Inequity in access to bDMARD care and how it influences disease outcomes across countries worldwide: results from the METEOR-registry

Points to consider in cardiovascular disease risk management among patients with rheumatoid arthritis living in South Africa, an unequal middle income country

BACKGROUND

It is plausible that optimal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management differs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from low or middle income compared to high income populations. This study aimed at producing evidence-based points to consider for CVD prevention in South African RA patients.

METHODS

Five rheumatologists, one cardiologist and one epidemiologist with experience in CVD risk management in RA patients, as well as two patient representatives, two health professionals and one radiologist, one rheumatology fellow and 11 rheumatologists that treat RA patients regularly contributed. Systematic literature searches were performed and the level of evidence was determined according to standard guidelines.

RESULTS

Eighteen points to consider were formulated. These were grouped into 6 categories that comprised overall CVD risk assessment and management (n = 4), and specific interventions aimed at reducing CVD risk including RA control with disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 3), lipid lowering agents (n = 8), antihypertensive drugs (n = 1), low dose aspirin (n = 1) and lifestyle modification (n = 1). Each point to consider differs partially or completely from recommendations previously reported for CVD risk management in RA patients from high income populations. Currently recommended CVD risk calculators do not reliably identify South African black RA patients with very high-risk atherosclerosis as represented by carotid artery plaque presence on ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that optimal cardiovascular risk management likely differs substantially in RA patients from low or middle income compared to high income populations. There is an urgent need for future multicentre longitudinal studies on CVD risk in black African patients with RA.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update

OBJECTIVES

To provide an update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management recommendations to account for the most recent developments in the field.

METHODS

An international task force considered new evidence supporting or contradicting previous recommendations and novel therapies and strategic insights based on two systematic literature searches on efficacy and safety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) since the last update (2016) until 2019. A predefined voting process was applied, current levels of evidence and strengths of recommendation were assigned and participants ultimately voted independently on their level of agreement with each of the items.

RESULTS

The task force agreed on 5 overarching principles and 12 recommendations concerning use of conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GCs); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, sarilumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib, filgotinib, upadacitinib). Guidance on monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and tapering on sustained clinical remission is provided. Cost and sequencing of b/tsDMARDs are addressed. Initially, MTX plus GCs and upon insufficient response to this therapy within 3 to 6 months, stratification according to risk factors is recommended. With poor prognostic factors (presence of autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions or failure of two csDMARDs), any bDMARD or JAK inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD (from another or the same class) or tsDMARD is recommended. On sustained remission, DMARDs may be tapered, but not be stopped. Levels of evidence and levels of agreement were mostly high.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated EULAR recommendations provide consensus on the management of RA with respect to benefit, safety, preferences and cost.

The Future of Biosimilars: Maximizing Benefits Across Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases

Biologics have transformed the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Biosimilars-biologic medicines with no clinically meaningful differences in safety or efficacy from licensed originators-can stimulate market competition and have the potential to expand patient access to biologics within the parameters of treatment recommendations. However, maximizing the benefits of biosimilars requires cooperation between multiple stakeholders. Regulators and developers should collaborate to ensure biosimilars reach patients rapidly without compromising stringent quality, safety, or efficacy standards. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations and payer policies should be updated following biosimilar market entry, minimizing the risk of imposing nonmedical barriers to biologic treatment. In RA, disparities between treatment guidelines and national reimbursement criteria could be addressed to ensure more uniform patient access to biologics and enable rheumatologists to effectively implement treat-to-target strategies. In IBD, the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment earlier in the disease course is likely to improve when biosimilars are incorporated into pharmacoeconomic analyses. Patient understanding of biosimilars is crucial for treatment success and avoiding nocebo effects. Full understanding of biosimilars by physicians and carefully considered communication strategies can help support patients initiating or switching to biosimilars. Developers must operate efficiently to be sustainable, without undermining product quality, the reliability of the supply chain, or pharmacovigilance. Developers should also facilitate information sharing to meet the needs of other stakeholders. Such collaboration will help to ensure a sustainable future for both the biosimilar market and healthcare systems, supporting the availability of effective treatments for patients.

Imputing missing data of function and disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis registers: what is the best technique?

Objective

To compare several methods of missing data imputation for function (Health Assessment Questionnaire) and for disease activity (Disease Activity Score-28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Methods

One thousand RA patients from observational cohort studies with complete data for function and disease activity at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months were selected to conduct a simulation study. Values were deleted at random or following a predicted attrition bias. Three types of imputation were performed: (1) methods imputing forward in time (last observation carried forward; linear forward extrapolation); (2) methods considering data both forward and backward in time (nearest available observation-NAO; linear extrapolation; polynomial extrapolation); and (3) methods using multi-individual models (linear mixed effects cubic regression-LME3; multiple imputation by chained equation-MICE). The performance of each estimation method was assessed using the difference between the mean outcome value, the remission and low disease activity rates after imputation of the missing values and the true value.

Results

When imputing missing baseline values, all methods underestimated equally the true value, but LME3 and MICE correctly estimated remission and low disease activity rates. When imputing missing follow-up values at 6, 12, or 24 months, NAO provided the least biassed estimate of the mean disease activity and corresponding remission rate. These results were not affected by the presence of attrition bias.

Conclusion

When imputing function and disease activity in large registers of active RA patients, researchers can consider the use of a simple method such as NAO for missing follow-up data, and the use of mixed-effects regression or multiple imputation for baseline data.

Tapering biologic therapy for people with rheumatoid arthritis in remission: A review of patient perspectives and associated clinical evidence

OBJECTIVES

Biologic therapies have increased the control of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Questions remain about tapering biologics when remission is achieved in RA. The patient perspective has to be incorporated in pragmatic applications of tapering but is rarely accounted for in clinical studies of tapering. The aim of the present review was to summarize the evidence about RA patient perspectives on biologic tapering.

METHODS

We provided a narrative summary of the currently small body of research on patient perspectives retrieved through systematic searches with an emphasis on seeking qualitative research. In addition, we provided an update on relevant clinical research and financial considerations that frame the findings on patient perspectives.

RESULTS

Financial considerations around commencing/continuing on biologic therapies in RA vary internationally and have implications for patient perspectives. Recent clinical studies indicate that the benefit of tapering biologic therapy when in remission are predicted by drug concentration and aspects of disease activity, severity and duration. Three major concerns have been identified from studies of patient perspectives on biologic tapering: (a) disease relapse; (b) access to treatment in the case of disease flare when tapering; and (c) local motivation for dose reduction (i.e., driven by funding or health benefit).

CONCLUSIONS

More research is needed on tapering biologics, and should include studies of patient perspectives as well as health economic evaluations. Patient decision aids are a potential way of applying clinical and patient-focused evidence to help all parties come to a decision, but require developmental research and pragmatic evaluation.

The "Treat to Target" Approach to Rheumatoid Arthritis

Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis has evolved significantly over the past decades. Therapeutic advances have made clinical remission a feasible goal. Systematic treatment approaches taking into account objective measures of disease activity ("treat-to-target"/"T2T") have been shown to result in better outcomes. This article reviews the latest information regarding T2T in rheumatoid arthritis, including a synopsis of the different disease activity scores available, new definitions of remission used in clinical trials and in routine clinical care, studies supporting a T2T approach, the role of imaging to guide treatment, and areas in which uncertainty remains.

Long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis continuing on an etanercept biosimilar (LBEC0101) or switching from reference etanercept to LBEC0101: an open-label extension of a phase III multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study

Background

To evaluate the long-term efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of continuing LBEC0101; the etanercept (ETN) biosimilar; or switching from the ETN reference product (RP) to LBEC0101 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

This multicentre, single-arm, open-label extension study enrolled patients who had completed a 52-week randomised, double-blind, parallel phase III trial of LBEC0101 vs ETN-RP. Patients treated with ETN-RP during the randomised controlled trial switched to LBEC0101; those treated with LBEC0101 continued to receive LBEC0101 in this study. LBEC0101 (50 mg) was administered subcutaneously once per week for 48 weeks with a stable dose of methotrexate. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of LBEC0101 were assessed up to week 100.

Results

A total of 148 patients entered this extension study (70 in the maintenance group and 78 in the switch group). The 28-joint disease activity scores (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were maintained in both groups from week 52 to week 100 (from 3.068 to 3.103 in the maintenance group vs. from 3.161 to 3.079 in the switch group). ACR response rates at week 100 for the maintenance vs. switch groups were 79.7% vs. 83.3% for ACR20, 65.2% vs. 66.7% for ACR50 and 44.9% vs. 42.3% for ACR70. The incidence of adverse events and the proportion of patients with newly developed antidrug antibodies were similar in the maintenance and switch groups (70.0% and 70.5%, 1.4% and 1.3%, respectively).

Conclusions

Administration of LBEC0101 showed sustained efficacy and acceptable safety in patients with RA after continued therapy or after switching from ETN-RP to LBEC0101.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715908. Registered 22 March 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-019-1910-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Switching to biosimilars: current perspectives in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases

Introduction: The expiry of patents for biologics has led to the introduction of biosimilars for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). These treatment alternatives may allow earlier and wider access to appropriate therapy for patients without increasing the economic burden on health-care systems. Prescription of biosimilars to treatment-naïve patients is well accepted; however, additional considerations must be taken into account when switching clinically stable patients from reference products to biosimilars. Area covered: We discuss the current considerations related to switching from reference products to biosimilars from a physician and patient perspective. We review the clinical data and real-life experience on switching patients with IMIDs, present the position of the relevant medical societies, and discuss the importance of patient-physician communication and need for shared decision-making. Expert opinion: The introduction of biosimilars provides an opportunity to expand access to treatment for patients with IMIDs across Europe and support the financial sustainability of health-care systems. We anticipate that as the real-world evidence base grows, confirming the results of clinical trials, there will be a corresponding increase in physician and patient acceptance, not only to initiating treatment with a biosimilar, but also to switching medication from a reference product to a biosimilar.

Association of 17 Definitions of Remission with Functional Status in a Large Clinical Practice Cohort of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective.

To compare the association between different remission criteria and physical function in patients with rheumatoid arthritis followed in clinical practice.

Methods.

Longitudinal data from the METEOR database were used. Seventeen definitions of remission were tested: American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) Boolean-based; Simplified/Clinical Disease Activity Index (SDAI/CDAI); and 14 Disease Activity Score (DAS)-based definitions. Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) ≤ 0.5 was defined as good functional status. Associations were investigated using generalized estimating equations. Potential confounders were tested and sensitivity analyses performed.

Results.

Data from 32,915 patients (157,899 visits) were available. The most stringent definition of remission was the ACR/EULAR Boolean-based definition (1.9%). The proportion of patients with HAQ ≤ 0.5 was higher for the most stringent definitions, although it never reached 100%. However, this also meant that, for the most stringent criteria, many patients in nonremission had HAQ ≤ 0.5. All remission definitions were associated with better function, with the strongest degree of association observed for the SDAI (adjusted OR 3.36, 95% CI 3.01–3.74).

Conclusion.

The 17 definitions of remission confirmed their validity against physical function in a large international clinical practice setting. Achievement of remission according to any of the indices may be more important than the use of a specific index. A multidimensional approach, targeted at wider goals than disease control, is necessary to help all patients achieve the best possible functional status.

Biological Therapies in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Can Biosimilars Reduce Access Inequities?

Biological therapies are an effective treatment for a range of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel diseases. However, due to their high costs, considerable differences in their utilization exist across the world, even among the various European countries, with many countries restricting access despite professional society guideline recommendations. Adoption of biologics by healthcare providers has been particularly poor in many Central and Eastern European countries. Differences in utilization have also been observed across medical specialties, healthcare providers, and at a regional and national level. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of the different market access policies for biologics in Europe and to investigate reasons for such differences. One of the potential solutions for providing broader access to IMID patients, where cost is the major barrier, is to encourage the use of biosimilars in place of their reference products. Biosimilars are generally less expensive alternatives to already licensed biological therapies and are approved on the basis that they are similar to the reference product in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. Budget impact models predict considerable cost savings following the introduction of biosimilars in the next few years. These savings could be used to increase access to biologics and other innovative therapies.