

Long-Term Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors for the Treatment of Methotrexate-Naïve Rheumatoid Arthritis: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Synthesis of evidence on the long-term use of first-line biologic therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is required. We compared the efficacy of up to 5 years' treatment with first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) versus other treatment strategies in this population.

METHODS

Previous systematic reviews, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving treatment of methotrexate-naïve RA patients with first-line TNFis. Literature was synthesized qualitatively, and a meta-analysis conducted to evaluate American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses, clinical remission defined by any standard measure, and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ) at Years 2 and/or 5.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 4306 patients [first-line TNFi, n = 2234; other treatment strategies (control), n = 2072] were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies were double-blind for the first 2 years, while seven were partly/completely open label during this period. Five studies reported data at Year 5; all were open label at this time point. At Year 2, ACR50 response, ACR70 response and remission rates were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus control in double-blind RCTs [log-odds ratio (OR) 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02, 0.62; p = 0.035], log-OR 0.48 (95% CI 0.20, 0.77; p = 0.001), and log-OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.13, 0.74; p = 0.005), respectively], but not in open-label studies. No significant between-group differences were observed in mean HAQ at Year 2 in double-blind or open-label RCTs or in ACR response or remission outcomes at Year 5.

CONCLUSION

In double-blind studies, 2-year efficacy outcomes were significantly improved with first-line TNFi versus other treatment strategies in patients with MTX-naïve RA. No significant differences in these outcomes were observed when data from open-label RCTs were considered on their own. Further data on the efficacy of TNFi therapy over ≥ 2 years in patients with methotrexate-naïve RA are required. Plain language summary available for this article.

Individual-level and country-level socioeconomic determinants of disease outcomes in SpA: multinational, cross-sectional study (ASAS-COMOSPA)

OBJECTIVE

To explore the independent contribution of individual-level and country level socioeconomic status (SES) determinants to disease activity and physical function in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA).

METHODS

Data from the cross-sectional, multinational (n=22 countries worldwide) COMOSPA (COMOrbidities in SpA) study were used. Contribution of individual SES factors (gender, education) and country of residence to Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) was explored in multilevel regression models, adjusting for clinical and demographic confounders. Next, the additional effects of national macroeconomic indicators (gross domestic product [GDP], Human Development Index, healthcare expenditure and Gini index) were explored. The mediating role of uptake of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs between education or GDP and ASDAS was explored by testing indirect effects.

RESULTS

In total, 3370 patients with SpA were included: 65% were male, with a mean age of 43 (SD 14), ASDAS of 2.0 (SD 1.1) and BASFI score of 3.1 (SD 2.7). In adjusted models, patients with low education and female patients had an OR of 1.7 (95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) and an OR of 1.7 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.0), respectively, of having ASDAS ≥2.1. They also reported slightly worse function. Large country differences were observed independent of individual SES and clinical confounders. Patients from less SES developed countries have worse ASDAS, while patterns for BASFI were insignificant. Uptake of biologicals did not mediate the relationship between individual-level or country-level SES and disease activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual-level and country-level health inequalities exist also among patients with SpA. Women and lower educated persons had worse disease activity and somewhat worse physical function. While patients in less socioeconomically developed countries had higher disease activity, they reported similar physical function.

Inequity in access to bDMARD care and how it influences disease outcomes across countries worldwide: results from the METEOR-registry

Objective

To establish in a global setting the relationships between countries’ socioeconomic status (SES), measured biological disease modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-usage and disease outcomes. To assess if prescription and reimbursement rules and generic access to medication relates to a countries’ bDMARD-usage.

Methods

Data on disease activity and drug use from countries that had contributed at least 100 patients were extracted from the METEOR database. Mean disease outcomes of all available patients at the final visit were calculated on a per-country basis. A questionnaire was sent to at least two rheumatologists per country inquiring about DMARD-prices, access to treatment and valid regulations for prescription and reimbursement.

Results

Data from 20 379 patients living in 12 different countries showed that countries’ SES was positively associated with measured disease activity (meanDAS28), but not always with physical functioning (HAQ-score). A lower country’s SES, stricter rules for prescription and reimbursement of bDMARDs as well as worse affordability of bDMARDs were associated with lower bDMARD-usage. bDMARD-usage was negatively associated with disease activity (although not with physical functioning), but the association was moderate at best.

Conclusions

Disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis as well as bDMARD-usage varies across countries worldwide. The (negative) relationship between countries’ bDMARD-usage and level of disease activity is complex and under the influence of many factors, including—but not limited to—countries’ SES, affordability of bDMARDs and valid prescription and reimbursement rules for bDMARDs.

Area of Residence and Socioeconomic Factors Reduce Access to Biologics for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in Romania

Introduction

The study aimed to evaluate the influence of socioeconomic factors on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients' access to biologics in Romania.

Method

Cross-sectional data were collected in January 2014 from the Romanian Registry of Rheumatic Diseases (RRRD) comprising all RA patients on biologics from 42 Romanian counties. “Territorial” access to biologics was defined by patients receiving biologics in their home county. A county was “equitable” if <25% of RA patients received biologics outside it.

Results

The RRRD included 4507 RA patients aged 56.7 ± 12.1 years, with a disease duration of 12.1 ± 8.3 years. Urban dwellers (67.8%) had a significantly higher prevalence of territorial biologic access than rural dwellers (83.1% compared to 74.1%; p < 0.001). Gross domestic product (GDP) in 1000 €/capita/county (odds ratio (OR) = 1.224) and number of physicians/1000 inhabitants/county (OR = 2.198) predict territorial access to biologics and also predict the number of territorially treated RA patients. Inequitable counties exhibited significantly lower socioeconomic indicators than equitable counties.

Conclusion

In Romania, RA patients' access to biologics varies significantly between counties. Urban dwellers and patients living in counties/regions with high living standards are more likely to receive biologics locally than those living in more deprived areas.

A systematic review of the factors associated with the initiation of biologicals in patients with rheumatological conditions

Objectives

Biologicals play a crucial role in managing some of the rheumatological diseases, thus it is important for clinicians, healthcare institutions and policy-makers to understand why biologicals are initiated or refused so as to make better decisions to improve patients' disease outcomes. Although there have been many studies investigating factors associated with the initiation of biologicals for patients with rheumatological conditions, there have been no systematic reviews that provide a comprehensive summary. We aim to provide a summary of factors associated with biologicals' initiation for patients with rheumatological conditions.

Methods

We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase and PsycINFO. We identified and screened studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Factors were presented according to patient, disease-related, therapy-related, healthcare team-related and system in-place factors.

Results

A total 1755 articles were reviewed and 24 articles were found to be relevant to our objective. Forty four factors reviewed were placed into five main categories: patient factors (n=13); disease-related factors (n=11); therapy-related factors (n=7); healthcare team-related factors (n=4) and system in-place-related factors (n=9). The factors studied by the published papers found to be associated with decisions to initiate biologicals varied widely.

Conclusion

Forty two factors of five different categories were found to be associated with biologicals' initiation for patients with rheumatological conditions. Clinicians need to be mindful of the complex nature of these factors to optimise therapy of patients with rheumatological conditions. Healthcare institutions and policy- makers ought to be aware of any potential barriers to successful biologicals' treatment and address them accordingly.

Long-term disease and patient-reported outcomes of a continuous treat-to-target approach in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis in daily clinical practice

Patients in real life may differ from those in clinical trials. The aim of this study is to report 5-year outcomes of a continuous treat-to-target (T2T) approach in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in daily clinical practice. In the Dutch RhEumatoid Arthritis Monitoring cohort, all patients with a clinical diagnosis of RA were treated according to a protocolled T2T strategy, aimed at 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) < 2.6. Outcomes were percentages of patients in distinct levels of disease activity, mean course of DAS28 and prevalence of sustained (drug-free) remission. Also, data on functional disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36) were examined. Mean DAS28 improved from 4.93 (95% CI 4.81-5.05) at baseline to 2.49 (95% CI 2.35-2.63) after 12 months and remained stable thereafter. Percentages of patients at 12 months with DAS28 < 2.6 (remission), DAS28 ≥ 2.6 and ≤ 3.2 (low disease activity), DAS28 > 3.2 and ≤ 5.1 (moderate disease activity) and DAS28 > 5.1 (high disease activity) were 63, 16, 18 and 3%, respectively. Sustained remission (DAS28 < 2.6 during ≥ 6 months) was observed at least once in 84% of the patients and drug-free remission (DAS28 < 2.6 during ≥ 6 months after withdrawal of all disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) in 36% of the patients. Functional disability and health-related quality of life significantly improved during the first 24 weeks. Continuous application of T2T in real-life RA patients leads to favourable disease- and patient-related outcomes.

[Revised version of the statement by the DGRh on biosimilars-update 2017]

The treatment of rheumatic diseases with bioloics has significantly improved the prognosis of patients. Currently, there are 13 preparations available in Germany for the treatment of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. These original preparations generally have-depending on the individual country-15 years of patent protection. As soon as the patent has expired, approved biosimilars can be brought into use. For the approval of a biosimilar, authorities such as the European Medical Agency or the American Food and Drug Administration require proof of the best possible comparability with respect to efficacy and safety in comparison to the original or reference product. Since 2015, biosimilars of inifliximab, adalimumab, etanercept and rituximab have been granted approval in the European Union, the USA, Japan and in other countries. Further biosimilar products for these reference products are in development for treatment in rheumatology. From a societal and medical point of view, this opens up the possibility to increase the availability of biopharmaceutical products for patients through lower prices. In Germany, this possibility has already occurred-statutory health insurance physicians have introduced quotas for biosimilars, which will ultimately decrease spending and healthcare costs. This can lead to price reductions of the original products, which has already happened in Germany. Biosimilars can be prescribed for new patients or as a change from the original to the generic drug. When switching, a distinction is made between individual switching (interchangeability), which is made in individual consultation between the physician and the patient, and nonmedical switching (substitution) made at the societal or governmental level, which is made in the context of health care cost containment, and then, for example, implemented at the pharmacy level. Preliminary data from Norway and Denmark are available for substitution on the basis of results from large studies or registries in which systematic changes were made. The previous conclusion was that this does not lead to new problems for the patients. The German Society for Rheumatology recognizes the advantages of introducing biosimilars in Germany, but recommends that their use be based primarily on a joint decision by the treating physician and patient.

Inequity in biological DMARD prescription for spondyloarthritis across the globe: results from the ASAS-COMOSPA study

Objectives

The value of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in spondyloarthritis (SpA) is well recognised, but global access to these treatments can be limited due to high costs and other factors. This study explores country variation in the use of bDMARDs in SpA in relation to country-level socioeconomic factors.

Methods

Patients fulfilling the Assessment in SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) SpA criteria in the multinational, cross-sectional ASAS Comorbidities in Spondyloarthritis study were studied. Current use of bDMARDs or conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) was investigated in separate models, with multilevel logistic regression analysis, taking the country level into account. Contribution of socioeconomic factors, including country health expenditures, gross domestic product and human development index as independent country-level factors, was explored individually, in models adjusted for sociodemographic as well as clinical variables.

Results

In total, 3370 patients from 22 countries were included (mean (SD) age 43 (14) years; 66% male; 88% axial disease). Across countries, 1275 (38%) patients were bDMARD users. Crude mean bDMARD use varied between 5% (China) to 74% (Belgium). After adjustment for relevant sociodemographic and clinical variables, important variation in bDMARD use across countries remained (P<0.001). Country-level socioeconomic factors, specifically higher health expenditures, were related to higher bDMARD uptake, though not meeting statistical significance (OR 1.96; 95% CI 0.94 to 4.10). csDMARD uptake was significantly lower in countries with higher health expenditures (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65). Similar trends were seen with the other socioeconomic variables.

Conclusions

There remains important residual variation across countries in bDMARD uptake of patients with SpA followed in specialised SpA centres. This is independent of well-known factors for bDMARD use such as clinical and country-level socioeconomic factors.

[The first biologic for rheumatoid arthritis: factors influencing the therapeutic decision]

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biologics (disease modifying antirheumatic drugs, bDMARD) have been in use in Germany for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) since 2001, usually after failure of at least one conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD. We analyzed temporal changes in factors that influence the decision for either a first bDMARD or a further csDMARD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 9513 bDMARD-naive RA patients in the German biologics register RABBIT who switched to a new therapy. For three recruitment periods (2001-2003, 2004-2006 and 2009-2015) factors influencing the therapeutic decision were analyzed by means of machine learning methods and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

In all recruitment periods the number of previous csDMARDs, high dosages of glucocorticoids (>7.5 mg/day) and a higher DAS28 (>5.1) were significantly associated with the decision for a first bDMARD. Over time, the chance of receiving a bDMARD increased in patients with moderate disease activity, moderate glucocorticoid dosages (5-7.5 mg/day) and those with comorbidities, such as congestive heart failure or prior malignancy. Men had a higher chance of receiving a bDMARD than women only in the first recruitment period. Private health insurance, high education and gainful employment were significantly associated with more frequent prescription of bDMARDs in all recruitment periods.

DISCUSSION

The time-dependent changes in the impact of disease activity, concomitant drugs, gender and comorbidity on the prescription of bDMARDs mirror the increasing therapeutic options and the growing experience in the application of the new substances in patients at higher risk. The influence of demographic and social factors may reflect safety concerns in patients at increased risk of adverse events but also the need to economize drug costs..

Ongoing Initiatives to Improve the Quality and Efficiency of Medicine Use within the Public Healthcare System in South Africa; A Preliminary Study

Introduction: South Africa has an appreciable burden of both communicable and non-communicable diseases as well as high maternal, neonatal, and child morbidity. In recent years there have been significant strides with improving the public health system, and addressing current inequalities, with the right to health a constitutional provision in South Africa. Initiatives include the introduction of National Health Insurance, programmes to enhance access to medicines for patients with chronic diseases, as well as activities to improve care in hospitals, including improving pharmacovigilance. Consequently, the objective of this paper is to review ongoing initiatives within the public healthcare sector in South Africa and their influence to provide future direction.

Method: Principally a structured review of current and planned activities.

Results: There have been a number of major activities and initiatives surrounding the availability and access to medicines in the public system in recent years in South Africa. This includes a National Surveillance Centre and an innovative early warning system for the supply of medicines as well as the development of a National Health Care Pricing Authority and initiatives to improve contracting. There have also been developments to improve the supply chain including instigating Medicine Procurement Units in the provinces and enhancing forecasting capabilities. Access to medicines is improving though the instigation of stable chronic disease management initiatives to increase the number of external pick-up points for medicines. There are also ongoing programmes to enhance adherence to medicines as well as enhance adherence to the Standard Treatment Guidelines and the Essential Medicines List with their increasing availability. In addition, there is a movement to enhance the role of health technology assessment in future decision making. Hospital initiatives include increased focus on reducing antimicrobial resistance through instigating stewardship programmes as well as improving adverse drug reaction reporting and associated activities.

Conclusion: Overall, there are an appreciable number of ongoing activities within the public healthcare system in South Africa attempting to ensure and sustain universal healthcare. It is too early to assess their impact, which will be the subject of future research.

Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study

Objectives

Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2.

Methods

Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78.

Results

Efficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%–69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%–68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively.

Conclusions

The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2.

Trial registration number

NCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

Access to biologicals in Crohn’s disease in ten European countries

AIM

To analyze access (availability, affordability and acceptability) to biologicals for Crohn’s disease (CD) in ten European countries and to explore the associations between these dimensions, the uptake of biologicals and economic development.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey combined with desk research was carried out in May 2016. Gastroenterologists from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden were invited to participate and provide data on the availability of biologicals/biosimilars, reimbursement criteria, clinical practice and prices, and use of biologicals. An availability score was developed to evaluate the restrictiveness of eligibility and administrative criteria applied in the countries. Affordability was defined as the annual cost of treatment as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Correlations with the uptake of biologicals, dimensions of access and GDP per capita were calculated.

RESULTS

At the time of the survey, infliximab and adalimumab were reimbursed in all ten countries, and vedolizumab was reimbursed in five countries (France, Germany, Latvia, Slovakia, Sweden). Reimbursement criteria were the least strict in Sweden and Germany, and the strictest in Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Between countries, the annual cost of different biological treatments differed 1.6-3.3-fold. Treatments were the most affordable in Sweden (13%-37% of the GDP per capita) and the least affordable in the Central and Eastern European countries, especially in Hungary (87%-124%) and Romania (141%-277%). Biosimilars made treatments more affordable by driving down the annual costs. The number of patients with CD on biologicals per 100000 population was strongly correlated with GDP per capita (0.91), although substantial differences were found in the uptake among countries with similar economic development. Correlation between the number of patients with CD on biologicals per 100000 population and the availability and affordability was also strong (-0.75, -0.69 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Substantial inequalities in access to biologicals were largely associated with GDP. To explain differences in access among countries with similar development needs further research on acceptance.