Health Economic Consequences of a Tightly Controlled Dose Reduction Strategy for Adalimumab, Etanercept and Ustekinumab Compared with Standard Psoriasis Care: A Cost-utility Analysis of the CONDOR Study

De-escalation of Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Comprehensive Review

INTRODUCTION

Biologic therapy is an effective treatment for inflammatory bowel disease [IBD]. However due to cost and safety concerns, dose de-escalation strategies after achieving remission have been suggested.

AIM

To critically review available data on dose de-escalation of biologics [or other advanced therapies] in IBD. We will focus on studies evaluating de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially optimised, and also on studies assessing de-escalation from standard dosing.

METHODS

A systematic bibliographic search was performed.

RESULTS

The mean frequency of de-escalation after previous dose intensification [12 studies, 1,474 patients] was 34%. The corresponding frequency of de-escalation from standard dosing [five studies, 3,842 patients] was 4.2%. The relapse rate of IBD following anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] de-escalation to standard dosing in patients initially dose-escalated [10 studies, 301 patients] was 30%. The corresponding relapse rate following anti-TNF de-escalation from standard dosing [nine studies, 494 patients] was 38%. The risk of relapse was lower for patients in clinical, biologic, and endoscopic/radiological remission at the time of de-escalation. A role of anti-TNF therapeutic drug monitoring in the decision to dose de-escalate has been demonstrated. In patients relapsing after de-escalation, re-escalation is generally effective. De-escalation is not consistently associated with a better safety profile. The cost-effectiveness of the de-escalation strategy remains uncertain. Finally, there is not enough evidence to recommend dose de-escalation of biologics different from anti-TNFs or small molecules.

CONCLUSIONS

Any consideration for de-escalation of biologic therapy in IBD must be tailored, taking into account the risks and consequences of a flare and patients' preferences.

Dose reduction of biologics in patients with plaque psoriasis: a review

Dose reduction (DR) of first-generation biologics for plaque psoriasis (TNF-alpha inhibitors (i) and interleukin (IL)-12/23i) has been described in a previous scoping review. The literature on the DR of the newest generation of biologics (IL-17/23i) was scarce. The current review provides a literature update on the previous scoping review on the DR of all biologics, including the newest generation, with a focus on the uptake and implementation of DR in practice. The current literature search on DR revealed 14 new articles in addition to those in the previous review. Four of the newly found articles tested DR strategies, mostly focusing on first-generation biologics; only guselkumab (IL-23i) was included in one study. The other 10 studies showed data on regaining response after failure of DR, safety, cost-effectiveness, and uptake and implementation, as well as information about IL-17/23i. The eligibility criteria to start DR included both absolute and relative Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores (PASI ≤3/≤5/PASI 75-100) and/or Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) ≤3/≤5, or BSA ≤1/≤2, or Physician Global Assessment (PGA) ≤1/0-2 during a period ranging from 12 weeks to ≥1 year. Most studies used PASI ≤5 and/or DLQI ≤5 or PGA ≤1 for ≥6 months. DR strategies were mostly performed by stepwise interval prolongation in two steps (to 67% of the standard dose, followed by 50%). Some studies of IL-17/23i reduced the dose to ±25%. The tested DR strategies on stepwise or fixed DR on TNF-αi and IL-12/23i (three studies), as well as one "on-demand" dosing study on IL-23i guselkumab, were successful. In the case of relapse of DR on TNF-αi and IL-12/23i, clinical effectiveness was regained by retreatment with the standard dose. All studies showed substantial cost savings with the biologic DR of TNF-αi and IL-12/23i. The identified barriers against the implementation of DR were mainly a lack of guidelines and scientific evidence on effectiveness and safety, and a lack of time and (technical) support. The identified facilitators were mainly clear guidelines, feasible protocols, adequate education of patients and physicians, and cost reduction. In conclusion, DR seems promising, but a research gap still exists in randomized, prospective studies testing DR strategies, especially of IL-17/23i, hampering the completion of guidelines on DR. Taking into account the identified barriers and facilitators most likely results in a more successful implementation of biologic DR in practice.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

Steps towards implementation of protocolized dose reduction of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for psoriasis in daily practice

BACKGROUND

Dose reduction (DR) of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab has proven to be (cost-)effective in psoriasis patients with low disease activity. Further implementation is needed to establish application of DR for eligible patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the implementation of protocolized biologic DR in daily practice.

METHODS

A pilot implementation study was performed in 3 hospitals during 6 months. By combining education and protocol development, involved healthcare providers (HCPs) were directed toward the adoption of protocolized DR. DR of adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab was achieved by stepwise injection interval prolongation. Implementation outcomes (fidelity, feasibility) were assessed. Factors for optimizing implementation were explored in interviews with HCPs. Uptake was measured in patients by chart review.

RESULTS

The implementation strategy was executed as planned. Implementation fidelity was less than 100% as not all provided tools were used across study sites. HCPs indicated the feasibility of implementing protocolized DR, although time investment was needed. Identified additional factors for successful implementation included support for patients, uptake of DR into guidelines, and supportive electronic health record systems. During the 6 months intervention period, 52 patients were eligible for DR of whom 26 (50%) started DR. The proposed DR protocol was followed in 22/26 patients (85%) on DR.

CONCLUSION

Additional staff for support, extra time during consultations, education on DR for HCPs and patients, and effective tools such as a feasible protocol can lead to more patients on biologic DR.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Increased Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Crohn's Disease Patients in Stable Remission: The Randomized Controlled LADI Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of increasing adalimumab dose intervals compared to the conventional dosing interval in patients with Crohn's disease [CD] in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

DESIGN

We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, comparing increased adalimumab intervals with the 2-weekly interval in adult CD patients in clinical remission. Quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L. Costs were measured from a societal perspective. Results are shown as differences and incremental net monetary benefit [iNMB] at relevant willingness to accept [WTA] levels.

RESULTS

We randomized 174 patients to the intervention [n = 113] and control [n = 61] groups. No difference was found in utility (difference: -0.017, 95% confidence interval [-0.044; 0.004]) and total costs (-€943, [-€2226; €1367]) over the 48-week study period between the two groups. Medication costs per patient were lower (-€2545, [-€2780; -€2192]) in the intervention group, but non-medication healthcare (+€474, [+€149; +€952]) and patient costs (+€365 [+€92; €1058]) were higher. Cost-utility analysis showed that the iNMB was €594 [-€2099; €2050], €69 [-€2908; €1965] and -€455 [-€4,096; €1984] at WTA levels of €20 000, €50 000 and €80 000, respectively. Increasing adalimumab dose intervals was more likely to be cost-effective at WTA levels below €53 960 per quality-adjusted life year. Above €53 960 continuing the conventional dose interval was more likely to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

When the loss of a quality-adjusted life year is valued at less than €53 960, increasing the adalimumab dose interval is a cost-effective strategy in CD patients in stable clinical and biochemical remission.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Patients' perspectives towards biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a qualitative study

Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis could contribute to more efficient use of these expensive medicines. Evidence on opinions of patients with psoriasis regarding dose reduction is sparse. The objective of this study was therefore to explore patients' perspectives towards dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis. A qualitative study was conducted, comprising semi-structured interviews with 15 patients with psoriasis with different characteristics and treatment experiences. Interviews were analyzed by inductive thematic analysis. Perceived benefits of biologic dose reduction according to patients were minimizing medication use, lowering risks of adverse effects and lowering societal healthcare costs. Patients reported to have experienced a large impact of their psoriasis, and expressed concerns about loss of disease control due to dose reduction. Fast access to flare treatment and adequate monitoring of disease activity were among reported preconditions. According to patients, they should have confidence in dose reduction effects and should be willing to change their effective treatment. Moreover, addressing information needs and involvement in decision-making were deemed important among patients. In conclusion, addressing patients' concerns, fulfilling information needs, providing the possibility of resuming standard dose, and involving patients in decision-making are important according to patients with psoriasis when considering biologic dose reduction.

National consensus on biologic dose reduction in psoriasis: a modified eDelphi procedure

BACKGROUND

Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis is applied in daily practice, although guidelines are lacking. Striving for clear criteria is important, as it leads to a consistent application of dose reduction.

OBJECTIVE

To achieve consensus on criteria for biologic dose reduction in psoriasis patients with stable and low disease activity.

METHODS

An online Delphi procedure (eDelphi) was conducted. Dutch dermatologists were invited to participate in a maximum of 3 voting rounds. Proposed statements were selected based on literature review and included criteria for the application of dose reduction and dosing schedules. Biologic dose reduction was defined as 'application of injection interval prolongation'. Proposed statements were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was reached when ≥70% of all voters rated 'agree' (7-9) and <15% rated 'disagree' (1-3).

RESULTS

A total of 27 dermatologists participated and reached a consensus on 15 recommendations over 2 voting rounds. Agreed statements included criteria for dose reduction eligibility, criteria for dose reduction (dis)continuation, and dosing schedules for adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab. Based on the eDelphi outcomes, an algorithm fit for implementation in current practice was developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations of this national consensus process can guide clinicians, and consequently their patients, toward consistent application of biologic dose reduction.

Long-Term Dose Optimization of Adalimumab via Dose Spacing in Patients with Psoriasis

Dose spacing (DS) can be useful for optimizing treatment with biologics in psoriasis patients. However, interval prolongation might increase the production of anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and, therefore, reduce the drug’s effectiveness. The long-term effects of DS with adalimumab in psoriatic patients have not been reported. The goal of our study was to evaluate the long-term follow-up of psoriatic patients after adalimumab DS regarding the clinical course and determination of circulating adalimumab, TNFα levels, and anti-adalimumab antibodies. We retrospectively included seven patients treated with adalimumab for moderate-to-severe psoriasis and benefiting from DS from 2010 to 2021. The dose interval of adalimumab was extended to three weeks for all patients and then to four weeks for three of the seven patients. Adalimumab trough levels, TNFα levels, and ADA against adalimumab were measured. For six of the seven patients, absolute PASI values remained below 3 throughout the follow-up period (median = 8.0 years; range: 1.7−11.5) after DS. All the patients were satisfied with the effectiveness of their treatment regime. Within the follow-up period, an average of 63 doses of adalimumab per patient were spared. The median adalimumab trough levels were 4.7 µg/mL (range: 1.9−12.5). TNFα levels remained under 10 pg/mL (undetectable) in all except one patient. ADA against adalimumab remained negative (<10 µg/mL) during the follow-up in all patients. Our data indicate that therapeutic drug monitoring, including the measurement of trough concentrations and ADA, together with the clinical response and patient’s preference, can be helpful for clinical decision making and treatment optimization in psoriasis.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in dermatology: the way towards dose optimization of secukinumab in chronic plaque psoriasis

Background

Despite the favourable efficacy profile of secukinumab, clinicians encounter varying clinical responses among patients potentially associated with under‐ and overdosing. As biologics are expensive, their rational use is crucial and evident. Therapeutic drug monitoring could guide clinicians in making decisions about treatment modifications.

Aim

In this multicentre, prospective study, we aimed to develop and validate a secukinumab immunoassay and searched for the therapeutic window in patients with psoriasis.

Methods

We determined secukinumab concentrations at trough in sera from 78 patients with psoriasis at multiple timepoints (Weeks 12, 24, 36, 48 and 52; after Week 52, measurements could be taken at an additional three timepoints) during maintenance phase, using an in‐house secukinumab immunoassay consisting of a combination of MA‐SEC66A2 as capture antibody and MA‐SEC67A9, conjugated to horseradish peroxidase, as detecting antibody. At each hospital visit, disease severity was assessed using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI).

Results

After quantification, 121 serum samples were included for dose–response analysis. Based on a linear mixed‐effects model, secukinumab trough concentrations were found to decrease with increasing body mass index (BMI). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, we concluded that the minimal effective secukinumab threshold was 39.1 mg/L in steady state, and that this was associated with a 92.7% probability of having an optimal clinical response (PASI ≤ 2 or reduction in PASI of ≥ 90%).

Conclusions

Monitoring and targeting a secukinumab trough concentration of 39.1 mg/L may be a viable treatment option in suboptimal responders. In patients with higher BMI, weight‐based dosing may be needed in order to prevent underdosing.

Serum drug levels and anti-drug antibodies in the context of dose tapering by interval prolongation of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab in psoriasis patients: results of the CONDOR trial

BACKGROUND

Biologics for psoriasis are registered in standard dosages. In patients with low disease activity, reduction of the dose by interval prolongation can prevent overtreatment, and lower risks and costs. However, fear for increased anti-drug antibody (ADA) formation due to interval prolongation of biologics is an important barrier.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the course of serum drug concentrations, ADA levels, and predictors for successful dose reduction of adalimumab, ustekinumab, and etanercept for psoriasis.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to dose reduction (DR) or usual care (UC) and followed for one year. The course and extent of detectable ADA levels were expressed as proportions/relative risks for DR vs. UC. Association of baseline characteristics with successful tapering was investigated with log-binomial regression analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 118 patients were included. In adalimumab-treated patients, no significant difference in the proportion of patients with relevant ADA levels in DR vs. UC was seen. For ustekinumab, relevant ADA development was absent in both groups. Baseline trough levels were not predictive for successful DR.

CONCLUSIONS

Immunogenicity may not increase by interval prolongation in psoriasis patients with low disease activity. This pilot provides important and reassuring insight into the pharmacological changes after dose tapering of adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab.

Dose reduction of the new generation biologics (IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors) in psoriasis: study protocol for an international, pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority study-the BeNeBio study

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease for which biologics are effective treatments. Dose reduction (DR) of the first generation biologics seems a promising way for more efficient use of expensive biologics. A substantial part of patients on tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alfa inhibitors and ustekinumab could successfully lower their dose, after following a tightly controlled DR strategy. The objective of this study is to assess whether controlled DR of interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 inhibitors in psoriasis patients with low disease activity is non-inferior (NI) to usual care (UC).

METHODS

This is an international, prospective, multicenter, pragmatic, randomized, non-inferiority trial. A total of 244 patients with stable low disease activity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤ 5) for at least 6 months and using secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, or tildrakizumab in the standard dose, together with stable low disease activity, defined as a PASI ≤ 5 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) ≤ 5 at the moment of inclusion, will be randomized 2:1 to DR or UC. In the DR group, dosing intervals will be prolonged stepwise to achieve 66% and 50% of the original dose. Disease activity is monitored every 3 months by PASI and DLQI. In case of disease flare (i.e., PASI and/or DLQI increase), treatment is adjusted to the previous effective dose. The primary outcome is the incidence proportion of persistent flares (PASI > 5 for ≥ 3 months), which will be compared between arms. Secondary outcomes include proportion of patients with successful DR, (course of) PASI and DLQI, serious adverse events (SAEs), health-related quality of life, costs, and pharmacokinetic profile. Outcomes of DR will be compared to UC.

DISCUSSION

With this study, we aim to assess whether DR of IL-17 and IL-23 inhibiting biologics can be achieved for psoriasis patients with low disease activity, without losing disease control. Reducing the dose may lead to more efficient use of biologics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04340076 . Registered on April 9 2020.