When is switching warranted among biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis?

Estimating the impact of biosimilar entry on prices and expenditures in rheumatoid arthritis: a case study of targeted immune modulators

OBJECTIVE

To model changes in prices, utilization, and expenditures of targeted immune modulators (TIMs) for rheumatoid arthritis, accounting for biosimilar entry.

METHODS

Using IQVIA National Sales Perspective data between 2013 and 2019, we examined sales and expenditures of biologics and non-biological complex molecules, 20 quarters before and after patent exclusivity milestones. We estimated the impact of a molecule's exclusivity milestones and biosimilar entry on prices, using a regression discontinuity design (RDD). We then combined the RDD estimate with historical trends to assess the impact of adalimumab's exclusivity milestones on future TIM expenditures.

RESULTS

Changes in average molecule prices were associated largely with biosimilar uptake. For molecules with relatively high biosimilar uptake (>60%), prices fell considerably (-21.2% to -59.3%) one year after exclusivity milestones, whereas molecules with lower biosimilar uptake (<10%) experienced smaller price decreases (-2.4% to -8.4%). Average price reduction at the molecule level after biosimilar entry was not significant (-18.6%; p = .657). When applying the RDD results after adalimumab's exclusivity milestones, its projected share of total TIM market expenditures decreased from 48.0% in 2019 to 26.0% in 2025, whereas expenditures on Janus kinase inhibitors increased from 4.0% to 34.0%.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologics facing biosimilar competition may experience price decreases, potentially offering substantial savings to payers, patients, and society, although the magnitude of these estimates depends on biosimilar uptake. Formulary placement, along with manufacturer-payer dynamics, may also play a role in determining the impact on price and market uptake of biosimilars.

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

Connective tissue remodelling is differently modulated by tocilizumab versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the AMBITION study

OBJECTIVE

Associations between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and effect of treatment at the tissue levels are poorly understood. We investigated the scope of released extracellular matrix (ECM) metabolites as a consequence of tissue remodelling in patients treated with methotrexate (MTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) compared to placebo.

METHODS

Tissue metabolites from 387 RA patients treated with either TCZ (8 mg/kg) or MTX monotherapy (7.5-20 mg/kg) were measured at baseline and 8 weeks sera by validated ELISA assays. The levels of collagen biomarkers (C1M, C2M, C3M and C4M) together with C-reactive protein (CRP) and CRP metabolite (CRPM) were investigated. Baseline levels of biomarkers have been compared with 72 age- and gender-matched healthy controls. Comparison between treatment and response groups were done by ANCOVA, Spearman's correlation and logistic regression adjusted for age, gender, BMI and disease duration.

RESULTS

C1M and C3M were significantly (P < 0.05) inhibited by TCZ and C3M by MTX (P < 0.01) compared to placebo. C1M and C3M inhibition with TCZ was respectively 23% and 16% greater than that of MTX (P < 0.01 and P < 0.0001). C4M was inhibited by TCZ and MTX, but the effect of TCZ was 22% greater than MTX (P < 0.0001). TCZ and MTX had minimal effect on C2M levels. MTX had no effect on CRP and CRPM, whereas TCZ reduced their levels to 69% and 27% from baseline. Investigated biomarkers revealed a significant (P < 0.05) difference in biomarker profiles of MTX ACR50 treatment responders and non-responders. Change to week 8 in levels of C3M, C4M, CRP and CRPM in MTX patients correlated significantly (rho = 0.41 to 0.18, P < 0.0001 to 0.039) with change in disease activity (DAS28) at weeks 8, 16 and 24, whereas only CRP in TCZ patients (rho = 0.32 to 0.21, P < 0.0001 to 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving TCZ treatment for 8 weeks had higher suppression of tissue remodelling and inflammatory biomarkers over patients treated with MTX. Measured biomarkers enabled for a discrimination of biomarker profiles of ACR50 treatment responding patients and identification of those who benefit at the early time point. Week 8 change in levels of C3M, C4M, CRP and CRPM significantly predicted clinical response to treatment and correlated with DAS28 at all time points.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00109408 . Date of registration: July 2005. Name of the registry: A Study to Assess the Safety and Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatology

Biologic agents have become a core component of therapeutic strategies for many inflammatory rheumatic diseases. However, perhaps reflecting the specificity and generally high affinity of biologic agents, these therapeutics have been used by rheumatologists with less consideration of their pharmacokinetics than that of conventional synthetic DMARDs. Immunogenicity was recognized as a potential limitation to the use of biologic agents at an early stage in their development, although regulatory guidance was relatively limited and assays to measure immunogenicity were less sophisticated than today. The advent of biosimilars has sparked a renewed interest in immunogenicity that has resulted in the development of increasingly sensitive assays, an enhanced appreciation of the pharmacokinetic consequences of immunogenicity and the development of comprehensive and specific guidance from regulatory authorities. As a result, rheumatologists have a greatly improved understanding of the field in general, including the factors responsible for immunogenicity, its potential clinical consequences and the implications for everyday treatment. In some specialties, immunogenicity testing is becoming a part of routine clinical management, but definitive evidence of its cost-effectiveness in rheumatology is awaited.

Nonmedical Switching From Originators to Biosimilars: Does the Nocebo Effect Explain Treatment Failures and Adverse Events in Rheumatology and Gastroenterology?

The act of nonmedical switching, defined as switching stable patients who are generally doing well with their current therapy from an originator biologic to its biosimilar, has been endorsed as a reasonable treatment strategy. The safety and efficacy of nonmedical switching have been evaluated in randomized controlled and real-world evidence studies, which have demonstrated that although many patients maintain treatment response after the switch, some patients experience therapy failure, resulting in therapy discontinuation. It has been postulated that the vast majority, if not all, of these treatment failures result from a "nocebo effect", defined as patients' negative expectations toward the therapy change. Reports suggest that the risk of a nocebo effect is higher following a mandated nonmedical switch. Although the nocebo effect is a well-recognized phenomenon in pain studies, evidence is limited in immune-mediated diseases primarily because it is difficult to quantify, especially retrospectively. In spite of this, numerous biosimilar studies in patients with immune-mediated diseases have concluded that nonmedical switching failures are due to a nocebo effect. The objective of this narrative review was to explore the reasons for nonmedical switch failure or discontinuation and the role of the nocebo effect among patients with inflammatory rheumatic and gastrointestinal diseases who switched from an originator biologic to its biosimilar.

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.

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.

Switching of biological therapies in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim:

To assess drug switching, rates of remission and disease activity in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biologic agents.

Materials & methods:

Using a retrospective method, a total of 94 adult patients were included.

Results:

Anti-TNF was the first choice therapy in 85 (90.4%) patients. After an average of 8 years of follow-up, 55 (59%) patients were taking anti-TNF, 18 (19%) abatacept, eight (9%) tocilizumab and 13 (14%) rituximab. In this period, 99 switches of biological therapy were registered in 55 patients.

Conclusion:

After 8 years of follow-up, 54% of the RA patients on biological therapy were still experiencing high or moderate activity despite established treatment, including switching between different biologic agents.

Biological therapies are new drugs made through biotechnology processes that have greatly improved the treatment of RA. However, sometimes biologic agents must be switched to another biologic or other therapy due to lack of response, intolerance, adverse effects or other reasons. This study aimed to assess drug switching, rates of remission and disease activity in Brazilian patients with RA treated with biologics. Within a follow-up of 8 years, 99 switches of biological therapy were registered in 55 patients. After 8 years of follow-up, activity of disease still remained high or moderate in nearly half of patients.

Clinical, Patient-Reported, and Ultrasound Outcomes from an Open-Label, 12-week Observational Study of Certolizumab Pegol in Spanish Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with or without Prior Anti-TNF Exposure

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of certolizumab pegol (CZP) in Spanish patients with RA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SONAR (NCT01526434), a 12-week, open-label, prospective, observational, multicenter study. Patients with active RA for ≥3 months, according to ACR criteria, were treated with CZP (400mg at Weeks 0, 2 and 4, then 200mg every 2 weeks). The primary effectiveness endpoint was change from baseline (CFB) in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at Week 12. Other assessments included DAS28(ESR), patient's assessment of arthritis pain (PtAAP-VAS) and Short Form 36-item Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS). Joint inflammation was investigated using Power Doppler (PD) ultrasound (US), to detect effusion, synovial hypertrophy and synovial PD signal. PDUS outcomes assessed CFB to Week 12 in synovial hypertrophy, effusion and PD signal indices.

RESULTS

A total of 77/80 enrolled patients received ≥1 dose of CZP. The 12-week mean reduction from baseline (SD) was -0.6 (0.6) for HAQ-DI and -2.2 (1.5) for DAS28(ESR). PtAAP-VAS was reduced from baseline (mean [SD]: -36.8 [26.8]) and improvements in SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS were reported. Synovial hypertrophy, effusion and PD signal indices were reduced from baseline to Week 12. One death was reported during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Spanish patients with RA demonstrated improvements in clinical, PDUS and patient-reported outcomes over 12 weeks of CZP treatment. No new safety signals were identified, and the safety profile was in line with previous CZP studies. These results support previous clinical trial findings investigating CZP treatment for active RA.

Non-medical Switching from Originator Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors to Their Biosimilars: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Real-World Studies

Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely used biologics for the treatment of several chronic inflammatory diseases. The launch of anti-TNF biosimilars has introduced the possibility of non-medical switching between originator biologics and their biosimilars. However, the potential clinical and patient-reported consequences of non-medical switching remain largely unknown, as much of the evidence comes from poorly or uncontrolled real-world evidence (RWE) studies that often have an element of bias and nonstandardized outcome measures. To appropriately evaluate the safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of non-medical switching from an originator to its biosimilar, we propose that seven key study design elements should be considered when assessing the existing evidence: studies should be (1) randomized and double-blind, (2) adequately controlled, and (3) adequately powered; include (4) multiple switching, (5) an assessment of immunogenicity, and (6) adequate follow-up duration; and (7) report individual patient-level outcomes. This systematic review assessed the robustness and consistency of the current non-medical switching evidence, with a focus on TNF inhibitors. A comprehensive literature search (January 2012-February 2018) identified 98 publications corresponding to 91 studies (17 randomized controlled trials and 74 RWE studies) describing non-medical switching from a TNF inhibitor originator to its biosimilar. When assessing the totality of this evidence, none of the non-medical switching studies conducted to date were found to use all seven of the key design elements, and the absence of these elements dilutes the robustness of the data. Furthermore, discontinuation rates varied widely among studies (0-87%), suggesting heterogeneity and inconclusiveness of the current efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity evidence, particularly at an individual patient level. Therefore, patients should not be indiscriminately switched from an originator TNF inhibitor to its biosimilar for non-medical reasons. Switching decisions should remain between the treating physicians and their patients and be made on a case-by-case basis, relying upon robust scientific evidence.

FUNDING

AbbVie.Plain Language Summary: Plain language summary available for this article.

Impact of Infliximab and Etanercept Biosimilars on Biological Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Utilisation and NHS Budget in the UK

OBJECTIVE

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective but expensive options for treating rheumatoid arthritis. The introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars presents a significant potential cost saving in a financially constrained health system such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. This study examines the impact of the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars on the utilisation of bDMARDs and subsequent budget impact.

METHODS

We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of secondary care utilisation data in rheumatology specialities from the DEFINE database, between March 2014 and February 2017.

RESULTS

The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars was £38.8 million over 2 years. There was a statistically significant increase in average monthly utilisation of bDMARDs for adalimumab (0.48%), certolizumab pegol (1.90%), golimumab (3.06%), abatacept (2.97%) and tocilizumab (2.24%), but not for etanercept. In contrast, the overall utilisation of infliximab decreased slightly by an average of 0.03% per month. The introduction of infliximab biosimilars negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded infliximab significantly. Similarly, the introduction of an etanercept biosimilar negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded etanercept significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of bDMARDs biosimilars has resulted in considerable cost savings to the NHS, with the branded products reducing their prices in response to the availability of less expensive biosimilars and competition between the biosimilars themselves. Our results also suggest that when a biosimilar is available for a directly comparable branded molecule, price is the key influencing factor in the prescribing of a specific product.

Interleukin-6: designing specific therapeutics for a complex cytokine

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pivotal cytokine with a diverse repertoire of physiological functions that include regulation of immune cell proliferation and differentiation. Dysregulation of IL-6 signalling is associated with inflammatory and lymphoproliferative disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and Castleman disease, and several classes of therapeutics have been developed that target components of the IL-6 signalling pathway. So far, monoclonal antibodies against IL-6 or IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) and Janus kinases (JAK) inhibitors have been successfully developed for the treatment of autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. However, clinical trials of agents targeting IL-6 signalling have also raised questions about the diseases and patient populations for which such agents have an appropriate benefit-risk profile. Knowledge from clinical trials and advances in our understanding of the complexities of IL-6 signalling, including the potential to target an IL-6 trans-signalling pathway, are now indicating novel opportunities for therapeutic intervention. In this Review, we overview the roles of IL-6 in health and disease and analyse progress with several approaches of inhibiting IL-6-signalling, with the aim of illuminating when and how to apply IL-6 blockade.

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.

Effects of non-medical switching on outcomes among patients prescribed tumor necrosis factor inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate health care use and outcomes among patients who experienced a non-medical switch of their prescribed anti-tumor-necrosis-factor biological agent (anti-TNF) for cost containment reasons.

METHODS

Retrospective evaluation of Humedica electronic health records of patients ≥18 years old with anti-TNF treatment for immune conditions. Using natural language processing, stable patients who experienced a non-medical switch (for cost reasons) of their anti-TNF between 2007 and 2013 were identified (NMS cohort, n = 158) and matched to patients who did not (control cohort, n = 4804). Rates of office visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations at 30, 90, and 365 days following were evaluated. Medication-related adverse events, defined as subsequent medication change due to a side effect and/or efficacy-related reason were also compared.

RESULTS

Adjusted rates of office visits were higher among the NMS cohort than the control cohort at 30 (46.4% vs. 31.7%, p < .001), 90 (71.0% vs. 57.0%, p < .001), and 365 days (87.8% vs. 76.8%, p < .001). Rates of emergency department use and hospitalization were comparable between cohorts. The NMS cohort had higher adjusted rates of medication-related adverse consequences (both increased side effects and diminished efficacy) than the control cohort at 30 (13.8% vs. 4.0%, p = .003), 90 (31.6% vs 9.6%, p < .001), and 365 days (54.7% vs. 20.3%, p < .001). Compared with controls, the NMS cohort had higher adjusted rates of subsequent medication change within 1 year (27.82% vs. 13.9%, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

Non-medical switching among patients prescribed anti-TNFs was associated with increased health care use, medication-related side effects, and reports of diminished efficacy.

Discontinuation of Biologic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Analysis from the Corrona RA Registry

Introduction

Despite the availability of multiple effective therapies, discontinuation/switching of treatment is common for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was designed to examine initiation of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) within the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA Registry, and characterize reasons for discontinuation.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were: Corrona-registered adults (≥18 years) with RA (2002–2011); age of RA onset: ≥16 years; ≥6 months’ follow-up after initiation of first/subsequent bDMARD. Patients receiving both tumor necrosis factor antagonists and non-TNF antagonists were included. Treatment discontinuation was defined as first report of stopping initial therapy or initiation of new bDMARD at/between visits, using a follow-up physician questionnaire.

Results

Overall, 6209 patients met inclusion criteria and 80.7% received TNF antagonists. Median time to discontinuation/change of therapy was 25.1 months (26.5 months with TNF antagonists vs. 20.5 months with non-TNF antagonists; log-rank p < 0.0001); 82.2, 67.3, and 51.1% of patients remained on therapy at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. Reasons for discontinuation were captured for 49.2% of patients, including: loss of efficacy (35.8%); physician preference (27.8%); safety (20.1%); patient preference (17.9%); and no access to treatment (9.0%). Baseline factors with greatest correlation to discontinuation were modified Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, patient-reported anxiety/depression, initiation of bDMARD treatment in 2007–2010 versus 2002–2003, and Clinical Disease Activity Index scores.

Conclusions

Almost one-third of patients in the US discontinue currently available bDMARD therapies for RA by 12 months and almost half by 24 months, most commonly due to loss of efficacy.

Funding

Corrona LLC and MedImmune.

Treatment Persistence and Clinical Outcomes of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Cycling or Switching to a New Mechanism of Action Therapy: Real-world Observational Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in the United States with Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Introduction

To examine treatment persistence and clinical outcomes associated with switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to a medication with a new mechanism of action (MOA) (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) versus cycling to another TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the JointMan^® US clinical database who received a TNFi in April 2010 or later and either cycled to a TNFi or switched to a new MOA therapy by March 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time to non-persistence (switching or discontinuing). An ordinary least squares regression model compared 1-year reduction from baseline for the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

Results

There were 332 (54.2%) TNFi cyclers and 281 (45.8%) new MOA switchers. During a median follow-up of 29.9 months, treatment persistence was 36.7% overall. Compared with new MOA switchers, TNFi cyclers were 51% more likely to be non-persistent (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.511; 95% CI 1.196, 1.908), driven by a higher likelihood of switching again (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.016; 95% CI 1.428, 2.847). Clinical outcomes were evaluable for 239 (53.3%) TNFi cyclers and 209 (46.7%) new MOA switchers. One-year mean reduction in CDAI from baseline to end of follow-up was significantly higher for new MOA switchers than TNFi cyclers (−7.54 vs. −4.81; P = 0.037), but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline CDAI (−6.39 vs. −5.83; P = 0.607).

Conclusion

In this study, TNFi cycling was common in clinical practice, but switching to a new MOA DMARD was associated with significantly better treatment persistence and a trend toward greater CDAI reduction that was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease activity.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Factors associated with initial or subsequent choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are increasingly used for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment. However, little is known based on contemporary data about the factors associated with DMARDs and patterns of use of biologic DMARDs for initial and subsequent RA treatment.

Methods

We conducted an observational cohort study using claims data from a commercial health plan (2004–2013) and Medicaid (2000–2010) in three study groups: patients with early untreated RA who were naïve to any type of DMARD and patients with prevalent RA with or without prior exposure to one biologic DMARD. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the effect of patient demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare utilization factors on the initial and subsequent choice of biologic DMARDs for RA.

Results

We identified a total of 195,433 RA patients including 78,667 (40%) with early untreated RA and 93,534 (48%) and 23,232 (12%) with prevalent RA, without or with prior biologic DMARD treatment, respectively. Patients in the commercial insurance were 87% more likely to initiate a biologic DMARD versus patients in Medicaid (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.70–2.05). In Medicaid, African-Americans had lower odds of initiating (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.51–0.68 in early untreated RA; OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61–0.74 in prevalent RA) and switching (OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.55–0.90) biologic DMARDs than non-Hispanic whites. Prior use of steroid and non-biologic DMARDs predicted both biologic DMARD initiation and subsequent switching. Etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were the most commonly used first-line and second-line biologic DMARDS; patients on anakinra and golimumab were most likely to be switched to other biologic DMARDS.

Conclusions

Insurance type, race, and previous use of steroids and non-biologic DMARDs were strongly associated with initial or subsequent treatment with biologic DMARDs.

Biologic Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug attributes in the first lines of treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2015 ACORDAR project

OBJECTIVE

To date, between 17% and 35% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) do not respond as expected to the initial biological therapy. The objective of this project is to recognize and weigh the attributes of biologic DMARD (bDMARD) to identify the most appropriate for each case, in the first lines of treatment of RA (after inadequate response to at least one synthetic DMARD or previous bDMARD).

METHODS

To recognize the possible attributes that could define the bDMARD, we performed a systematic search of the literature that recognized the possible attributes involving general aspects, pharmacology, efficacy, safety, management, and cost. Then a Delphi process was conducted with two rounds among a group of selected expert rheumatologists in the management of RA indicating the degree of agreement with the attributes identified in the literature. The project was completed between February and September 2015, indicating the degree of importance that was ascribed to each attribute. Two criteria were applied to determine the consistency of results: 1) based on the median and interquartile range; and 2) on the simultaneous compliance with mean, median, standard deviation, interquartile range and coefficient of variation. The agreement and final ratification of the expert panel were also determined.

RESULTS

Eighty-three Spanish rheumatologists participated and completed both rounds of the Delphi process. In no case was the importance of the 77 attributes identified considered to be low; 75 of 77 (97.4%) were considered highly important and 76 of 77 (98.7%) were ratified. Fifteen attributes had the support of 100% of the working group.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high degree of agreement concerning the selected attributes. Fifteen of them had the support of 100% of the working group and could be considered the definition of the ideal bDMARD in the first lines of RA treatment.

Treatment patterns of rheumatoid arthritis in Japanese hospitals and predictors of the initiation of biologic agents

OBJECTIVE

To describe the usage of different biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Japan over time and to identify factors that affects the decision to initiate treatment with biologic agents. Determinants of a switch to another biologic agent for patients who are already on biologic treatment were also analyzed.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We utilized a hospital claims database containing 36,504 Japanese patients with a confirmed RA diagnosis. To analyze the determinants of treatment choices, we applied logistic regression analysis taking into account socio-demographic and medical factors.

RESULTS

Analyses determined that 11.8% of diagnoses and 25.4% of treated patients in Japan receive a biologic agent. Significant factors associated with biologic treatment initiation include younger age, female sex, and a higher comorbidity index. The route of administration plays a major role when it comes to a switch between different biologic agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The lower likelihood of elderly patients to be initiated on biologic treatment might be explained by the risk aversion of Japanese physicians' and patients who are afraid of the potential side effects of biologics. This finding is also consistent with the notion of an age bias that impedes elderly patients from optimal access to biologic treatment. Because claims data does not contain clinical parameters such as disease activity the results should be validated in a clinical context.

The specialist physician's approach to rheumatoid arthritis in South Africa

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is expected to increase in Africa and South Africa. Due to the low numbers of rheumatologists in South Africa, specialist physicians also have to care for patients with RA. Furthermore several new developments have taken place in recent years which improved the management and outcome of RA. Classification criteria were updated, assessment follow-up tools were refined and above all, several new biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs were developed. Therefore it is imperative for specialist physicians to update themselves with the newest developments in the management of RA. This article provides an overview of the newest developments in the management of RA in the South African context. This approach may well apply to countries with similar specialist to patient ratios and disease profiles.

Osteoarthritis--a case for personalized health care?

For both economic and ethical reasons, identification of the optimal treatment for each individual patient is a pressing concern, not only for the patients and their physician, but also health care payers and the pharmaceutical industry. In the field of osteoarthritis (OA) this is of particular relevance, due to the heterogeneity of the disease and the very large number of affected individuals. There is a need to pair the right patients with the right therapeutic modes of action. At present, the clinical trial failures in OA may be a consequence of both bona fide treatment failures and trial failures due to clinical design deficiencies. Tools are needed for characterization and segregation of patients with OA. Key lessons may be learned from advances with another form of arthritis, namely rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Personalized health care (PHC) may be more advantageous for a number of specific indications which are characterized by costly therapy, low response rates and significant problems associated with trial and error prescription, including the risk of serious side effects. We discuss the use of diagnostic practices guiding RA treatment, which may serve as a source of key insights for diagnostic practices in OA. We discuss the emerging concept of PHC, and outline the opportunities and current successes and failures across the RA field, as the OA field collects further data to support the hypothesis. We attempt to outline a possible path forward to assist patients, physicians, payers and the pharmaceutical industry in assuring the 'right' patients are treated with the 'right drug' in OA. Finally we highlight methods for possible segregation of OA patients that would allow identification of patient subtypes, such as OA driven by inflammation that may be ideally suited for PHC and for targeted therapies.