Network meta-analysis and cost per responder of targeted Immunomodulators in the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis

Combination of methotrexate with oral disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review

Background: Oral conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), especially methotrexate, are the cornerstone of treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The use of csDMARDs with biologics has increased their efficacy in psoriasis. However, the combination of two oral DMARDs in patients with PsA has not been adequately reviewed. In this study, we explore the combinational use of methotrexate with DMARDs in PsA patients. Materials & methods: A review was conducted using Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library, covering articles up to February 2023. Results & conclusion: Nine studies comprising 1993 participants were included. The evidence supporting combination therapy remains limited. Combinational therapy could be considered in patients with inadequate response to monotherapy or no access to biologics.

Uptake and effectiveness of newer biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in psoriatic arthritis: results from five Nordic biologics registries

BACKGROUND

We aimed to describe the uptake of newer biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the Nordic countries and to compare their retention and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with PsA starting a b/tsDMARD in 2012-2020 in five Nordic rheumatology registers were included. Uptake and patient characteristics were described, with comorbidities identified from linkages to national patient registries. One-year retention and 6-month effectiveness (proportions achieving low disease activity (LDA) on the Disease Activity Index for PSoriatic Arthritis based on 28-joint evaluation) for the newer b/tsDMARDs (abatacept/apremilast/ixekizumab/secukinumab/tofacitinib/ustekinumab) were compared with adalimumab through adjusted regression models stratified by treatment course (first, second/third, and fourth or more).

RESULTS

In total, 5659 treatment courses with adalimumab (56% biologic-naïve) and 4767 courses with a newer b/tsDMARD (21% biologic-naïve) were included. The uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs increased from 2014 and plateaued in 2018. Patient characteristics appeared similar across treatments at treatment start. Adalimumab was more often used as the first course and newer b/tsDMARDs more often in biologic-experienced patients. Used as a second/third b/tsDMARD, the retention rate and the proportion achieving LDA were significantly better for adalimumab (rate 65%, proportion 59%) compared with abatacept (45%, 37%), apremilast (43%, 35%), ixekizumab (LDA only, 40%) and ustekinumab (LDA only, 40%), but not significantly different from other b/tsDMARDs.

CONCLUSION

Uptake of newer b/tsDMARDs occurred mainly in biologic-experienced patients. Regardless of mode of action, only a minority of patients starting a second or later b/tsDMARD course remained on drug and achieved LDA. Superior outcomes for adalimumab indicate that the positioning of newer b/tsDMARDs in the PsA treatment algorithm remains to be established.

Brazilian Society of Rheumatology 2020 guidelines for psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic and systemic immune disease characterized by inflammation of peripheral and/or axial joints and entheses in patients with psoriasis (PsO). Extra-articular and extracutaneous manifestations and numerous comorbidities can also be present. These recommendations replace the previous version published in May 2013. A systematic review of the literature retrieved 191 articles that were used to formulate 12 recommendations in response to 12 clinical questions, divided into 4 sections: diagnosis, non-pharmacological treatment, conventional drug therapy and biologic therapy. These guidelines provide evidence-based information on the clinical management for PsA patients. For each recommendation, the level of evidence (highest available), degree of strength (Oxford) and degree of expert agreement (interrater reliability) are reported.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the UK

Introduction

In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can impair quality of life and increase healthcare costs. Treatment options for IDA-associated IBD include oral iron and intravenous iron formulations (such as ferric carboxymaltose [FCM], ferric derisomaltose [FD, previously known as iron isomaltoside 1000], and iron sucrose [IS]). The present analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron sulfate in terms of additional cost per additional responder in the UK setting.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness was calculated for FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron individually in terms of the additional cost per additional responder, defined as haemoglobin normalisation or an increase of ≥2 g/dL in haemoglobin levels, in a model developed in Microsoft Excel. Relative efficacy inputs were taken from a previously published network meta-analysis, since there is currently no single head-to-head trial evidence comparing all therapy options. Costs were calculated in 2020 pounds sterling (GBP) capturing the costs of iron preparations, healthcare professional time, and consumables.

Results

The analysis suggested that FCM may be the most effective intervention, with 81% of patients achieving a response. Response rates with FD, IS, and oral iron were 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively. Total costs with FCM, FD, IS, and oral iron were GBP 296, GBP 312, GBP 503, and GBP 56, respectively. FCM was found to be more effective and less costly than both FD and IS, and therefore was considered dominant. Compared with oral iron, FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 2045 per additional responder.

Conclusions

FCM is likely to be the least costly and most effective IV iron therapy in the UK setting. Compared with oral iron, healthcare payers must decide whether the superior treatment efficacy of FCM is worth the additional cost.

Health resource utilization and associated healthcare costs of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in German patients with psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate healthcare costs associated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in a German real-world cohort of adult biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Claims data from the InGef research database for patients with a PsA diagnosis and bDMARD claims record (index date) between January 1^st , 2014 and December 31^st , 2017; and no bDMARD prescription for 365 days before the index date, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were determination of healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated annual healthcare costs for overall and individual bDMARDs in the 12-month pre- and post-index periods. These outcomes were compared between persistent and non-persistent groups. Non-persistence was defined as treatment gap or switch to bDMARD other than the index therapy.

RESULTS

Among 10,954 patients with a PsA diagnosis, 348 were eligible. Although mean (SD) post-index costs were significantly higher in the persistent group than the non-persistent group (€27,869 [8,001] vs. €21,897 [10,600]; P<0.001) due to higher bDMARD acquisition costs (€23,996 [4,818] vs. €16,427 [9,033]; P<0.001), persistence reduced inpatient treatment costs (-€760), outpatient treatment costs (-€192), other drug costs (-€724), and sick leave costs (-€601).

CONCLUSION

Although initiation of bDMARDs increased the total healthcare costs irrespective of persistence status, partial cost offsets were observed in the persistent patient population.

Secukinumab: A Review in Psoriatic Arthritis

Secukinumab (Cosentyx®) is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin (IL)-17A, a proinflammatory cytokine involved in the pathogenesis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Administered subcutaneously, the first-in-class anti-IL-17 agent is approved in numerous countries worldwide for the treatment of adults with active PsA. In the phase III FUTURE trials, secukinumab 150 or 300 mg improved the clinical signs and symptoms of PsA versus placebo in patients with active disease despite previous treatment with NSAIDs, biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and/or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). The benefits of secukinumab were seen regardless of whether or not patients had received previous TNFi therapy, and were maintained during longer term (up to 5 years) treatment. In FUTURE 1 and 5, secukinumab inhibited structural joint damage and was associated with sustained low rates of radiographic progression through 1-3 years of treatment. Treatment with secukinumab improved physical function and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and was generally well tolerated, both in the short- and longer-term. In the head-to-head EXCEED trial, secukinumab did not quite attain statistical significance for superiority versus adalimumab in the joint domain. In conclusion, secukinumab is effective across all key PsA domains and is generally well tolerated, and thus represents a useful treatment alternative to TNFi and other bDMARDs in adult patients with active PsA.

A Systematic Review With Network Meta-Analysis of the Available Biologic Therapies for Psoriatic Disease Domains

Introduction: Several new treatments have been developed for psoriatic disease, an inflammatory condition that involves skin and joints. Notwithstanding, few studies have made direct comparisons between treatments and therefore it is difficult to select the ideal treatment for an individual patient. The aim of this systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) was to analyze available and approved biologic therapies for each domain of psoriatic disease: skin, peripheral arthritis, axial arthritis, enthesitis, dactylitis, and nail involvement. Methods: Data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. A systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE database (July 2020) using PICO criteria. Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of biological therapy in terms of the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR, 24 weeks) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI, 10-16 weeks). Results: Fifty-four RCTs were included in the systematic review. Due to the design of the RCTs, namely, outcomes and time points, network meta-analysis was performed for skin and peripheral arthritis domains. For the skin domain, 30 studies reporting PASI100 were included. The peripheral arthritis domain was analyzed through ACR70 in 12 studies. From the therapies approved for both domains, secukinumab and ixekizumab were the ones with the highest probability of reaching the proposed outcomes. There is a lack of outcome uniformization in the dactylitis, enthesitis, and nail domains, and therefore, an objective comparison of the studies was not feasible. Nevertheless, secukinumab was the treatment with the best compromise between the number of studies in each domain and the results obtained in the different outcomes. Conclusion: Secukinumab and ixekizumab were the treatments with the highest probability of reaching both PASI100 and ACR70 outcomes. Due to the lack of a standard evaluation of outcomes of the other psoriatic disease domains, a network meta-analysis for all the domains was not possible to perform.

Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland

INTRODUCTION

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can result in reduced quality of life and increased healthcare costs. IDA is treated with iron supplementation, either with oral iron therapy (OI) or intravenous iron formulations, including ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), iron isomaltoside 1000 (IIM), and iron sucrose (IS). This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus IIM, IS, and OI in terms of additional cost per additional responder in Switzerland.

METHODS

A health economic model was developed to assess the additional cost per additional responder, defined as normalization or an increase of at least 2 g/dL in hemoglobin levels, for FCM versus IIM, IS, and OI. To date, no single head-to-head trial comparing all therapies is available, and therefore relative efficacy data were taken from a published network meta-analysis. Costs of treatment were calculated in 2020 Swiss francs (CHF) using a microcosting approach, and included the costs of iron, healthcare professional time, and consumables. Costs are also presented in euros (EUR) based on an exchange rate of CHF 1 = EUR 0.94.

RESULTS

Response rates with FCM, IIM, IS, and OI were 81%, 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively, with FCM projected to be the most effective treatment. FCM was associated with cost savings of CHF 24 (EUR 23) versus IIM and of CHF 147 (EUR 138) versus IS, and increased costs by CHF 345 (EUR 324) versus OI. Therefore FCM was considered dominant versus both IIM and IS, improving clinical outcomes with cost savings. FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 2970 (EUR 2792) per additional responder versus OI.

CONCLUSIONS

FCM was projected to be the most cost-effective intravenous iron therapy in Switzerland, increasing the number of responders and leading to cost savings for healthcare payers.

Apremilast and its role in psoriatic arthritis

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a seronegative inflammatory arthritis often observed in patients with skin psoriasis. Treatment of PsA, especially peripheral PsA, has typically relied on disease-modifying anti-rheumatic agents (DMARDs); however, these agents have limited efficacy and considerable associated toxicity. More recently, monoclonal antibodies (biologic agents) have revolutionized management of immune-mediated diseases; however, these therapies carry a high cost and require parenteral administration. Apremilast, a novel oral DMARD, was approved by the European Union for psoriatic arthritis in 2015. Apremilast inhibits the function of phosphodiesterase-4, a regulator of cyclic adenosine monophosphate, leading to a broad inhibition of proinflammatory mediators and subsequent reduction in tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) response. The PALACE and ACTIVE trials, phase III randomized controlled trials for apremilast, showed that apremilast is effective at improving various clinical and patient-reported outcome measures for psoriatic arthritis in both DMARD-naïve and DMARD-experienced PsA patients. Efficacy was limited in patients with previous biologic DMARD failure and the overall efficacy of apremilast appears to be less than biologics agents, though no head-to-head trials exist comparing apremilast to biologic DMARDs. Apremilast is generally well tolerated, with short-lived gastrointestinal side effects being the most commonly reported adverse events. Guidelines suggest a trial of apremilast in patients who have failed traditional oral DMARDs and for whom, biologics are contraindicated. More studies directly comparing apremilast to conventional DMARDs and biologic DMARDs are needed and will be crucial in informing clinical and economic decisions about apremilast role in management of PsA.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics and Apremilast in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis that occurs in people affected by the autoimmune disease psoriasis. The cost effectiveness of secukinumab in PsA has not been evaluated in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of secukinumab in three adult populations with active PsA in Germany: biologic naïve without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, biologic naïve with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, and biologic experienced. Comparators included other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biosimilar versions as well as standard of care.

METHODS

The analysis took the viewpoint of the German statutory health insurance. We adapted a decision analytic semi-Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of secukinumab over a lifetime horizon. Treatment response was assessed based on PsA Response Criteria at 12 weeks. Nonresponders or patients discontinuing the initial-line DMARD were allowed to switch to subsequent-line DMARDs. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and official reports. Health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings was evaluated via sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the biologic-naïve population without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, secukinumab 150 mg either strictly dominated other DMARDs (certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and ustekinumab) or yielded favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (vs. etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab). In the biologic-naïve population with concomitant moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and in the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab 300 mg was more effective and had a lower ICER than other DMARDs, thus leading to extended dominance. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to the discount rate for costs and health outcomes as well as the HAQ score as an input to utility values.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab appears to be cost effective compared with other DMARDs for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations in Germany.

A criterion-based approach to systematic and transparent comparative effectiveness: a case study in psoriatic arthritis

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons are used when no direct comparison is available. Comparison networks should satisfy the transitivity assumption, that is, equal likelihood of treatment assignment for a given patient based on comparability of studies. Materials & methods: Seven criteria were evaluated across 18 randomized controlled trials in psoriatic arthritis: inclusion/exclusion criteria, clinical trial design and follow-up, patient-level baseline characteristics, disease severity, prior therapies, concomitant and extended-trial treatment and placebo response differences. Results: Across studies, placebo was a common comparator, and key efficacy end points were reported. Collectively, several potential sources of insufficient transitivity were identified, most often related to trial design and population differences. Conclusion: Potential challenges in satisfying transitivity occur frequently and should be evaluated thoroughly.

Comparative efficacy and safety of targeted DMARDs for active psoriatic arthritis during induction therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and investigate the comparative efficacy and safety of targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy and safety of targeted synthetic DMARDs (tofacitinib, apremilast) as well as biological DMARDs (guselkumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, clazakizumab, abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, certolizumab, and golimumab) were identified by systemic literature review. Traditional meta-analysis and network meta-analysis using a random effects model were performed to estimate pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI to compare and rank these treatments according to ACR20 response, 75% improvement in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI75), numbers of adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE). Similar analyses were conducted among biologic-naïve population and biologic-experienced/failed population.

RESULTS

We deemed 29 RCTs eligible, including 10,204 participants and 17 treatments. During induction therapy (first 12-16 weeks), all treatments except clazakizumab were more efficacious than placebo in achieving ACR20 and PASI75. Although tofacitinib, apremilast, and ixekinumab 80 mg every 2 weeks had a higher rate of AE, no significant difference was revealed for SAE among all treatments. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that infliximab, golimumab, etanercept, adalimumab, guselkumab, and secukinumab 300 mg outperformed other drugs in achieving both ACR20 and PASI75. Infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), and ustekinumab (45 mg and 90 mg) are characterized by both high efficacy and safety. Similar rankings were observed in the analysis among biologic-naïve patients. Moreover, ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg and 150 mg), ixekizumab, abatacept, certolizumab pegol, tofacitinib, and apremilast were still associated with higher ACR20 compared to placebo while ustekinumab, secukinumab (300 mg), ixekizumab and tofacitinib with higher PASI75 among biologic-experienced/failed patients.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the overall risk-benefit profile, infliximab, guselkumab, adalimumab, golimumab, secukinumab, and ustekinumab may be safer and more efficacious treatments than the other targeted DMARDs for active PsA during induction therapy.

Treatment patterns and costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for psoriatic arthritis

Aim: We evaluated treatment patterns and healthcare costs of initiating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment with oral apremilast versus biologics. Methods: Claims data identified biologic-naive adults with PsA who initiated either apremilast or a biologic from 2013 to 2016. Results: Medication adherence was similar at 12 months (76.9 vs 73.4%; p = 0.175) between apremilast (n = 381) and matched biologic (n = 761) patients. Apremilast users had $12,715 lower total costs per-patient-per-month (p < 0.001), largely due to outpatient pharmacy and medical costs. Conclusion: Commercially insured patients with PsA initiating apremilast had adherence similar to those initiating biologics but lower total healthcare costs.