Costs associated with failure to respond to treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNFi therapy: a retrospective claims analysis

Economic and Humanistic Burden of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results From the US National Survey Data 2018-2020

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to estimate the economic and humanistic burden among US adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

This study analyzed results from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from 2018 to 2020. Adults (aged ≥18 years) self-reporting with RA or with the presence of the International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision clinical modification codes were identified. Healthcare expenditures (inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency department, office visits, prescription medications, home health, and others) were measured. The Short Form 12 Health Survey physical component summary (PCS), mental component summary (MCS), activities of daily living (ADL), and instrumental ADL (IADL) were measured. Two-part models assessed the incremental increase in the health care expenditures for the RA group compared to the non-RA group. In addition, the multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate the marginal difference in PCS and MCS between those with RA and those without RA, whereas the multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between ADL and IADL by RA status.

RESULTS

Annually, 4.27 million adults with RA were identified. The two-part model showed significantly higher total annual healthcare expenditures in the RA group than non-RA group (mean $3,382.971 [95% confidence interval (CI) $1,816.50-$4,949.44]). Compared to the non-RA group, the RA group was associated with lower PCS scores (mean 4.78 [95% CI 3.47-6.09]) and similarly lower MCS scores (mean -0.84 [95% CI -2.18 to 0.50]), as well as increased odds of requesting ADL (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.02 [95% CI 1.59-2.56]) and IADL assistance (aOR 2.11 [95% CI 1.57-2.84]).

CONCLUSION

RA was associated with higher health care expenditures, particularly prescription medication costs, and was associated with suboptimal quality of life.

Healthcare resource utilisation and economic burden of patients with adequate and inadequate responses to biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and direct costs between responders versus non-responders to advanced therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients initiating ≥1 advanced therapy (October 2018 - September 2019) with ≥1 RA claim (6-month pre-index period), ≥2 RA claims (any period), and ≥12 months follow-up were identified from the Medical Data Vision claims database. HCRU and all-cause and RA-related costs [direct medical, emergency department (ED), laboratory, and pharmacy] were compared between responders and non-responders. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for HCRU or cost were calculated via multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Among 2446 patients [non-responders (n = 1817); responders (n = 629)], non-responders had significantly longer hospitalisation days [IRR: 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2 - 2.6)], and significantly more ED visits [2.5 (1.5 - 4.2)] and prescriptions [1.1 (1.1 - 1.2)]. Mean all-cause hospital/outpatient medical costs were significantly higher for non-responders [1.4 (1.3 - 1.6), ¥530,895 versus ¥357,009 ($3992 versus $2684) for responders; ¥173,886 ($1307) difference]; RA-related medical costs showed a similar trend [¥351,306 vs ¥253,030 ($2641 vs $1902); ¥98,276 ($739) difference]. No differences between responders and non-responders were observed in mean all-cause and RA-related pharmacy costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-responders to advanced therapies had greater HCRU and all-cause/RA-related direct costs as compared with responders, suggesting a need for more effective RA therapies to reduce the economic burden associated with non-response.

Imaging in inflammatory arthritis: progress towards precision medicine

Imaging techniques such as ultrasonography and MRI have gained ground in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory arthritis, as these imaging modalities allow a sensitive assessment of musculoskeletal inflammation and damage. However, these techniques cannot discriminate between disease subsets and are currently unable to deliver an accurate prediction of disease progression and therapeutic response in individual patients. This major shortcoming of today's technology hinders a targeted and personalized patient management approach. Technological advances in the areas of high-resolution imaging (for example, high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography and ultra-high field MRI), functional and molecular-based imaging (such as chemical exchange saturation transfer MRI, positron emission tomography, fluorescence optical imaging, optoacoustic imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography) and artificial intelligence-based data analysis could help to tackle these challenges. These new imaging approaches offer detailed anatomical delineation and an in vivo and non-invasive evaluation of the immunometabolic status of inflammatory reactions, thereby facilitating an in-depth characterization of inflammation. By means of these developments, the aim of earlier diagnosis, enhanced monitoring and, ultimately, a personalized treatment strategy looms closer.

Differences in trajectory of disease activity according to biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

The purpose of this study was to stratify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) according to the trend of disease activity by trajectory-based clustering and to identify contributing factors for treatment response to biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) according to trajectory groups.

Methods

We analyzed the data from a nationwide RA cohort from the Korean College of Rheumatology Biologics and Targeted Therapy registry. Patients treated with second-line biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs were included. Trajectory modeling for clustering was used to group the disease activity trend. The contributing factors using the machine learning model of SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values for each trajectory were investigated.

Results

The trends in the disease activity of 688 RA patients were clustered into 4 groups: rapid decrease and stable disease activity (group 1, n = 319), rapid decrease followed by an increase (group 2, n = 36), slow and continued decrease (group 3, n = 290), and no decrease in disease activity (group 4, n = 43). SHAP plots indicated that the most important features of group 2 compared to group 1 were the baseline erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), prednisolone dose, and disease activity score with 28-joint assessment (DAS28) (SHAP value 0.308, 0.157, and 0.103, respectively). The most important features of group 3 compared to group 1 were the baseline ESR, DAS28, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (SHAP value 0.175, 0.164, 0.042, respectively). The most important features of group 4 compared to group 1 were the baseline DAS28, ESR, and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) (SHAP value 0.387, 0.153, 0.144, respectively).

Conclusions

The trajectory-based approach was useful for clustering the treatment response of biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs in patients with RA. In addition, baseline DAS28, ESR, prednisolone dose, eGFR, and BUN were important contributing factors for 4-year trajectories.

Perspectives on applying immuno-autonomics to rheumatoid arthritis: results from an online rheumatologist survey

The term "immuno-autonomics" has been coined to describe an emerging field evaluating the interaction between stress, autonomic nervous system (ANS), and inflammation. The field remains largely unknown among practicing rheumatologists. Our objective was to evaluate the perspectives of rheumatologists regarding the role of stress in the activity and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A 31-item survey was conducted with 231 rheumatologists. Rheumatologists were asked to assess the role of stress in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and were provided with information regarding immuno-autonomics. They were asked to consider how immuno-autonomics resonated with their patient management needs. The majority of rheumatologists are eager to better understand non-response, believe that stress biology and ANS dysfunction interfere with disease activity, and embrace the theory that measurement of ANS via next-generation HRV may be able to evaluate autonomic dysfunction and the biology of stress. Rheumatologists are open to the idea that quantitative measurement of ANS function using next-generation HRV can be a helpful tool to RA practice. The majority agree that ANS state influences RA disease control and that quantitative measures of ANS state are helpful to RA practice. Rheumatologists also agree that patients with poor ANS function may be at risk for not responding adequately to conventional, biologic, or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Almost all would use an in-office test to quantitatively measure ANS using next-generation HRV. This study shows that rheumatologists are open to embracing evaluation of ANS function as a possible tool in the management and treatment of RA.

The Economic Benefit of Remission for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), attaining remission or low disease activity (LDA), as recommended by the treat-to-target approach, has shown to yield improvement in symptoms and quality of life. However, limited evidence from real-world settings is available to support the premise that better disease control is associated with lower healthcare costs. This study fills in evidence gaps regarding the cost of care by RA disease activity (DA) states and by therapy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study linked medical and prescription claims from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to electronic health record data from Illumination Health over 1/1/2010–3/31/2020. Mean annual costs for payers and patients were examined, stratifying on DA state and baseline use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologics, and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs. Subgroup analysis examining within-person change in costs pre- and post-initiation of new therapy was also performed. Descriptive statistics, means, and boot-strapped confidence intervals were analyzed by DA state and by RA therapy. Furthermore, multivariate negative binomial regression analysis adjusting for key baseline characteristics was conducted.

Results

Of 2339 eligible patients, 19% were in remission, 40% in LDA, 29% in moderate DA (MDA), and 12% in high DA (HDA) at baseline. Mean annual costs during follow-up were substantially less for patients in remission ($40,072) versus those in MDA ($56,536) and HDA ($59,217). For patients in remission, csDMARD use was associated with the lowest mean annual cost ($25,575), tsDMARD was highest ($75,512), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) ($69,846) and non-TNFi ($57,507) were intermediate. Among new TNFi (n = 137) and non-TNFi initiators (n = 107), 31% and 26% attained LDA/remission, respectively, and the time to achieve remission/LDA was numerically shorter in TNFi vs. non-TNFi initiators. For those on biologics, mean annual within-person medical and inpatient costs were lower after achieving LDA/remission, although pharmacy costs were higher.

Conclusions

Cost of care increased with increasing DA state, with patients in remission having the lowest costs. Optimizing DA has the potential for substantial savings in healthcare costs, although may be partially offset by the high cost of targeted RA therapies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-022-00473-6.

Identifying inadequate response among patients with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis prescribed advanced therapy in a real-world, commercially insured adult population in the USA

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess treatment patterns and frequency of inadequate response associated with advanced therapy initiation among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the USA.

METHODS

Adult patients with AS or PsA who initiated advanced therapy were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database®. Inadequate response to advanced therapies (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFi] and non-TNFi biologics) was identified using a claims-based algorithm. Factors influencing inadequate response were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 646 patients with AS, and 1433 patients with PsA were evaluated. Among patients with AS (mean age, 43 years; male, 58%), 93% patients initiated TNFi, and 69% of patients had inadequate response. In patients with PsA (mean age, 49 years; male, 47%), 67% initiated TNFi, and 77% had inadequate response. Low adherence was the main predictor of inadequate response in patients with AS (56%) and PsA (63%). Inadequate responders were more likely to be female (odds ratio [OR] 2.05 for AS and 1.37 for PsA). Prior exposure to TNFi was associated with 3.89- and 2.14-fold greater odds of inadequate response in both AS and PsA patients, respectively, while patients using methotrexate were less likely to have inadequate response (OR 0.48 for AS and 0.72 for PsA; all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Over 69% of patients with AS and 77% of patients with PsA had inadequate response to their index advanced therapy during 1 year after initiation. Health plan claims data appear useful to classify inadequate responders in AS and PsA. Key Points • Estimating inadequate response to advanced therapies and identifying factors associated with this outcome using claims data could improve treatment outcomes in AS and PsA. • In a sample of commercially insured US patients, over 69% of patients with AS and 77% of patients with PsA had inadequate response to their index advanced therapy during 1 year after initiation. Patient characteristics such as sex and prior therapy use were predictive of inadequate response to advanced therapies. • Health plan claims data appear useful to classify inadequate responders in AS and PsA and identify factors associated with this outcome.

Guided therapy selection in rheumatoid arthritis using a molecular signature response classifier: an assessment of budget impact and clinical utility

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be treated with a range of targeted therapies following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate. Whereas clinical practice guidelines provide no formal recommendations for initial targeted therapies, the tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) class is the prevalent first-line selection based on clinician experience, its safety profile, and/or formulary requirements, while also being the costliest. Most patients do not achieve adequate clinical response with a first-line TNFi, however. A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test that assesses RA-related biomarkers can identify patients who are unlikely to achieve adequate response to TNFi-class therapies. OBJECTIVE: To model cost-effectiveness of MSRC-guided, first-line targeted therapy selection compared with current standard care. METHODS: This budget impact analysis used data sourced from August to September 2020. The prevalence of each first-line targeted therapy was obtained using market intelligence from Datamonitor/Informa PLC Rheumatology Dashboard Forecast 2020, and the average first-year cost of treatment for each class was calculated using wholesale acquisition costs from IBM Micromedex RED BOOK Online. Average effectiveness for each class was based on manufacturer-reported ACR50 response rates (American College of Rheumatology adequate response criteria of 50% improvement at 6 months after therapy initiation). The impact of MSRC testing on first therapy selection was predicted based on a third party-generated decision-impact study that analyzed potential alterations in rheumatologist prescribing patterns after receiving MSRC test reports. Sensitivity analysis evaluated potential impacts of variation in first-year medication cost, adherence to MSRC report, and test price on the first-year cost of treatment. Cost for response (first-year therapy cost therapy divided by probability of achieving ACR50) was compared between standard care and MSRC-guided care. RESULTS: The estimated cost for first-year, standard-care treatment was $65,117, with 80% of patients initiating treatment with a TNFi. Cost for achieving ACR50 response was $177,046. After applying MSRC-guided patient stratification and therapy selection, the first-year cost was $56,543, net of test price, with 49.0% of patients initiating with a TNFi. First-year MSRC-guided care cost, including test price, was estimated at $117,103, a 33.9% improvement over standard care. Sensitivity analysis showed a net cost improvement for guided care vs standard care across all scenarios. Patients predicted to be inadequate TNFi responders, when modeled with lower-priced alternatives, were predicted to show increased ACR50 response rates. Those with MSRC test results indicating a first-line TNFi were predicted to show an ACR50 response rate superior to that for any other class. In this model, if implemented clinically, MSRC-guided care might save the US health care system more than $850 million annually and improve ACR50 by up to 31.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Precision medicine using MSRC-guided patient stratification and therapy selection may both decrease cost and improve efficacy of targeted RA therapies. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded in full by Scipher Medicine Corporation, which participated in data analysis and interpretation and drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to data analysis and interpretation and publication preparation, maintaining control over the final content. Arnell, Withers, and Connolly-Strong are employees of and have stock ownership in Scipher Medicine Corporation. Bergman has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Scipher Medicine and owns stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. Kenney, Logan, and Lim-Harashima are consultants for Scipher Medicine Corporation. Basu has nothing to disclose.

Intensive therapy for moderate established rheumatoid arthritis: the TITRATE research programme

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major inflammatory disorder and causes substantial disability. Treatment goals span minimising disease activity, achieving remission and decreasing disability. In active rheumatoid arthritis, intensive management achieves these goals. As many patients with established rheumatoid arthritis have moderate disease activity, the TITRATE (Treatment Intensities and Targets in Rheumatoid Arthritis ThErapy) programme assessed the benefits of intensive management.

Objectives

To (1) define how to deliver intensive therapy in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis; (2) establish its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a trial; and (3) evaluate evidence supporting intensive management in observational studies and completed trials.

Design

Observational studies, secondary analyses of completed trials and systematic reviews assessed existing evidence about intensive management. Qualitative research, patient workshops and systematic reviews defined how to deliver it. The trial assessed its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in moderate established rheumatoid arthritis.

Setting

Observational studies (in three London centres) involved 3167 patients. These were supplemented by secondary analyses of three previously completed trials (in centres across all English regions), involving 668 patients. Qualitative studies assessed expectations (nine patients in four London centres) and experiences of intensive management (15 patients in 10 centres across England). The main clinical trial enrolled 335 patients with diverse socioeconomic deprivation and ethnicity (in 39 centres across all English regions).

Participants

Patients with established moderately active rheumatoid arthritis receiving conventional disease-modifying drugs.

Interventions

Intensive management used combinations of conventional disease-modifying drugs, biologics (particularly tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) and depot steroid injections; nurses saw patients monthly, adjusted treatment and provided supportive person-centred psychoeducation. Control patients received standard care.

Main outcome measures

Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR)-categorised patients (active to remission). Remission (DAS28-ESR < 2.60) was the treatment target. Other outcomes included fatigue (measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire), harms and resource use for economic assessments.

Results

Evaluation of existing evidence for intensive rheumatoid arthritis management showed the following. First, in observational studies, DAS28-ESR scores decreased over 10–20 years, whereas remissions and treatment intensities increased. Second, in systematic reviews of published trials, all intensive management strategies increased remissions. Finally, patients with high disability scores had fewer remissions. Qualitative studies of rheumatoid arthritis patients, workshops and systematic reviews helped develop an intensive management pathway. A 2-day training session for rheumatology practitioners explained its use, including motivational interviewing techniques and patient handbooks. The trial screened 459 patients and randomised 335 patients (168 patients received intensive management and 167 patients received standard care). A total of 303 patients provided 12-month outcome data. Intention-to-treat analysis showed intensive management increased DAS28-ESR 12-month remissions, compared with standard care (32% vs. 18%, odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.28 to 3.68; p = 0.004), and reduced fatigue [mean difference –18, 95% confidence interval –24 to –11 (scale 0–100); p < 0.001]. Disability (as measured on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) decreased when intensive management patients achieved remission (difference –0.40, 95% confidence interval –0.57 to –0.22) and these differences were considered clinically relevant. However, in all intensive management patients reductions in the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were less marked (difference –0.1, 95% confidence interval –0.2 to 0.0). The numbers of serious adverse events (intensive management n = 15 vs. standard care n = 11) and other adverse events (intensive management n = 114 vs. standard care n = 151) were similar. Economic analysis showed that the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £43,972 from NHS and Personal Social Services cost perspectives. The probability of meeting a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 was 17%. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to £29,363 after including patients’ personal costs and lost working time, corresponding to a 50% probability that intensive management is cost-effective at English willingness-to-pay thresholds. Analysing trial baseline predictors showed that remission predictors comprised baseline DAS28-ESR, disability scores and body mass index. A 6-month extension study (involving 95 intensive management patients) showed fewer remissions by 18 months, although more sustained remissions were more likley to persist. Qualitative research in trial completers showed that intensive management was acceptable and treatment support from specialist nurses was beneficial.

Limitations

The main limitations comprised (1) using single time point remissions rather than sustained responses, (2) uncertainty about benefits of different aspects of intensive management and differences in its delivery across centres, (3) doubts about optimal treatment of patients unresponsive to intensive management and (4) the lack of formal international definitions of ‘intensive management’.

Conclusion

The benefits of intensive management need to be set against its additional costs. These were relatively high. Not all patients benefited. Patients with high pretreatment physical disability or who were substantially overweight usually did not achieve remission.

Future work

Further research should (1) identify the most effective components of the intervention, (2) consider its most cost-effective delivery and (3) identify alternative strategies for patients not responding to intensive management.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70160382.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Value-Based Healthcare in Rheumatology: Axial Spondyloarthritis and Beyond

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and the wider field of rheumatology through a value-based healthcare (VBHC) lens. VBHC is focused on ensuring patients receive high quality care to improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are many opportunities to apply the principles of VBHC in axSpA. These include the appropriate utilization of diagnostic investigations, such as HLA-B27 and magnetic resonance imaging, assessing outcomes meaningful to patients, and optimizing care pathways. Multidisciplinary care may improve value, and reduced specialist review and medication tapering may be appropriate. Increasing the value of the care we provide to patients can occur across domains and directly and indirectly improves patient outcomes. Taking the time to integrate principles of VBHC into our practice will allow us to justifiably gain and maintain access to diagnostic and therapeutic advances for the benefit of all our patients.

Retention rate of a second line with a biologic DMARD after failure of a first-line therapy with abatacept, tocilizumab, or rituximab: results from the Italian GISEA registry

OBJECTIVES

EULAR recommendations do not suggest which biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) should be preferred after failure of a first bDMARD in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In particular, few data are available regarding the effectiveness of a second-line bDMARD after failure of abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab (RTX). The aim of this study was to analyze the retention rate of a second line with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other mechanisms of action (MoAs), after the failure of either RTX, TCZ, or ABA.

METHODS

Two hundred and seventy-eight RA patients from the Italian GISEA registry were included in the study. RTX was the first bDMARD in 18% of patients, ABA in 45.7%, and TCZ in 36.3%, while the second bDMARD was a TNFi (group 1) in 129 patients and an agent with a different MoA (group 2) in 149.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 68), 129 patients discontinued their treatment; patients of group 1 discontinued the treatment more frequently than patients of group 2 (p<0.001) with retention rates of 33.6±5.7% and 63.6±4.6% after 104 weeks for group 1 and group 2, respectively (p<0.001). At multivariate analysis, the mechanism of action was the only predictor for the maintenance in therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our data, ABA, RTX, and TCZ seem to maintain a good retention rate also when used as a second-line therapy, suggesting their use after the failure of a non-TNFi as first-line therapy. However, specifically designed studies are needed to evaluate the more appropriate therapeutic strategies in RA, according to the first-line drug, including new targeted synthetic DMARDs. Key Points • A large proportion of rheumatoid arthritis patients fail the first biologic DMARD. • Few data are available about the efficacy of biologic DMARD after the failure of a non-TNF inhibitor. • Abatacept, rituximab, or tocilizumab seem to maintain a good retention rate after the failure of a first-course therapy with a non-TNF inhibitor.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Perceived clinical utility of a test for predicting inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a decision impact study

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are often the first biologic therapy used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, a substantial fraction of patients do not respond adequately to TNFi therapies. A test with the ability to predict response would inform therapeutic decision-making and improve clinical and financial outcomes. A 32-question decision-impact survey was conducted with 248 rheumatologists to gauge the perceived clinical utility of a novel test that predicts inadequate response to TNFi therapies in RA patients. Participants were informed about the predictive characteristics of the test and asked to indicate prescribing decisions based on four result scenarios. Overall, rheumatologists had a favorable view of the test: 80.2% agreed that it would improve medical decision-making, 92.3% said it would increase their confidence when making prescribing decisions, and 81.5% said it would be useful when considering TNFi therapies. Rheumatologists would be more likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when the test reported that no signal of non-response was detected (79.8%) and less likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when a signal of non-response was detected (11.3%-25.4%). Rheumatologists (84.7%) agreed that payers should provide coverage for such a test. This study shows that rheumatologists support the clinical need for a test to predict inadequate response to TNFi therapies. Test results were perceived to lead to changes in prescribing behaviors as results instill confidence in the ordering rheumatologist.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

DISCLOSURES

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

Economic Evaluation of Sarilumab in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Introduction

Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate.

Methods

Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care.

Results

Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00946-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Budget impact analysis of sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARD or TNF inhibitor therapies

Objective

To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab – a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody – as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included.

Results

For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (−0.14%) to $194,646 (−0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (−0.11%) to $120,893 (−0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (−0.13%) to $98,040 (−0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence.

Conclusion

Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective

BACKGROUND

Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective.

METHODS

A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder.

RESULTS

1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly.

CONCLUSIONS

A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX.

DISCLOSURES

All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.