Comparative effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus subsequent anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with prior exposure to anti-tumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States Corrona registry

Update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological and synthetic targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the consensus document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) regarding the use of targeted biological and synthetic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the aim of assisting clinicians in their therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

A panel of 13 experts was assembled through an open call by SER. We employed a mixed adaptation-elaboration-update methodology starting from the 2015 Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in RA. Starting with systematic reviews (SR) of recommendations from EULAR 2019, American College of Rheumatology 2021, and GUIPCAR 2017, we updated the search strategies for the PICO questions of GUIPCAR. An additional SR was conducted on demyelinating disease in relation to targeted biological and synthetic therapies. Following the analysis of evidence by different panelists, consensus on the wording and level of agreement for each recommendation was reached in a face-to-face meeting.

RESULTS

The panel established 5 general principles and 15 recommendations on the management of RA. These encompassed crucial aspects such as the importance of early treatment, therapeutic goals in RA, monitoring frequency, the use of glucocorticoids, the application of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Additionally, recommendations on dose reduction of these drugs in stable patients were included. This update also features recommendations on the use of bDMARDs and Janus Kinase inhibitors in some specific clinical situations, such as patients with lung disease, a history of cancer, heart failure, or demyelinating disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This update provides recommendations on key aspects in the management of RA using targeted biological and synthetic therapies.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After Switching Between Interleukin-6-Receptor Inhibitors and Janus Kinase Inhibitors: Findings from an Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This observational study evaluated response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL-6Ri) to a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) and vice versa.

METHODS

Adult patients with RA, who initiated IL-6Ri or JAKi (following discontinuation of JAKi or IL-6Ri, respectively) during/after December 2012 and had a 6-month follow-up visit were enrolled. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and the follow-up visit. Continuous outcomes included Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), pain, fatigue, tender joint count, swollen joint count, Physician Global Assessment (MDGA), Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), and morning stiffness duration. Categorical outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving CDAI low disease activity (LDA), remission, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for HAQ, pain, fatigue, MDGA, and PtGA. Continuous outcomes were summarized as mean changes from baseline, and categorical outcomes as response rates. Differences in the outcome measures between groups were evaluated using linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Between IL-6Ri (n = 100) and JAKi initiators (n = 129), no significant differences were noted for continuous outcomes. Within both groups, a significant proportion of patients achieved LDA, remission, and MCIDs for other measures, although the odds of achieving LDA were higher among IL-6Ri (vs. JAKi) initiators with moderate-to-severe disease (adjusted odds ratio: 3.30 [1.01, 10.78]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with RA can achieve improvement in response when switching between IL-6Ri and JAKi. Although both therapies affect the IL-6 pathway, there are distinct mechanisms of action, which likely contribute to their clinical improvement, when reciprocally switched as follow-on treatments.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs improve the cardiovascular profile in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease affecting about 0. 5–1% of the adult population and manifesting as persistent synovitis, systemic inflammation and production of autoantibodies. Patients affected by RA not only experience chronic disease progression, but are also burdened by a 1.5-fold increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, which is comparable to the risk experienced by patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RA patients also have a higher incidence and prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although RA patients frequently present traditional CV risk factors such as insulin resistance and active smoking, previous studies have clarified the pivotal role of chronic inflammation–driven by proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin 6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha)–in accelerating the process of atherosclerosis and impairing the coagulation system. Over the last years, a number of studies have shown that disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) reducing the inflammatory state in general improve the CV risk, however some drugs may carry some apparent negative effects. Thus, RA is a model of disease in which targeting inflammation may counteract the progression of atherosclerosis and reduce CV risk. Clinical and experimental evidence indicates that the management of RA patients should be tailored based on the positive and negative effects of DMARDs on CV risk together with the individual traditional CV risk profile. The identification of genetic, biochemical and clinical biomarkers, predictive of evolution and response to treatment, will be the next challenge for a precision approach to reduce the burden of the disease.

Comparison of the efficacy and risk of discontinuation between non-TNF-targeted treatment and a second TNF inhibitor in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after first TNF inhibitor failure

Objectives:

Despite improved care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many still experience treatment failure with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs [tsDMARDs; typically Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi)], and eventually switch to other agents. We compared the efficacy of a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and non-TNF-targeted treatment as the second-line treatment in patients showing an insufficient response to the first TNFi.

Methods:

Patients were included if they had received at least one prescription for a TNFi, and at least one follow-up prescription for a second TNFi or non-TNF-targeted treatment after discontinuation of the first drug. In total, 209 patients were analyzed, including 69 with a second TNFi and 140 with a non-TNF-targeted treatment (106 non-TNFi biologics and 34 JAKi). Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation.

Results:

The mean follow-up period after switching was 28.0 (range: 0–80) months and 24.4% of the 209 patients switched or discontinued the second drug. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, the non-TNF-targeted treatment group had a lower likelihood of discontinuing their treatment than the second TNFi group [HR = 0.326, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.170–0.626, p = 0.001]. When analyzed separately, the risk of discontinuation was significantly lower in both the non-TNFi biologic (HR = 0.318, 95% CI: 0.160–0.633, p = 0.001) and JAKi (HR = 0.356, 95% CI: 0.129–0.980, p = 0.046) groups than in the second TNFi group.

Conclusion:

Our study supported switching to a non-TNF-targeted treatment instead of TNF cycling in patients with RA showing an inadequate response to initial TNFi.

EULAR points to consider for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) points to consider (PtCs) for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA).

METHODS

An EULAR Task Force was established comprising 34 individuals: 26 rheumatologists, patient partners and rheumatology experienced health professionals. Two systematic literature reviews addressed clinical questions around diagnostic challenges, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in D2T RA. PtCs were formulated based on the identified evidence and expert opinion. Strength of recommendations (SoR, scale A-D: A typically consistent level 1 studies and D level 5 evidence or inconsistent studies) and level of agreement (LoA, scale 0-10: 0 completely disagree and 10 completely agree) of the PtCs were determined by the Task Force members.

RESULTS

Two overarching principles and 11 PtCs were defined concerning diagnostic confirmation of RA, evaluation of inflammatory disease activity, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, treatment adherence, functional disability, pain, fatigue, goal setting and self-efficacy and the impact of comorbidities. The SoR varied from level C to level D. The mean LoA with the overarching principles and PtCs was generally high (8.4-9.6).

CONCLUSIONS

These PtCs for D2T RA can serve as a clinical roadmap to support healthcare professionals and patients to deliver holistic management and more personalised pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies. High-quality evidence was scarce. A research agenda was created to guide future research.

Comparison of long-term efficacy between biological agents following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is contradictory evidence regarding the best strategy to follow after discontinuation of a first biological agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy of switching to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus biopharmaceuticals with other mechanisms of action (non-TNFi) in patients with RA who previously failed a first TNFi.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 127 patients who discontinued a previous TNFi between 1999 and 2016. Disease activity was assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months (m-6, m-12, m-24) after switching. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response (E-resp). Factors associated with clinical outcomes were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven (61%) patients received a second TNFi and 50 (39%) switched to a non-TNFi. At m-6 and m-12, no differences were observed between groups; nevertheless, at m-24, the proportion of patients with E-resp was higher in the non-TNFi group (49% TNFi group versus 77% non-TNFi group; p = 0.002). In regression models, switching to a non-TNFi was significantly associated with E-resp at m-24 (odds ratio = 3.21; p = 0.01). When assessing the response to the second biological agent based on the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi, similar results were obtained; at m-24, patients who discontinued the first TNFi due to inefficacy (either primary or secondary) experienced a better E-resp if they had switched to a non-TNFi (primary inefficacy: 52% TNFi group versus 79% non-TNFi group, p = 0.09; secondary inefficacy: 50% versus 76%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of RA patients who discontinued a first TNFi, those who switched to a non-TNFi were three times more likely to attain a sustained clinical response, regardless of whether they had discontinued the first biologic due to a primary or secondary inefficacy.

TNFi Cycling Versus Changing Mechanism of Action in TNFi-Experienced Patients: Result of the Corrona CERTAIN Comparative Effectiveness Study

OBJECTIVE

Comparative effectiveness research can inform treatment decisions regarding the choice of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFis (nTNFis) in real-world patients with RA and past TNFi experience.

METHODS

Comparative Effectiveness Registry to study Therapies for Arthritis and Inflammatory Conditions (CERTAIN) was nested within the United States Corrona registry. Adult patients with RA with moderate to high disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] >10) with exposure to one or more prior TNFis who were switching to a new TNFi or nTNFi (choice of therapy per physician choice) were enrolled. The primary outcome was the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) at 12 months (CDAI ≤10; disease activity score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein [DAS28-CRP] <2.67). Propensity score modeling probability of treatment with nTNFi versus TNFi adjusted for imbalanced factors. The response rate was modeled using mixed-effect logistic regression models, adjusting for a priori and imbalanced baseline factors and accounting for the practice-related treatment patterns.

RESULTS

After applying inclusion criteria, 939 biologic initiations were analyzed, 505 (53.7%) nTNFis and 434 (46.3%) TNFis. Patients who started nTNFis were significantly more likely to have longer disease duration, more prior TNFi use, and higher patient fatigue scores and were more likely to have government insurance. At 12 months, 28% of nTNFi and 24% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by CDAI, and 22% of nTNFi and 19% of TNFi initiators were in LDA by DAS28-CRP. After multivariable adjustment and controlling for the influence of site-related confounding, there were no significant differences in the likelihood to reach LDA by CDAI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.62) or DAS28-CRP (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.77-1.75).

CONCLUSION

In this large, real-world study enrolling patients with RA with prior TNFi exposure, switching to an nTNFi biologic was comparable in its clinical effectiveness with switching to another TNFi.

Real-Life Retention Rates and Reasons for Switching of Biological DMARDs in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.

Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).

Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.

Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

Ischemic Heart Disease and Rheumatoid Arthritis-Two Conditions, the Same Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most frequent inflammatory rheumatic diseases, having a considerably increased prevalence of mortality and morbidity due to cardiovascular disease (CVD). RA patients have an augmented risk for ischemic and non-ischemic heart disease. Increased cardiovascular (CV) risk is related to disease activity and chronic inflammation. Traditional risk factors and RA-related characteristics participate in vascular involvement, inducing subclinical changes in coronary microcirculation. RA is considered an independent risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). Endothelial dysfunction is a precocious marker of atherosclerosis (ATS). Pro-inflammatory cytokines (such as TNFα, IL-1, and IL-6) play an important role in synovial inflammation and ATS progression. Therefore, targeting inflammation is essential to controlling RA and preventing CVD. Present guidelines emphasize the importance of disease control, but studies show that RA- treatment has a different influence on CV risk. Based on the excessive risk for CV events in RA, permanent evaluation of CVD in these patients is critical. CVD risk calculators, designed for the general population, do not use RA-related predictive determinants; also, new scores that take into account RA-derived factors have restricted validity, with none of them encompassing imaging modalities or specific biomarkers involved in RA activity.

Pathogenesis of ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart diseases in rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is characterised by a chronic inflammatory condition of the joints, but the comorbidities of RA predominantly contribute to the reduced lifespan associated with this disease. Clinical data indicate that cardiovascular disease is the major comorbidity associated with mortality in RA. In this review, we aimed to describe the pathogenesis of heart failure in RA. First, we emphasised the fundamental differences between ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart diseases and referred to their relevance in excessive cardiovascular-dependent mortality in RA. Second, we highlighted aspects of asymptomatic changes in cardiac tissue and in coronary blood vessels that are commonly found in patients with diagnosed RA. Third, we focused on high-grade systemic inflammation as a key trigger of ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart diseases in RA, and described the implication of conventional and biologic antirheumatic medications on the development and progression of heart disease. In particular, we discussed the roles of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and anti-TNF-α therapies on the development and progression of ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart diseases in RA.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To summarise, by a systematic literature review (SLR), the evidence regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapeutic strategies in difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (D2T RA), informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of D2T RA.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched up to December 2019. Relevant papers were selected and appraised.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven (207) papers studied therapeutic strategies. Limited evidence was found on effective and safe disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with comorbidities and other contraindications that limit DMARD options (patients with obesity, hepatitis B and C, risk of venous thromboembolisms, pregnancy and lactation). In patients who previously failed biological (b-)DMARDs, all currently used b/targeted synthetic (ts-)DMARDs were found to be more effective than placebo. In patients who previously failed a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), there was a tendency of non-TNFi bDMARDs to be more effective than TNFis. Generally, effectiveness decreased in patients who previously failed a higher number of bDMARDs. Additionally, exercise, psychological, educational and self-management interventions were found to improve non-inflammatory complaints (mainly functional disability, pain, fatigue), education to improve goal setting, and self-management programmes, educational and psychological interventions to improve self-management.The identified evidence had several limitations: (1) no studies were found in patients with D2T RA specifically, (2) heterogeneous outcome criteria were used and (3) most studies had a moderate or high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

This SLR underscores the scarcity of high-quality evidence on the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of patients with D2T RA. Effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs decreased in RA patients who had failed a higher number of bDMARDs and a subsequent b/tsDMARD of a previously not targeted mechanism of action was somewhat more effective. Additionally, a beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions was found for improvement of non-inflammatory complaints, goal setting and self-management.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Factors associated with long-term persistence of rituximab in rheumatoid arthritis In clinical practice: RITAR Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with rituximab (RTX) requires repeated cycles, but there is no well-established retreatment regimen in dose and frequency. The objective was to analyse the persistence of RTX treatment and factors that influence in terms of routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RITAR Study) is an observational, retrospective study that analyses the persistence of RTX in a cohort from 2003 to 2015. Persistence was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis; curves were compared with the Log-Rank test. Cox regression was used to quantify the risk of discontinuation and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with the persistence of the treatment.

RESULTS

454 cycles of RTX in 114 patients were included. Median survival was 10.0 years and incidence rate of discontinuation was 7.7 per 100 patients/year. Factors associated with persistence were autoantibody positivity and use of RTX in combination with csDMARDs. Sex, age, number of comorbidities, rheumatoid arthritis evolution, number of complications, basal DAS28, basal HAQ, number of lines of treatment, fixed or on demand retreatment and year of RTX starting were not associated. Multivariable models confirmed the relationship between autoantibody positivity, monotherapy and persistence of RTX.

CONCLUSIONS

The persistence of RTX in clinical practice is higher in seropositive patients and in those who are treated with RTX associated with a csDMARD. Dose per cycle and retreatment frequency do not have a decisive role in rituximab persistence.

Improving rheumatoid arthritis comparative effectiveness research through causal inference principles: systematic review using a target trial emulation framework

OBJECTIVES

Target trial emulation is an intuitive design framework that encourages investigators to formulate their comparative effectiveness research (CER) question as a hypothetical randomised controlled trial (RCT). Our aim was to systematically review CER studies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to provide examples of design limitations that could be avoided using target trial emulation, and how these limitations might introduce bias.

METHODS

We searched for head-to-head CER studies of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in RA. Study designs were reviewed for seven components of the target trial emulation framework: eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, assignment procedures, follow-up period, outcome, causal contrasts of interest (ie, intention-to-treat (ITT) or per-protocol effect) and analysis plan. Hypothetical trials corresponding to the reported methods were assessed to identify design limitations that would have been avoided with an explicit target trial protocol. Analysis of the primary effectiveness outcome was chosen where multiple analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We found 31 CER studies, of which 29 (94%) had at least one design limitation belonging to seven components. The most common limitations related to: (1) eligibility criteria: 19/31 (61%) studies used post-baseline information to define baseline eligibility; (2) causal contrasts: 25 (81%) did not define whether ITT or per-protocol effects were estimated and (3) assignment procedures: 13 (42%) studies did not account for confounding by indication or relied solely on statistical confounder selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Design limitations were found in 94% of observational CER studies in RA. Target trial emulation is a structured approach for designing observational CER studies that helps to avoid potential sources of bias.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.

RESULTS

Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

The role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

Registries characterize the effectiveness and safety of therapeutic interventions in daily clinical practice. Data from registries enable mining the records of tens of thousands of patients towards determining the effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit of any given therapeutic. The strengths of registries include real-life settings, greater power than clinical trials to detect rare events, and the study of multiple outcomes and several research questions. Registries also have their weaknesses. They are expensive, less accurate than clinical trials, affected by channelling bias, often require links to external sources or use historic and selected control cohorts or combine datasets to increase power, and have the risk of multiple confounders. Since the beginning of biological era, registries were developed to profile emerging treatments. This article reviews the role of registries in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs.

Cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare the cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab and other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in rheumatoid arthritis using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search through May 2018 identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) or observational studies (cohort only) reporting cardiovascular outcomes of tocilizumab (TCZ) and/or abatacept (ABA) and/or rituximab (RTX) and/or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis patients. The composite primary outcome was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (MACE, myocardial infarction (MI), peripheral artery disease (PAD) and cardiac heart failure (CHF)).

RESULTS

19 studies were included in the NMA, including 11 RCTs and 8 cohort studies. We found less events with RTX (5.41 [1.70;17.26]. We found no difference between TCZ and other treatments. Concerning MI, we found no difference between TCZ and csDMARD (4.23 [0.22;80.64]), no difference between TCZ and TNFi (2.00 [0.18;21.84]). There was no difference between TCZ and csDMARD (1.51[0.02;103.50] and between TCZ and TNFi (1.00 [0.06;15.85]) for stroke event. With cohorts and RCT NMA, we found no difference between TCZ and other treatments for MACE (0.66 [0.42;1.03] with ABA, 1.04 [0.60;1.81] with RTX, 0.78[0.53;1.16] and 0.91 [0.54;1.51] with csDMARD), but the risk of myocardial infarction was lower with TCZ compared to ABA (0.67 [0.47;0.97]). We lacked data to compare TCZ and other bDMARD for stoke and MI. Not enough data was available to perform a NMA for CHF and PAD.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an increase in cholesterol levels, TCZ has safe cardiovascular outcomes compared to other bDMARD.

Cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors compared with rituximab as second-line biologic drug in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abatacept, tocilizumab, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors as compared with rituximab in Finnish rheumatoid arthritis patients, who have previously been treated with TNF inhibitors.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation model was developed to predict costs and outcomes associated with four biological drugs (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab and TNF inhibitors) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Following lack of efficacy or adverse events, the patients were switched to another biological drug until all four options were exhausted. After that, the patients were assumed to receive a 6th line treatment until death. The patients' baseline characteristics and regression models used in the simulation were based on observational data from the National Register for Biological Treatments in Finland. Direct costs comprised drug costs, administration costs, costs of switching, and outpatient and inpatient care, while indirect costs included disability pension and sick leaves due to rheumatoid arthritis. Several subgroup and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Drug costs were the lowest for rituximab, but when administration costs and costs of switching were included, drug costs were the lowest for TNF inhibitors. Abatacept was associated with the highest drug costs, whereas rituximab was associated with the highest healthcare costs. In total, TNF inhibitors had the lowest direct costs, while rituximab had the highest direct costs. The amount of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained ranged from 9.405 for rituximab to 9.661 for TNF inhibitors. TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab were dominant in comparison to RTX.

CONCLUSIONS

TNF inhibitors, abatacept, and tocilizumab had lower costs and higher QALYs than rituximab, and therefore, they were dominant in comparison to rituximab. As TNF inhibitors had the lowest costs and highest QALYs, they were the most cost-effective treatment option.

Methodologic considerations for noninterventional studies of switching from reference biologic to biosimilars

PURPOSE

As more biosimilars become available in the United States, postapproval noninterventional studies describing biosimilar switching and comparing effectiveness and/or safety between switchers and nonswitchers will play a key role in generating real-world evidence to inform clinical practices and policy decisions. Ensuring sound methodology is critical for making valid inferences from these studies.

METHODS

The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) convened a workgroup consisting of academic researchers, industry scientists, and practicing clinicians to establish best practice recommendations for the conduct of noninterventional studies of biosimilar and reference biologic switching. The workgroup members participated in eight teleconferences between August 2017 and February 2018 to discuss specific topics and build consensus.

RESULTS

This report provides workgroup recommendations covering five main considerations relating to noninterventional studies describing reference biologic to biosimilar switching and comparing reference biologic to biosimilars for safety and effectiveness in the presence of switching at treatment initiation and during follow-up: (a) selecting appropriate data sources from a range of available options including insurance claims, electronic health records, and registries; (b) study designs; (c) outcomes of interest including health care utilization and clinical endpoints; (d) analytic approaches including propensity scores, disease risk scores, and instrumental variables; and (e) special considerations including avoiding designs that ignore history of biologic use, avoiding immortal time bias, exposure misclassification, and accounting for postindex switching.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations provided in this report provide a framework that may be helpful in designing and critically evaluating postapproval noninterventional studies involving reference biologic to biosimilar switching.

Comparative effectiveness of abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and TNFi biologics in RA: results from the nationwide Swedish register

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines rank abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab and TNF-inhibitors (TNFi) as having equal effectiveness for the treatment of RA, at least as second line therapies. These recommendations are mainly based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, with few direct drug-drug comparisons. Our objective was to compare the real-world absolute and relative effectiveness among RA patients starting any of the available biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

We used the Swedish Rheumatology Register to identify patients with RA initiating TNFi, rituximab, abatacept or tocilizumab in 2010-2016 as first bDMARD (n = 9333), or after switch from TNFi as first bDMARD (n = 3941). National Swedish registers provided additional covariates and censoring events. Effectiveness was assessed 3 and 12 months after treatment start, as the proportion remaining on therapy and with EULAR Good Response, HAQ improvement >0.2, zero swollen/tender joints and CDAI remission. Adjusted differences were estimated with multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Patients starting non-TNFi (vs TNFi) as first bDMARD had a higher proportion remaining on drug and reaching most response outcomes as first bDMARD (1-year EULAR Good Response/HAQ improvement: TNFi 24.9/25.4%, rituximab 28.6/37.2%, abatacept 31.9/33.7%, tocilizumab 50.9/43.1%). After switch from a first TNFi, rituximab and tocilizumab, but not abatacept, were associated with significantly better response measures than TNFi (1-year EULAR Good Response/HAQ improvement: TNFi 11.6/16.1%, rituximab 24.8/33.2%, abatacept 13.1/17.5%, tocilizumab 34.1/29.4%). Differences remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders.

CONCLUSION

Treatment outcomes among RA patients treated in Swedish clinical practice are in line with a superior effectiveness of non-TNFi bDMARDs, in particular tocilizumab and rituximab, compared with TNFi.

Long-Term Safety of Rituximab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis From the SUNSTONE Registry

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term safety of rituximab in an observational cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to ≥ 1 antitumor necrosis factor therapies in the United States (SUNSTONE Registry).

METHODS

In this prospective, observational cohort study, patients received rituximab according to their physician's standard practice and were evaluated at standard-of-care follow-up visits at least every 6 months. The primary outcome was the incidence of protocol-defined significant infections. Secondary outcomes included serious adverse events potentially associated with rituximab, cardiovascular or thrombotic (CVT) events, seizures, deaths and pregnancies. Posthoc analyses assessed outcomes by concomitant medication use.

RESULTS

Overall, 989 patients (safety-evaluable population) received ≥ 1 dose of rituximab, with a total follow-up of 3844 patient-years (PYs; mean duration, 3.9 years). In total, 341 significant infections occurred in 197 patients (19.9%). The incidence rates (95% CI) for significant infections, CVT events, and seizures were 8.87 (7.98, 9.86), 1.95 (1.56, 2.45), and 0.18 (0.09, 0.38) per 100 PYs, respectively. The incidence of significant infections did not increase with time or with cumulative rituximab exposure. During the study, 64 patients died (crude mortality [95% CI]: 1.66 per 100 PYs [1.30, 2.13]). The most common causes of death were infections (19 patients), malignancy (14), and cardiovascular events (13). Eight pregnancies were reported in 7 patients.

CONCLUSION

In patients with RA treated with rituximab for up to 5 years, the rates of significant infections were stable over time and higher in patients who received long-term systemic steroid treatment. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis in the Eastern Mediterranean region: an adolopment of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines

Clinical practice guidelines can assist rheumatologists in the proper prescription of newer treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this paper is to report on the recommendations for the management of patients with RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. We adapted the 2015 American College of Rheumatology guidelines in two separate waves. We used the adolopment methodology, and followed the 18 steps of the "Guidelines 2.0" comprehensive checklist for guideline development. For each question, we updated the original guidelines' evidence synthesis, and we developed an Evidence Profile (EP) and an Evidence to Decision (EtD) table. In the first wave, we adoloped eight out of the 15 original questions on early RA. The strength changed for five of these recommendations from strong to conditional, due to one or more of the following factors: cost, impact on health equities, the balance of benefits, and harms and acceptability. In the second wave, we adoloped eight out of the original 44 questions on established RA. The strength changed for two of these recommendations from strong to conditional, in both cases due to cost, impact on health equities, balance of benefits and harms, and acceptability. The panel also developed a good practice recommendation. We successfully adoloped 16 recommendations for the management of early and established RA in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The process proved feasible and sensitive to contextual factors.

Long-term persistence with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives

To investigate the long term persistence of rituximab (RTX) in a large observational RA cohort, investigate persistence of RTX when used as a first or second line biologic DMARD (bDMARD), to characterize subsequent bDMARD treatment following RTX.

Methods

Patients with RA starting treatment with RTX (MabThera) between 2008 and 2011 were recruited into the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for RA. Duration of RTX treatment over the first 4 years after initiation was estimated via Kaplan-Meier estimates and the reason for discontinuation was ascertained. Subsequent bDMARD use following RTX discontinuation was characterised. Treatment survival in bDMARD-naïve (first line RTX use) and experienced (second line RTX use) cohorts was described.

Results

One thousand six hundred and twenty-nine patients were recruited (1371 bDMARD-experienced and 258 bDMARD-naïve). Sixty percent of the whole cohort remained on RTX after 4 years. Ineffectiveness (46%) and death (24%) were the most common reason for RTX discontinuation. RTX discontinuation was associated with RF negativity for the bDMARD-experienced cohort. Of those that discontinued RTX, 46% initiated treatment with another bDMARD, with tocilizumab being the most common.

Conclusion

This large study of patients initiating RTX treatment for severe RA found that 60% persisted with treatment after 4 years. This study also identified that RTX is tolerated well when used as a first or second line bDMARD.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy

BACKGROUND

Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab).

OBJECTIVE

To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes.

METHODS

We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients.

RESULTS

The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs).

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Long-term effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, stratified by number of previous treatment failures with biologic agents: results from the German RABBIT cohort

In Germany, Tocilizumab (TCZ) is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis both in biologic-naïve patients and those with previous failures of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). The long-term effectiveness and retention rates of TCZ in patients with different numbers of prior bDMARD failures has rarely been investigated. We included 885 RA patients in the analyses, enrolled with the start of TCZ between 2009 and 2015 in the German biologics register RABBIT. Patients were stratified according to prior bDMARD failures: no prior bDMARD or 1, 2 or ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. We applied Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox-regression to examine treatment adherence as well as linear mixed effects models to investigate effectiveness over 3 years of follow-up. Compared to biologic-naïve patients, those with prior bDMARD failures at start of TCZ were younger but had significantly longer disease duration and more comorbidities. DAS28 at baseline and loss of physical function were highest in patients with ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. During follow-up, patients with up to two bDMARD failures on average reached low disease activity (LDA, DAS28 < 3.2). Those with ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs had a slightly lower response. However, after 3 years, nearly 50% of them achieved LDA. Treatment continuation on TCZ therapy was similar in patients with ≤ 2 bDMARD failures but significantly lower in those with ≥ 3 bDMARD failures. TCZ seems to be similarly effective in patients with no, one or two prior bDMARD failures. The majority of patients achieved LDA already after 6 months and maintained it over a period of 3 years. TCZ proved effective even in the high-risk group of patients with more than two prior bDMARD failures.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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.

Design characteristics of the Corrona Japan rheumatoid arthritis registry

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to prospectively study the comparative safety and effectiveness of older and newer classes of nonbiologic DMARDs (Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs), biologic DMARDs and targeted synthetic therapies approved for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a real-world patient population in Japan.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, noninterventional, observational study across geographic distribution of both private and public institutions for patients with RA who are newly prescribed one of the following medications: (1) methotrexate; (2) anti-TNF biologic DMARDs; (3) non-TNF biologic DMARDs; and (4) approved JAK inhibitors at the time of enrollment into the registry. Target enrollment is currently 2000 subjects. Baseline and follow-up data on patient demographics, medical history, disease activity, laboratory results, comorbidities, hospitalizations, and targeted safety events are obtained via Physician and Patient Questionnaires.

RESULTS

Fifty sites are anticipated to participate with 40 sites ethics committee (EC) approved at the time of submission consisting of 23% clinics, 21% private academic hospitals, 29% private mid-sized to large hospitals, 15% national academic hospitals, and 12% national hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The Corrona Japan RA Registry will provide real-world evidence from both private and public institutions on the comparative effectiveness and safety of recently approved RA therapies in Japan.

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.