Rates, factors, reasons, and economic impact associated with switching in rheumatoid arthritis patients newly initiated on biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in an integrated healthcare system

Reasons for multiple biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD switching and characteristics of treatment refractory rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Switching biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD) medications occurs commonly in RA patients, however data are limited on the reasons for these changes. The objective of the study was to identify and categorize reasons for b/tsDMARD switching and investigate characteristics associated with treatment refractory RA.

METHODS

In a multi-hospital RA electronic health record (EHR) cohort, we identified RA patients prescribed ≥1 b/tsDMARD between 2001 and 2017. Consistent with the EULAR "difficult to treat" (D2T) RA definition, we further identified patients who discontinued ≥2 b/tsDMARDs with different mechanisms of action. We performed manual chart review to determine reasons for medication discontinuation. We defined "treatment refractory" RA as not achieving low disease activity (<3 tender or swollen joints on <7.5 mg of daily prednisone equivalent) despite treatment with two different b/tsDMARD mechanisms of action. We compared demographic, lifestyle, and clinical factors between treatment refractory RA and b/tsDMARD initiators not meeting D2T criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 6040 RA patients prescribed ≥1 b/tsDMARD including 404 meeting D2T criteria. The most common reasons for medication discontinuation were inadequate response (43.3 %), loss of efficacy (25.8 %), and non-allergic adverse events (13.7 %). Of patients with D2T RA, 15 % had treatment refractory RA. Treatment refractory RA patients were younger at b/tsDMARD initiation (mean 47.2 vs. 55.2 years, p < 0.001), more commonly female (91.8% vs. 76.1 %, p = 0.006), and ever smokers (68.9% vs. 49.9 %, p = 0.005). No RA clinical factors differentiated treatment refractory RA patients from b/tsDMARD initiators.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large EHR-based RA cohort, the most common reasons for b/tsDMARD switching were inadequate response, loss of efficacy, and nonallergic adverse events (e.g. infections, leukopenia, psoriasis). Clinical RA factors were insufficient for differentiating b/tsDMARD responders from nonresponders.

The impact of COVID-19 and other factors on the usage status of the biologic drug therapies for rheumatoid arthritis: A study from Vietnam

OBJECTIVES

To describe the status of using biological Disease Modifying Anti Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and related factors. In addition, the study determined the impact of COVID-19 on the usage of bDMARDs.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study and included 219 RA patients over 18 years old. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test (p<0.05) were used to estimate the retention time and compare between different times. Cox regression analysis was used to determine the factors affecting the retention time of biological drugs (p<0.05).

RESULTS

Out of 1967 courses of treatment, there were 149 (7.6%) drug discontinuations, 760 (38.6%) doses extensions and 64 (3.3%) drug switch. Moderate disease level and choosing tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors initially were associated with retention time of COVID-19. Drug discontinuations and dose extensions increased after COVID-19 emergence. The retention time during COVID-19 was significantly different from that of pre-COVID-19. Gender, type of first-used bDMARD, conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and corticoid usage status, disease activity levels were associated with retention time.

CONCLUSION

The presence of COVID-19 has a significant effect on usage status of the biologic drug. Further longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 and drug usage as well as related factors.

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.

Effects of physical exercise and body weight on disease-specific outcomes of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs): systematic reviews and meta-analyses informing the 2021 EULAR recommendations for lifestyle improvements in people with RMDs

BACKGROUND

A European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). This paper reviews the literature on the effects of physical exercise and body weight on disease-specific outcomes of people with RMDs.

METHODS

Three systematic reviews were conducted to summarise evidence related to exercise and weight in seven RMDs: osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), psoriatic arthritis, systemic sclerosis and gout. Systematic reviews and original studies were included if they assessed exercise or weight in one of the above RMDs, and reported results regarding disease-specific outcomes (eg, pain, function, joint damage). Systematic reviews were only included if published between 2013-2018. Search strategies were implemented in the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library of systematic reviews and CENTRAL databases.

RESULTS

236 articles on exercise and 181 articles on weight were included. Exercise interventions resulted in improvements in outcomes such as pain and function across all the RMDs, although the size of the effect varied by RMD and intervention. Disease activity was not influenced by exercise, other than in axSpA. Increased body weight was associated with worse outcomes for the majority of RMDs and outcomes assessed. In general, study quality was moderate for the literature on exercise and body weight in RMDs, although there was large heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION

The current literature supports recommending exercise and the maintenance of a healthy body weight for people with RMDs.

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.

Biologic and Targeted Synthetic DMARD Utilization in the United States: Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

In patients with inadequate response or intolerance to first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to an agent of different mechanism of action or to another bDMARD. However, the reasons behind switching between bDMARD/targeted synthetic (ts)DMARD are not well documented in many studies. The objective of this study was to assess the rheumatologists’ perceptions and behaviors towards choice of initial b/tsDMARD treatment and reasons for switching between bDMARDs/tsDMARDs, in the context of present treatment patterns.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected from the 12th Adelphi Real World Disease Specific Programme for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qualified rheumatologists involved in treatment decision-making for ≥ 10 patients a month completed patient record forms (PRFs). Patients aged ≥ 18 years with RA diagnosis and receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD were included. The outcomes assessed were proportion of patients receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at molecule and class levels; rheumatologist-reported reasons for choice of therapy; proportion of patients who switched bDMARDs/tsDMARDs; and rheumatologist-reported reasons for switching therapies.

Results

Eighty-six rheumatologists completed PRFs for 1027 patients. Of these, 621 were receiving bDMARD/tsDMARD at data collection. The majority (73%) of patients received first-line bDMARD/tsDMARD, and at first-line, 68% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and 21% received a Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi). The response option of strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting first-line and second-line bDMARD/tsDMARD. A total of 163 patients had switched from first-line b/tsDMARD to second-line b/tsDMARD therapy. Of these, 44, 28, and 17% had switched from TNFi to another TNFi, TNFi to non-TNF biologic, and TNFi to JAKi, respectively. Lack of efficacy and worsening disease were the most frequent reasons for switching therapies.

Conclusions

TNFis remain the most prescribed b/tsDMARD for first-line and second-line treatments. Strong overall efficacy was the primary reason for selecting therapy and loss of efficacy was the primary reason for switching therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00357-1.

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.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns for Rheumatoid Arthritis Among United States Physicians

INTRODUCTION

Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experience inefficacy or lack of tolerability and hence switch to another TNFi (cycling) or to a therapy with another mode of action (switching). This study examined patient characteristics, prescribing patterns and treatment practice for RA in the United States.

METHODS

Data were from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (Q2-Q3 2016). Rheumatologists completed a survey and patient record forms for adult patients with RA who had received ≥ 1 targeted therapy. Patients were grouped by class of first-used targeted therapy, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy. TNFi patients who received ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as cyclers or switchers. Univariate analyses compared patient characteristics and physician factors across the analysis groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 631 patients received ≥ 1 targeted therapy; 535 were prescribed a TNFi as first targeted therapy, 53 a nonTNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and 43 tofacitinib. Of 577 patients with known conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD status, 18.7% were prescribed monotherapy and 81.3% combination therapy. Combination therapy patients received significantly more concomitant medications prior to initiation of first targeted therapy than monotherapy patients (P < 0.05). The top reason for physicians to prescribe first use targeted therapy was strong overall efficacy (79.9%). Of 163 patients who progressed to second targeted therapy, 60.7% were cyclers. A lower proportion of cyclers persisted on their first use targeted therapy versus switchers (P = 0.03). The main reason physicians gave for switching patients at this stage was worsening condition (46.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were prescribed a TNFi as their first targeted therapy; over half then cycled to another TNFi. This suggests other factors may influence second use targeted treatment choice and highlights the need for greater understanding of outcomes associated with subsequent treatment choices and potential benefits of switching.

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.

The value of persistence in treatment with subcutaneous TNF-alpha inhibitors for ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the impact of persistence on cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (SC-TNFis) from healthcare and societal perspectives in a United Kingdom ankylosing spondylitis (AS) population using a recently published Markov cohort model.

METHODS

A recently published cost-effectiveness model developed for a National Institute for health and Care Excellence appraisal was extended to fit the current study; in brief, it is a Markov cohort model where treatment responders continue from the trial period with maintenance SC-TNFi treatment, while non-responders transition to conventional care. Costs and effects were modeled for a hypothetical SC-TNFi with average efficacy and price. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total direct and indirect lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The cost-effectiveness of SC-TNFi persistence was estimated by decreasing the annual discontinuation probability in five percentage point increments from 25 to 5% per annum.

RESULTS

From a health care perspective, the ICERs for the modeled discontinuation rates compared to the baseline annual discontinuation rate (25%) ranged between GBP 17,277 and GBP 18,161. From a societal perspective, increased discontinuation rates resulted in decreased total costs and higher QALYs; hence, lower discontinuation rates dominated higher discontinuation rates from a societal perspective.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study shows that, all else equal, higher SC-TNFi treatment persistence in AS is cost effective from a health care perspective and dominant from a societal perspective. Hence, all else equal, prescribing the SC-TNFi with the highest persistence may be considered a cost-effective strategy.

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.

Sarilumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of incremental cost per effectively treated patient

Purpose

Treatment outcomes and direct medical costs were examined, from a US health payer perspective, of monotherapy with sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 2 weeks (Q2W) vs adalimumab 40 mg SC Q2W/QW in adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who are intolerant of, inadequate responders to, or considered inappropriate candidates for continued methotrexate treatment.

Patients and methods

Short-term analysis was based on 24-week wholesale acquisition costs of drugs and treatment response observed in the MONARCH Phase III trial (NCT02332590) per American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50 criteria and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Moderate/Good Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Long-term analysis, which also considered drug administration and routine care costs, was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and a 1- to 10-year Markov model with microsimulation of patient profiles from the MOBILITY Phase III trial (NCT01061736). Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by mapping 6-month ACR levels to a relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire – Disability Index score and via published algorithms.

Results

For sarilumab and adalimumab, respectively, 24-week drug costs were $18,954 and $29,232, and costs per responder were $26,435 vs $50,055 on ACR20; $41,475 vs $98,425 on ACR50; and $22,511 vs $41,230 on EULAR Moderate/Good. Base case results at 10 years for total costs and QALYs were $176,977 and 2.75 for sarilumab and $212,136 and 2.61 for adalimumab, respectively. Sarilumab was consistently the more effective and cost-saving treatment across all short-term and long-term incremental analyses.

Conclusion

Sarilumab monotherapy was the economically dominant treatment on incremental cost per responder and incremental cost per QALY compared with adalimumab monotherapy. These results were maintained within the sensitivity analyses.