Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Identifying Predictors of First-Line Subcutaneous TNF-Inhibitor Persistence in Patients with Inflammatory Arthritis: A Decision Tree Analysis by Indication

INTRODUCTION

Treatment persistence is a proxy for efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction, and a switch in treatment or treatment discontinuation has been associated with increased indirect and direct costs in inflammatory arthritis (IA). Hence, there are both clinical and economic incentives for the identification of factors associated with treatment persistence. Until now, studies have mainly leveraged traditional regression analysis, but it has been suggested that novel approaches, such as statistical learning techniques, may improve our understanding of factors related to treatment persistence. Therefore, we set up a study using nationwide Swedish high-coverage administrative register data with the objective to identify patient groups with distinct persistence of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (SC-TNFi) treatment in IA, using recursive partitioning, a statistical learning algorithm.

METHODS

IA was defined as a diagnosis of rheumatic arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis/unspecified spondyloarthritis (AS/uSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Adult swedish biologic-naïve patients with IA initiating biologic treatment with a SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab or golimumab) between May 6, 2010, and December 31, 2017. Treatment persistence of SC-TNFi was derived based on prescription data and a defined standard daily dose. Patient characteristics, including age, sex, number of health care contacts, comorbidities and treatment, were collected at treatment initiation and 12 months before treatment initiation. Based on these characteristics, we used recursive partitioning in a conditional inference framework to identify patient groups with distinct SC-TNFi treatment persistence by IA diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 13,913 patients were included. Approximately 50% had RA, while 27% and 23% had AS/uSpA and PsA, respectively. The recursive partitioning algorithm identified sex and treatment as factors associated with SC-TNFi treatment persistence in PsA and AS/uSpA. Time on treatment in the groups with the lowest treatment persistence was similar across all three indications (9.5-11.3 months), whereas there was more variation in time on treatment across the groups with the highest treatment persistence (18.4-48.9 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Women have low SC-TNFi treatment persistence in PsA and AS/uSpA whereas male sex and golimumab are associated with high treatment persistence in these indications. The factors associated with treatment persistence in RA were less distinct but may comprise disease activity and concurrent conventional systemic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) treatment.

Exosomes as Rheumatoid Arthritis Diagnostic Biomarkers and Therapeutic Agents

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory joint disorder that causes systemic inflammation, autoimmunity, and joint abnormalities that result in permanent disability. Exosomes are nanosized extracellular particles found in mammals (40–100 nm). They are a transporter of lipids, proteins, and genetic material involved in mammalian cell–cell signaling, biological processes, and cell signaling. Exosomes have been identified as playing a role in rheumatoid arthritis-related joint inflammation (RA). Uniquely functioning extracellular vesicles (EVs) are responsible for the transport of autoantigens and mediators between distant cells. In addition, paracrine factors, such as exosomes, modulate the immunomodulatory function of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). In addition to transporting genetic information, exosomes convey miRNAs between cells and have been studied as drug delivery vehicles. In animal models, it has been observed that MSCs secrete EVs with immunomodulatory properties, and promising results have been observed in this area. By understanding the diversity of exosomal contents and their corresponding targets, it may be possible to diagnose autoimmune diseases. Exosomes can be employed as diagnostic biomarkers for immunological disorders. We here discuss the most recent findings regarding the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic potential of these nanoparticles in rheumatoid arthritis and provide an overview of the evidence pertaining to the biology of exosomes in RA.

Efficacy of tripterygium glycosides (TG) in rheumatoid arthritis as a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in combination with conventional DMARDs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To explore efficacy and safety, as well as efficacy mechanisms, main efficacy characteristics, and efficacy influencing factors of TG, in combination with one conventional DMARD, to provide guidance for the clinical application of TG in treating RA.

METHODS

We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, CNKI, Wanfang, SinoMed, VIP, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, KTKP, and J-STAGE to August 12, 2022. All included studies were analyzed with Stata 16.0 software and Review Manager 5.4 software according to the PRISMA Statement.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Combined TG was superior in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and American College of Rheumatology 50 response (ACR50) and did not increase adverse events (AEs). Combined TG significantly suppressed interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α). And combined TG showed significant advantages in improving tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), pain score, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and physician's and patient's global assessments of disease activity. However, the average age of the intervention population, treatment course, the combined DMARDs category, and the risk of bias were important factors influencing the above effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of TG is superior to conventional DMARD monotherapy in improving RA conditions with a good safety profile. This effect is closely related to the mechanism of TG reducing IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-α. And the combination of TG shows better effect in all aspects such as improving joint signs, symptoms, inflammatory indicators, and overall health. But for those under 45 years of age, with short-term intermittent dosing, in combination with MTX may be more beneficial for TG to show better efficacy.

Predictors of Treatment Change Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with TNF Inhibitors as First-Line Biologic Agent in the USA: A Cohort Study from Longitudinal Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Previous observational studies utilizing administrative claims data have largely been unable to consider clinical factors that may be related to patterns of drug use among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVE

To understand predictors of treatment changes following initiation of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) using nation-wide electronic health record (EHR) data in the USA.

METHODS

The Optum Immunology Condition EHR data (01/01/2011-09/30/2019) was used to identify a population of adult patients with RA initiating a TNFi as the first line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). The primary outcome was any treatment change during the 1-year post-index period defined as cycling to a different TNFi or switching to non-TNFi biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of TNFi cycling and switching, examined separately. To identify predictors of DMARD treatment changes, we used a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression model. Model c-statistics and odds ratios (ORs, 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of predictors were reported.

RESULTS

We identified 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi. The mean age was 55.5 (± 13.7) years and 77.2% were female. Among the TNFi initiators, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Predictors that are associated with higher likelihood of TNFi cycling or switching included female gender (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.16-1.36) and glucocorticoid use (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.21-1.40). In contrast, inflammatory bowel disease (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.78), psoriasis (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95), recent use of methotrexate (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81-0.97), and vitamin D intake (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) were negatively associated with TNFi cycling or switch.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender, glucocorticoid use, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, and vitamin D intake were identified as significant predictors of TNFi cycling or switching for TNFi initiators in the RA population. Predicting treatment change remains challenging even with large detailed EHR data. This study aimed to identify key determinants of treatment changes among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) as their first-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in routine care settings using a US nation-wide longitudinal electronic health record (EHR). Among 24,871 patients with RA who initiated a TNFi, 22.2% experienced TNFi cycling or switching during the 1-year follow-up time. Female patients and those who used glucocorticoids were more likely to experience TNFi cycling or switching, whereas inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, recent methotrexate use, and vitamin D intake were negatively associated with the outcome. However, predicting treatment change remains challenging even with larger detailed EHR data potentially due to unmeasured factors such as prescriber's preference or patient's belief in the medication.

Health-Care and Societal Costs Associated with Non-Persistence with Subcutaneous TNF-α Inhibitors in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis (IA): A Retrospective Observational Study

Objective

A few studies have suggested that patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) who remain persistent with subcutaneous TNF-α inhibitors (SC-TNFi) incur lower health care costs than patients who discontinue treatment, whereas data on the impact of non-persistence on indirect costs are largely lacking. Furthermore, existing estimates are based on fixed follow-ups, in relation to treatment initiation, and therefore do not measure costs in direct relation to treatment discontinuation. Therefore, by capturing costs in direct relation to treatment discontinuation, this study aimed to estimate direct and indirect costs associated with non-persistence with SC-TNFis in IA.

Methods

Adult Swedish biologic-naïve IA patients initiating biologic treatment with a SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab or golimumab) between May 6, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified in population-based registers with almost complete coverage. IA was defined as a diagnosis of rheumatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis/unspecified spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Non-persistent patients were matched on propensity score to patients persistent with treatment by at least an additional 12 months. This enabled comparisons of direct healthcare costs and indirect costs for sick leave and disability pension, respectively, 12 months before and 12 months after treatment discontinuation.

Results

A balanced cohort of 486 matched pairs was generated. The total direct and indirect costs were significantly higher among non-persistent patients already during the 12 months before index ($20,802 [18,335–23,429] vs. $16,600 [14,331–18,696]). However, while non-persistent patients increased their total direct and indirect costs, persistent patients significantly decreased the same, further widening the difference in costs during the 12-month period after index date ($22,161 [19,754–24,556] vs. $13,465 [11,415–15,729]).

Conclusions

Among biologic-naïve Swedish IA patients treated with SC-TNFis, persistent patients incurred about 40% lower aggregated direct and indirect costs compared to non-persistent patients the year following SC-TNFi discontinuation. This highlights the impact of treatment persistence from an economic viewpoint, adding further aspects to the clinical perspective.

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01970-w.

OUP accepted manuscript

Objective

The aim of this study was to describe treatment patterns in RA, including the frequency and reasons for switching or stopping biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs).

Methods

The reasons for switching or stopping b/tsDMARDs were extracted from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) from 2003 to 2018 for RA participants. Switching patterns for each b/tsDMARD and time on first-, second- and third-line b/tsDMARDs were evaluated using Sankey diagrams and survival methods.

Results

A total of 2839 participants were included in the analysis. The first-line b/tsDMARDs were etanercept (n = 1414), adalimumab (n = 1024), infliximab (n = 155), golimumab (n = 98), abatacept (n = 66), certolizumab (n = 38), tocilizumab (n = 21) and tofacitinib (n = 23). Of those starting first-, second- and third-line biologic therapy, 24.0%, 31.8% and 24.4% switched to another b/tsDMARD within 12 months, respectively. Inefficacy or adverse effects were the most common reasons for stopping therapy, irrespective of line of treatment. Compared with first-line etanercept, participants were more likely to stop adalimumab [Hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.29] and infliximab (HR 1.77, 95% CI: 1.46, 2.16). No differences were seen for other b/tsDMARDs. For second-line therapies compared with etanercept, the risk of stopping was lower for tocilizumab (HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.70), rituximab (HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.85) and tofacitinib (HR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.57). Participants taking rituximab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib were also less likely to stop third-line therapy in comparison with participants taking etanercept.

Conclusions

Switching between b/tsDMARDs was common among ARAD participants with RA, most commonly due to inefficacy or adverse effects. Durability of exposure and reasons for switching varied between b/tsDMARDs.

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment Sequences After Discontinuing a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Comparison of Cycling Versus Swapping Strategies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sequences of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) and non-TNFi used by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients whose initial TNFi therapy has failed, and to evaluate effectiveness and costs.

METHODS

Using the Truven Health MarketScan Research database, we analyzed claims of commercially insured adult patients with RA who switched to their second biologic or targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between January 2008 and December 2015. Our primary outcome was the frequency of treatment sequences. Our secondary outcomes were the time to therapy discontinuation, drug adherence, and drug and other health care costs.

RESULTS

Among 10,442 RA patients identified, 36.5% swapped to a non-TNFi drug, most commonly abatacept (54.2%). The remaining 63.5% cycled to a second TNFi, most commonly adalimumab (41.2%). For subsequent switches of therapy, non-TNFi were more common. Patients who swapped to a non-TNFi were significantly older and had more comorbidities than those who cycled to a TNFi (P < 0.001). Survival analysis showed a longer time to discontinuation for non-TNFi than for TNFi (median 605 days compared with 489 days; P < 0.001) when used after initial TNFi discontinuation, but no difference in subsequent switches of therapy. Although non-TNFi were less expensive for adherent patients, cycling to a TNFi was associated with lower costs overall.

CONCLUSION

Even though patients are more likely to cycle to a second TNFi than swap to a non-TNFi, those who swap to a non-TNFi are more likely to persist with the therapy. However, cycling to a TNFi is the less costly strategy.

Association of first, second, and third-line bDMARDs and tsDMARD with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis patients: Cohort study in A real world setting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of first, second, and third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and tofacitinib with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The study population was composed of 8,018 seropositive RA patients who were prescribed bDMARDs or tofacitinib between January 2014 and January 2019 from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. First, second, and third-line choice of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) including etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, as well as non-TNFi including tocilizumab, rituximab, tofacitinib, and abatacept were assessed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for drug failure according to bDMARD or tofacitinib choice starting from the initial prescription date.

RESULTS

Compared to first etanercept users, patients with first tocilizumab (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.68), tofacitinib (aHR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.42), or abatacept (aHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-0.99) had lower risk of drug failure. Second choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.55), tofacitinib (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15-0.37), or abatacept (aHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to second etanercept users. Finally, third choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.62) or tofacitinib (aHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to third TNFi users.

CONCLUSION

First and second-line tocilizumab, tofacitinib, or abatacept may lead to improved drug survival. Third-line use of tocilizumab or tofacitinib may be beneficiary in reducing drug failure risk among seropositive RA patients.

Healthcare-Related Costs Associated with Switching Subcutaneous Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis: a Retrospective Study

Introduction

Subsequent lines of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (SC-TNFi) treatment may be well motivated in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)—collectively named inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, the costs associated with switching SC-TNFis are largely unknown. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to explore costs of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with switching SC-TNFi treatment among biologic-naïve Swedish patients with IA.

Methods

Using population-based register data, adult patients filling prescriptions between May 6, 2010 and December 31, 2014 for an SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and golimumab) were included. Patients switching treatment (cyclers) were matched to treatment persistent patients on the basis of propensity score and follow-up time. HCRU-associated costs were captured and compared 12 months before and 12 months after the index date (defined as the date of the switch).

Results

A balanced cohort of 594 matched pairs was derived. Prior to the index date, cyclers had significantly higher non-treatment HCRU costs compared to persistent patients ($3815 [3498–4147] vs. $2900; 95%CI [2565–3256]). However, 12 months after the index date, cyclers had significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs while persistent patients lowered theirs ($822 [232–1490] vs. $− 313 [− 664–36]). This resulted in a statistically significant difference in difference of $1135 between the groups.

Conclusions

In biologic-naïve patients treated with SC-TNFi for IA, cyclers significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs 12 months after switching treatment while persistent patients lowered their costs during the same time period. As these findings indicate that differences in treatment persistence may have an impact on costs, further research utilizing more comprehensive data sources in alternate settings is warranted.

Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of a web-based platform delivering the results of a biomarker-based predictive model of biotherapy response for rheumatoid arthritis patients: a protocol for a randomized multicenter single-blind active controlled clinical trial (PREDIRA)

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the leading chronic inflammatory rheumatism. First-line therapy with synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARD) is insufficiently effective in 40% of cases and these patients are treated with biotherapies. The increased use of these drugs each year is becoming a public health issue with considerable economic burden. This cost is 20 times higher than that of sDMARD. However, among patients treated with biotherapies, clinical practice shows that about one third will not respond to the selected drug. In nonresponse cases, practitioners currently have no choice but to perform an empirical switching between different treatments, because no tool capable of predicting the response or nonresponse to these molecules is currently available.

METHODS

The study is a prospective, phase III, controlled, multicenter, and randomized, single-blind (patient) clinical trial, including RA patients with a previous failure to anti-TNF therapies. The main objective is the analysis of the clinical and pharmacoeconomic impact after 6 months of treatment. Intervention arm: prescription of biotherapy (rituximab, adalimumab, abatacept) using SinnoTest® software, a prediction software based on proteomic biomarkers. Control arm: prescription of biotherapy based on current practice, without the SinnoTest® software (any biotherapy). In addition, a substudy will be carried out within this trial to generate a biobank and further analyze the proteomic profile of the patients and their modification throughout the study.

DISCUSSION

This clinical trial study will be the first validation study of a biotherapy response prediction software, bringing personalized medicine into the management of RA. We expect that the findings from this study will bring several benefits for the patient and the Health Care System.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClincalTrials.gov NCT04147026 . Registered on 31 October, 2019.

Traditional Chinese medicine on treating active rheumatoid arthritis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic systemic autoimmune disease associated with progressive joint damage and disability. There is a lack of effective methods in the treatment of RA currently. Many clinical trials have proved that traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has obvious advantages in the treatment of RA. In this systematic review, we intend to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TCM for active RA.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Wanfang Data, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database. Simultaneously we will retrieval relevant meeting minutes, eligible research reference lists, symposium abstracts, and grey literatures. Included criteria are randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about TCM for active RA to assess its efficacy and safety. We will use the Revman 5.3 and Stata 13.0 software for data synthesis, sensitivity analysis, meta regression, subgroup analysis, and risk of bias assessment. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation standard will be used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

This systematic review will provide a synthesis of TCM for patients with active RA from various evaluation aspects including tender joint count, swollen joint count, RF, CRP, ESR, DAS28, TCM syndrome evaluation criteria, and adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The systematic review will provide evidence to assess the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of patients with active RA.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019146726.

Treatment Patterns and Costs in Biologic DMARD-Naive Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating Etanercept or Adalimumab with or Without Methotrexate

BACKGROUND

Etanercept (ETN) and adalimumab (ADA) are tumor necrosis factor inhibitors indicated for treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate (MTX). Data on treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA as monotherapies or in combination therapy with MTX are lacking in biologic DMARD (bDMARD)-naive patients with RA.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA monotherapy and combination therapy in bDMARD-naive patients with RA.

METHODS

Data from adult bDMARD-naive patients with RA were evaluated according to index therapy (ADA or ETN as monotherapy or combination therapy with MTX) in a retrospective cohort study using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2017. Participants were bDMARD-naive for ≥ 12 months before initial ETN or ADA pharmacy claim (index date) and had continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index and 24 months post-index. Combination therapy cohorts had an MTX claim within 30 days of the index date. Outcomes included persistence (no treatment changes or gap [≥ 60 days]); modifications to index therapy (discontinuation or switching without prior gap, restarting as switch or restart after gap, or MTX initiation/discontinuation); and mean total bDMARD costs for 2 years post-index.

RESULTS

Patients on ETN monotherapy (n = 2,064) had higher persistence (26.8% vs. 21.1%, respectively; P < 0.001) on index treatment and received treatment for a longer duration (mean 375.9 days vs. 339.7 days, respectively; P < 0.001) than those on ADA monotherapy (n = 1,528). Regimen changes were more common in patients on ADA monotherapy than patients on ETN monotherapy (38.0% vs. 33.4%, respectively; P = 0.004). More patients on ADA monotherapy added MTX than those on ETN (17.5% vs. 12.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Overall, 790 patients receiving index monotherapy had a regimen change following a gap (≥ 60 days), with a similar proportion between cohorts. Among these patients, 13.8% restarted index therapy, and 7.9% switched from index therapy. Significantly more patients receiving ETN monotherapy restarted their index regimen after a gap than those receiving ADA monotherapy (14.9% vs. 12.2%, respectively; P = 0.023). The proportion of patients persistent on combination therapy was similar between the ETN and ADA combination therapy cohorts (21.9% vs. 22.2%, respectively; P = 0.818). Treatment pattern rates were similar regardless of index combination therapy. Overall, costs for ADA were consistently higher within the index regimen throughout the follow-up period irrespective of MTX.

CONCLUSIONS

ETN monotherapy as first-line treatment was associated with higher persistence, lower rate of MTX supplementation, and lower bDMARD costs than ADA monotherapy. ETN monotherapy may represent a less costly option for achieving treatment targets in bDMARD-naive patients with RA.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Amgen. Tkacz, Henderson DeYoung, and Wilson are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen for this study. Collier and Oko-osi are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 25-28, 2018; Orlando, FL.

Real-World Patient Experience of Switching Biologic Treatment in Inflammatory Arthritis and Ulcerative Colitis - A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

To obtain an up-to-date overview of the measurement of patient experience of switching biologic treatment in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) or ulcerative colitis (UC). Secondary objectives included summarizing the types of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used (if any), and related findings; and summarizing medical and non-medical reasons for treatment switch and/or discontinuation.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed, searching Medline and Embase for relevant publications.

RESULTS

In total, 70 relevant publications were identified. While the majority of these reported reasons for switching and/or discontinuing treatment, only four provided information explicitly regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. All four utilized ranking tools to assess patient experience of switching biologic treatment. The most common reason for switching and/or discontinuing treatment was loss of efficacy, while the least common reason was patient preference.

CONCLUSION

Although the number of available treatments in IA and UC have increased, there is a sparsity of information regarding patient-reported experience of switching biologic treatment. Further research regarding patient preference and/or experience would benefit this therapeutic area and help guide treatment choices.

Real-world treatment persistence of non-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitors among patients with rheumatoid arthritis in South Korea

Aims: We aimed to assess treatment persistence of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and non-TNF inhibitors in two groups of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients: biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) initiators and switchers.Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized a national health insurance claims database. Patients aged ≥18 years initiating/switching bDMARD between 1 December 2013 and 31 December 2014, the index period, were followed for 12 months. Initiators who began treatment with a bDMARD during the index period were defined as having no bDMARD prescriptions for the previous year. Switchers who changed treatment from the previous bDMARD to the index bDMARD were defined as having different bDMARDs during the index period. Treatment persistence rates during the follow-up period were measured, and factors associated with non-persistence were assessed with the Cox proportional hazard model.Results: Of 2684 patients, treatment persistence rates were the highest for abatacept in initiators (69.3%) and tocilizumab in switchers (77.0%), while adalimumab showed the lowest persistence rates for both initiators and switchers (48.2%, 28.8%), followed by etanercept (51.3%, 41.0%). Adalimumab and etanercept were significantly more likely to show non-persistence (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.96; HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.14-1.76) compared to infliximab for initiators, while tocilizumab was significantly more likely to show persistence (HR 0.411, 95% CI 0.206-0.819) in switchers.Conclusions: Non-TNF inhibitors showed higher persistence rates than TNF inhibitors in South Korean RA patients, and tocilizumab especially was associated with higher persistence in patients with inadequate response to TNF inhibitors. Good persistence with non-TNF inhibitors indicates the potential for long-term efficacy as first-line treatment.

Costs associated with non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK

Aims: To estimate the cost impact of non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in stable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK. Materials and methods: A cohort-based decision tree model was developed with a 1-year time horizon. The model population included patients with stable RA (patients who responded to originator etanercept treatment with no treatment changes in the previous 6 months). Patients could undergo a non-medical switch to a biosimilar and then switch treatment again, if medically required, after 3-6 months. Data on the proportion of patients switching therapies, baseline healthcare resource use, and impact of switching on resource use were sourced from a survey of 150 rheumatologists from EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). The average impact of switching was evaluated as mean values for change in resource utilization due to switching. Also, low- and high-impact scenarios (lower and upper values of the 95% confidence intervals for change in resource utilization due to switching) were modelled as sensitivity analyses. Cost data came from published UK sources. Results: The model assumed that 5,000 patients were treated with originator etanercept, with 1,259 (25.2%) switching to a biosimilar. Of those, 875 (69.5%) and 384 (30.5%) switched to SB4 and GP2015, respectively. After 3 months, 26.3% of patients who switched treatments did so again: 8.3% back to originator, 3.8% to the other biosimilar, and 14.2% to another biologic. Although originator etanercept was more expensive than the biosimilars, switching was more costly than continuous originator treatment across all impact scenarios. Switching treatment chains had higher overall annual per-patient costs than continuous originator treatment. Switching was associated with increased healthcare resource use. Limitations: Results from this analysis are not transferable to other (non-RA) etanercept indications. Conclusion: Non-medical switching can result in increased payer costs because of increased healthcare resource use following switching.

Abatacept: from a budget impact model to cost-effectiveness analysis - data from RCT and real life

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder that affects joints with swelling and progressive joint destruction. The pathology leads to a progressive disability with an impact on the quality of life of the patients. Strategies to reduce in-patient care costs could have a considerable impact on lowering the direct medical costs of RA in Italy. Abatacept, a selective T-cell costimulation modulator, is a valuable treatment option for patients with moderate-to-severe RA. A search using the keywords “cost-effectiveness analysis", "budget impact model", "abatacept", and "rheumatoid arthritis” was carried out on PubMed. Abatacept in the first- and second-treatment lines has been evaluated in our research. We evaluated patients with inadequate MTX response, inadequate anti-TNF agents response, switch studies and real-world data. Furthermore, in our research, we evaluated the main head-to-head studies published.

The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

AIMS

To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010-2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

RESULTS

Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p < .001; RA-related: $3,364 vs $2,297, p < .001). Monthly RA-related costs were higher for patients switching to a third tDMARD compared to non-switchers remaining on their second tDMARD ($3,835 vs $3,383, p < .001). Switchers to abatacept had significantly lower RA-related monthly costs vs switchers to TNFi ($3,129 vs $3,436, p = .021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p = 0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p = .031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p = .093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p < .001) compared to switchers to abatacept.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.

Treatment persistence of subcutaneous TNF inhibitors among Australian patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD)

Introduction

To describe the persistence of treatment with subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab in immune-mediated rheumatic disease (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis) by treatment sequence (first-line treatment, second-line or further lines of treatment).

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 10% sample data from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2016. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme indications were used to identify patient prescriptions for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. A patient was considered persistent until a 3-month gap period where a prescription was not dispensed. The 3-month gap interval was chosen because only 1% of all discontinuations occurred beyond this 3-month period.

Results

Data from 2,612 first-line patients were included. Treatment discontinuation among first-line patients treated with etanercept or adalimumab was not significantly different from those treated with golimumab (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95–1.28, P=0.22; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93–1.22, P=0.39; respectively). Among the 1,276 patients in the second-line cohort (etanercept=41%, adalimumab=41%, golimumab=18%) discontinuation was significantly higher for patients on etanercept compared with golimumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03–1.50, P=0.03); but not for adalimumab compared with golimumab (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.34, P=0.31). In the third-line setting, treatment persistence with etanercept was longer than golimumab (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.96, P=0.02), but there was no difference between golimumab and adalimumab. Similar findings occurred in the propensity score matched population.

Conclusion

Our study shows there is variance in real-world persistence to TNFi in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease by line of therapy, with the time on therapy decreasing by line. Australian persistence has been reported at lower overall rates than international evidence.

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

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

Persistence with Biological Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drugs and Its Associated Resource Utilization and Costs

Objective

The study assessed persistence rates of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Japan and compared resource utilization and treatment costs between persistence and non-persistence groups.

Methods

Data were extracted from a Japanese claims database between 2009 and 2015. bDMARD-naïve patients were identified and included in the final analysis. Survival analysis was used to estimate 1-year persistence rates for current bDMARDs. Propensity score matching was applied to control for potential treatment selection bias. Resource utilization and healthcare costs were calculated 1 year before and after initiation of bDMARDs and compared between persistence and non-persistence groups.

Results

A total of 6153 bDMARD-naïve patients were identified and the overall 1-year persistence rate was 85% (95% CI 84–86). Overall, 1-year outpatient visits increased from 10 at baseline to 16 after bDMARD treatment, while the number of hospital admissions declined from 3.3 to 1.6. The non-persistence group had a larger increase in outpatient visits after bDMARD initiation compared with the persistence group (8–16 vs. 10–16, respectively) and a smaller decrease in hospital admissions (3.1–1.9 vs. 3.5–1.4, respectively). Persistence was associated with a reduction in total healthcare costs of US$760.

Conclusions

Japanese bDMARD-naïve patients with RA have a high persistence rate with those treatments. The reduction in medication costs in non-persistent patients is offset by higher hospitalization costs, making non-persistence more expensive.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-018-0139-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis on biologic therapies in Taiwan: A 1-year mirror-image study using a national claims database

Objectives

This nationwide population-based study aimed at evaluating healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients receiving biologic therapies in Taiwan.

Design and setting

A retrospective cohort of 2,425 RA patients who had received first-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α antagonist treatment for at least 6 months (the baseline period) between 2007 and 2011 was identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan.

Outcome measures

Healthcare resource utilization and direct medical costs of those patients were analyzed and compared 1 year before the index date and during the 1-year follow-up.

Results

Analytical results demonstrated that 87.7% of RA patients received the same TNF-α antagonist during the 1-year follow-up, 2.4% of the patients switched to another TNF-α antagonist after the baseline period, 7.1% of the study cohort received a second-line biologic agent, while the remaining patients discontinued use of any TNF-α antagonist. Compared to 1 year before the index date, there were significant reductions in emergency room visits and hospitalization days for RA patients treated with the same TNF-α antagonist during the 1-year follow-up. However, there was an increase of outpatient visits among those patients. For those RA patients who switched to another TNF-α antagonist or received a second-line biologic agent, they consumed more healthcare resources. Furthermore, the corresponding medication costs went up markedly during the 1-year follow-up, but nearly all total direct medical costs (biologics excluded) were significantly reduced across the study cohort. Lastly, male patients incurred slightly higher medical costs than their counterparts, albeit in a statistically insignificant fashion.

Conclusions

This investigation revealed that RA patients treated with biologics utilized fewer emergency room visits and shorter hospitalization days, but incurred higher costs. In summary, this study provides meaningful information on healthcare resource utilization and medical costs of RA patients for healthcare providers and policymakers.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of Biqi capsule in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Biqi capsule is a Traditional Chinese Medicine preparation for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinical studies have indicatedthat its effect may be more beneficial than that of Western medicine. The present study aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of Biqi capsule alone or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared with MTX alone for treating RA by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. A systematic literature search of studies published until March 2017 was performed. References from relevant studies were screened to obtain additional articles. The results were independently evaluated for relevance, and full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Out of 558 citations that were initially retrieved, a total of 5 studies comprising 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias of these trials was generally unclear or high. Meta-analysis indicated that Biqi capsule had better effects on C-reactive protein [standardized mean difference (SMD), −7.05; 95% CI -(10.77–3.33)] and tender joint count [SMD, −3.02; 95% CI, -(3.81–2.22)] and fewer adverse effects (AEs) than MTX [relative risk (RR), 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08–0.43]. Biqi capsule plus MTX was superior to MTX in terms of the total effect (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06–1.28), rheumatoid factor [SMD, −12.54; 95% CI, -(16.87–8.20)], swollen joint count [SMD, −1.50; 95% CI, -(1.99–1.01)], score of joint swelling [SMD −2.07; 95% CI, -(2.76–1.38)], tender joint count [SMD, −2.16; 95% CI, -(2.86–1.47)] and score of joint tenderness [SMD, −4.69; 95% CI, -(5.92–3.47)]. There was no difference in AEs between Biqi capsule plus MTX and MTX (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.34–1.50). In conclusion, the present study indicated that compared with MTX, Biqi capsule plus MTX appeared to have more benefits but that Biqi capsule alone was not better for RA patients than MTX. In the other words, Biqi capsule plus MTX is more effective and has fewer AEs compared to MTX. However, the trials selected in the present meta-analysis have various limitations, including the lack of blinding and the short duration of the treatment; therefore, the conclusions are not sufficiently definitive. More randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the use of Biqi capsule for managing RA.

Prealbumin, platelet factor 4 and S100A12 combination at baseline predicts good response to TNF alpha inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

Tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (TNFi) are effective treatments for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Responses to treatment are barely predictable. As these treatments are costly and may induce a number of side effects, we aimed at identifying a panel of protein biomarkers that could be used to predict clinical response to TNFi for RA patients.

METHODS

Baseline blood levels of C-reactive protein, platelet factor 4, apolipoprotein A1, prealbumin, α1-antitrypsin, haptoglobin, S100A8/A9 and S100A12 proteins in bDMARD naive patients at the time of TNFi treatment initiation were assessed in a multicentric prospective French cohort. Patients fulfilling good EULAR response at 6 months were considered as responders. Logistic regression was used to determine best biomarker set that could predict good clinical response to TNFi.

RESULTS

A combination of biomarkers (prealbumin, platelet factor 4 and S100A12) was identified and could predict response to TNFi in RA with sensitivity of 78%, specificity of 77%, positive predictive values (PPV) of 72%, negative predictive values (NPV) of 82%, positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.35 and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.28. Lower levels of prealbumin and S100A12 and higher level of platelet factor 4 than the determined cutoff at baseline in RA patients are good predictors for response to TNFi treatment globally as well as to Infliximab, Etanercept and Adalimumab individually.

CONCLUSION

A multivariate model combining 3 biomarkers (prealbumin, platelet factor 4 and S100A12) accurately predicted response of RA patients to TNFi and has potential in a daily practice personalized treatment.

Identifying Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Patients in Retrospective Databases When Diagnosis Codes Are Not Available: A Validation Study Comparing Medication/Prescriber Visit-Based Algorithms with Diagnosis Codes

BACKGROUND

Using diagnosis code-based algorithms is the primary method of identifying patient cohorts for retrospective studies; nevertheless, many databases lack reliable diagnosis code information.

OBJECTIVES

To develop precise algorithms based on medication claims/prescriber visits (MCs/PVs) to identify psoriasis (PsO) patients and psoriatic patients with arthritic conditions (PsO-AC), a proxy for psoriatic arthritis, in Canadian databases lacking diagnosis codes.

METHODS

Algorithms were developed using medications with narrow indication profiles in combination with prescriber specialty to define PsO and PsO-AC. For a 3-year study period from July 1, 2009, algorithms were validated using the PharMetrics Plus database, which contains both adjudicated medication claims and diagnosis codes. Positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity, and specificity of the developed algorithms were assessed using diagnosis code as the reference standard. Chosen algorithms were then applied to Canadian drug databases to profile the algorithm-identified PsO and PsO-AC cohorts.

RESULTS

In the selected database, 183,328 patients were identified for validation. The highest PPVs for PsO (85%) and PsO-AC (65%) occurred when a predictive algorithm of two or more MCs/PVs was compared with the reference standard of one or more diagnosis codes. NPV and specificity were high (99%-100%), whereas sensitivity was low (≤30%). Reducing the number of MCs/PVs or increasing diagnosis claims decreased the algorithms' PPVs.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed an MC/PV-based algorithm to identify PsO patients with a high degree of accuracy, but accuracy for PsO-AC requires further investigation. Such methods allow researchers to conduct retrospective studies in databases in which diagnosis codes are absent.

Drug survival of second biological DMARD therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective non-interventional cohort analysis

Background

Since persistence to first biological disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) is far from ideal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, many do receive a second and/or third bDMARD treatment. However, little is known about treatment persistence of the second-line bDMARD and it is specifically unknown whether the mode of action of such a treatment is associated with different persistence rates. We aimed to assess discontinuation-, re-initiation- or continuation-rates of a 2nd bDMARD therapy as well as switching-rates to a third biological DMARD (3rd bDMARD) therapy in RA patients.

Method

Analysis was based on German claims data (2010–2013). Patients were included if they had received at least one prescription for an anti-TNF and at least one follow-up prescription of a 2nd bDMARD different from the first anti-TNF. Patient follow-up started on the date of the first prescription for the 2nd bDMARD and lasted for 12 months or until a patient’s death.

Results

2667 RA patients received at least one anti-TNF prescription. Of these, 451 patients received a second bDMARD (340 anti-TNF, mean age 52.6 years; 111 non-anti-TNF, mean age 55.9 years).

During the follow-up, 28.8% vs. 11.7% of the 2nd anti-TNF vs. non-anti-TNF patients (p < 0.001) switched to a 3rd bDMARD; 14.1% vs. 19.8% (p = 0.179) discontinued without re-start; 3.8% vs.1.8% (p = 0.387) re-started and 53.5 vs. 66.7% (p < 0.050) continued therapy. Patients in the non-anti-TNF group demonstrated longer drug survival (295 days) than patients in the anti-TNF group (264 days; p = 0.016).

Independent variables associated with earlier discontinuation (including re-start) or switch were prescription of an anti-TNF as 2nd bDMARD (HR = 1.512) and a higher comorbidity level (CCI, HR = 1.112), whereas previous painkiller medication (HR = 0.629) was associated with later discontinuation or switch.

Conclusions

Only 56.8% of RA patients continued 2nd bDMARD treatment after 12 months; 60% if re-start was included. Non-anti-TNF patients had a higher probability of continuing 2nd bDMARD therapy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1684-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Determinants of biological drug survival in rheumatoid arthritis: evidence from a Hungarian rheumatology center over 8 years of retrospective data

Objective

To compare drug survival of biological therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and analyze the determinants of discontinuation probabilities and switches to other biological therapies.

Materials and methods

Consecutive RA patients initiating first biological treatment in one rheumatology center between 2006 and 2013 were included. Log-rank test was used to analyze the differences between the survival curves of different biological drugs. Cox regression was applied to analyze the discontinuation due to inefficacy, the occurrence of adverse events, or to any reasons.

Results

A total of 540 patients were included in the analysis. The most frequently used first-line biological treatments were infliximab (N=176, 33%), adalimumab (N=150, 28%), and etanercept (N=132, 24%). Discontinuation of first tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) treatment was observed for 347 (64%) patients, due to inefficacy (n=209, 60%), adverse events (n=103, 30%), and other reasons (n=35, 10%). Drug survival rates for TNF-α and non-TNF-α therapies were significantly different, and were in favor of non-TNF-α therapies. Every additional number of treatment significantly increased the risk of inefficacy by 27% (p<0.001) and of adverse events by 35% (p=0.002). After the discontinuation of the initial TNF-α treatment, switching to rituximab and tocilizumab was associated with significantly longer treatment duration than switching to a second TNF-α. The non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, due to both less adverse events and longer maintenance of effectiveness.

Conclusion

Non-TNF-α therapies resulted in significantly longer treatment duration, and lost their effectiveness later. Increase in the number of switches significantly increased the risk of discontinuation of any biological therapy.

Persistence and costs with subcutaneous TNF-alpha inhibitors in immune-mediated rheumatic disease stratified by treatment line

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to 1) describe and compare treatment persistence with first- and second-line subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (SC-TNFis) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (collectively immune-mediated rheumatic disease) in Sweden and 2) estimate and contrast health care costs in the two groups.

METHODS

Patients who initiated their first or second SC-TNFi between May 6 2010 and December 12 2012 were identified from the Prescribed Drug Register. Persistence was estimated using survival analysis. Costs comprised specialized outpatient care, inpatient care, and medication. The persistence analysis was stratified by immune-mediated rheumatic disease diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 4,903 patients treated with their first and 845 patients treated with their second SC-TNFi were identified. Baseline characteristics differed between the two groups. Therefore, propensity score matching analysis was implemented. Second-line patients were matched to first-line patients, and four cohort pairs (AS, PsA, RA, and all diagnoses combined) were generated. Patients treated with their first SC-TNFi had statistically significant higher persistence than patients treated with their second SC-TNFi in PsA (P=0.036), RA (P=0.048), and all diagnoses combined (P<0.001) but not in AS (P=0.741). Patients who were treated with their second SC-TNFi incurred higher costs than patients treated with their first SC-TNFi.

CONCLUSION

Overall, persistence to the first SC-TNFi was higher than persistence to the second SC-TNFi. Furthermore, the second SC-TNFi was associated with higher costs than the first SC-TNFi. Therefore, prescribing the SC-TNFi with the best long-term persistence first may be beneficial.

Frequency and trends of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use in Germany

The aim of this study was to analyze the population‐based frequency of classic (c‐) and biologic (b‐) disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) use over time, selected underlying indications and the specialty of the prescribing physicians in Germany. Based on the claims data of the German Pharmacoepidemiological Research Database (GePaRD), yearly cross‐sectional studies were conducted from 2004 to 2011. The prevalence of DMARD use was calculated as the number of persons with at least one dispensation per 1000 persons stratified by sex and age. In 2011, we also obtained the proportion of c‐ and b‐DMARDs users with diagnoses of selected indications and the proportion of dispensations by specialty of the physician. Between 2004 and 2011, the annual prevalence of b‐DMARD and c‐DMARD use increased from 0.35‰ to 1.54‰ and from 6.53‰ to 8.93‰, respectively. In 2011, the study population comprised 12.8 million insurants with a mean age of 44.0 years. During this year, among c‐DMARDs, methotrexate was prescribed most frequently (4.76‰), followed by azathioprine (1.72‰) and sulfasalazine (1.20‰). For b‐DMARDs, adalimumab (0.57‰), etanercept (0.46‰), and rituximab (0.23‰) were most frequently used. Notably, b‐DMARD users more often had a diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis compared to c‐DMARD‐users (20.7% vs. 2.9% and 20.0% vs. 11.4%, respectively) and b‐DMARDs were more frequently prescribed by rheumatologists and other specialists. Our population‐based study highlights the increasing use of c‐ and b‐DMARDs in Germany. Compared to c‐DMARDs, b‐DMARDs were commonly used for indications besides rheumatoid arthritis. Future research should therefore also focus on their prescription patterns and safety aspects in indications other than RA.

Claims Data Analysis of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Treatment Dosing Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review of Methods

Background

With tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, changes of dosing, switching between drugs, insufficient adherence, and persistence are frequent in rheumatoid arthritis. Because this is often associated with decreased efficiency and increased costs, dosage analyses based on claims data are of increasing interest for healthcare providers and payers. Nevertheless, no standardized methods exist to ensure high-quality research.

Objective

In this review, we compare and discuss applied methods in claims data-based dosage analyses of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor prescriptions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The dosage analysis methods performed within the selected studies were classified into switching, persistence, adherence, and dosage-change analyses, and were then compared and finally discussed.

Results

A total of 45 studies were found to be relevant. In most studies, a change in dose or persistence was evaluated, followed by switching and adherence analyses. Analyses of changed dose exhibit the most extensive variation of methods. We divided them into three principal methods, where a specified reference dose is compared with (1) the last dose, (2) any dose, or (3) all doses.

Conclusion

The systematic review identified a high variation of methods. Our results may be helpful for choosing appropriate methods in future studies. The results also demonstrate the need for evidence-based recommendations of methods used in claims data research.

Treatment persistence among patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease newly treated with subcutaneous TNF-alpha inhibitors and costs associated with non-persistence

The main objective of this study was to describe real-world treatment persistence with subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (SC-TNFi) in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis [collectively immune-mediated rheumatic disease, (IMRD)] in Sweden. A secondary objective was to describe potential effects on health care resource utilization (HCRU) cost from non-persistence. Patients were identified through filled prescriptions for adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), and golimumab (GLM) between 5/6/2010 and 12/31/2012 from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Persistence was estimated using survival analysis. Costs were derived from HCRU and comprised specialized outpatient care, inpatient care and non-disease-modifying antirheumatic drug medications. A total of 4903 patients were identified (ADA: 1823, ETA: 1704, CZP: 622, GLM: 754). Comparisons over 3 years showed that GLM had significantly higher persistence than ADA (p = 0.022) and ETA (p = 0.004). The mean difference in non-biologic HCRU costs between persistent and non-persistent patients was higher after compared to before the start of biologic therapy. SC-TNFi-naïve IMRD patients initiating treatment with GLM had significantly higher persistence rates than patients initiating treatment with ADA or ETA in Sweden. Furthermore, persistence rates observed in the study were lower than those observed in clinical trials, highlighting the need for an all-party (provider-patient-payer-drug manufacturer) engagement and development of programs to increase persistence rates in clinical practice, thus leading to improved clinical outcomes. In addition, the results of this study indicate that persistence to treatment with SC-TNFi may be associated with cost offsets in terms of non-biologic costs.

Real-world evaluation of TNF-inhibitor utilization in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate 12-month treatment patterns, healthcare resource use (HCRU), and costs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), following initiation of index TNF inhibitors (TNFi) and subsequent biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adults with RA newly initiating TNFi in the Truven Marketscan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases during 2010-2013. A sub-group of patients who switched to a bDMARD within 12 months post-index and within 180 days of last index TNFi were subsequently evaluated over 12 months. TNFi/bDMARD treatment patterns were characterized as: continuers, no gap >180 days in prescription/administration of index TNFi; discontinuers, gap >180 days; switchers, initiated new bDMARD. Concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use, co-morbid chronic illnesses, and RA severity were assessed. All-cause/RA-related HCRU and costs were evaluated 12 months post-index.

RESULTS

Of 9567 identified patients, 67.2%, 17.3%, and 15.4% were continuers, discontinuers, and switchers, respectively. Switchers had the highest 12-month unadjusted mean all-cause costs of $34,585 vs $33,051 for continuers (p = 0.1158) and $24,915 for discontinuers (p < 0.0001; discontinuers vs continuers, p < 0.0001). RA-related costs comprised 82.8%, 31.4%, and 85.7% of total costs for continuers, discontinuers, and switchers, respectively. Of 764 switchers, 68.2% switched to alternative TNFi (cyclers), the rest to non-TNFi bDMARDs; 36.7% of patients who switched to TNFi switched again (to third-line bDMARD) vs 27.6% (p = 0.0313) of those who switched to non-TNFi bDMARDs. Switchers to non-TNFi bDMARDs had higher mean 12-month all-cause costs of $76,580 compared with $50,689 for switchers to alternative TNFi (p < 0.0001); biologic-administration visits comprised 78.8% of the greater total RA-related costs of switchers to non-TNFi bDMARDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world TNFi discontinuation/switching rates correspond to randomized controlled trial non-response rates. TNFi cycling is common and associated with an increased likelihood of switching to third-line bDMARD. Switching to non-TNFi bDMARDs was associated with higher costs, mostly attributed to in-office administrations.