Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world comparative effectiveness studies of biologic (b) and targeted synthetic (ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) through a systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline for journal articles (2001-2021) and Embase® for abstracts presented at the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 and 2021 annual meetings on non-randomized studies comparing the effectiveness of b/tsDMARDs using ACR-recommended disease activity measures, measures of functional status, and patient-reported outcomes (HAQ, PROMIS PF, patient pain, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity). Methodological heterogeneity between studies precluded meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions-I tool.

RESULTS

Of 1283 records screened, 68 were selected for data extraction, of which 1 was excluded due to critical risk of bias. Most studies were multicenter observational cohort/registry studies (n = 60) and were published between 2011 and 2021 (n = 60). Mean or median reported RA duration was between 6 and 15 years. Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (46 studies), Clinical Disease Activity Index (37 studies), and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (32 studies) were the most common outcomes used in clinical practice, with regional differences identified. The most common comparison was between tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and non-TNFi bDMARDs (35 studies). There were no evident differences between b/tsDMARDs in clinical effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review summarizing real-world evidence from a very large number of global studies found there are many effective options for the treatment of RA, but relatively less evidence to support the use of any one b/tsDMARD or drug class over another. Treatment for patients with RA should be tailored to suit individual clinical profiles. Further research is needed to identify whether specific patient subgroups may benefit from specific drug classes.

Ixekizumab therapy following secukinumab inadequate response in psoriatic arthritis: a case series focusing on axial disease

There are limited data regarding cycling between interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We aimed to report the efficacy of an IL-17 inhibitor (ixekizumab-IXE) after inadequate response (IR) of another one (secukinumab-SEC) in patients with PsA. Case series of PsA patients who received IXE after SEC-IR in four rheumatology centers between 1/9/2021 and 1/9/2022 were included. Peripheral arthritis was assessed with disease activity in psoriatic arthritis score (DAPSA) and skin involvement with body surface area (BSA). Axial disease was defined as having both imaging and clinical features and its activity was measured with the ankylosing spondylitis disease activity score (ASDAS). Twenty-four patients (54.2% female, mean [SD] age: 51.6 [14.1]) who were SEC-IR and received IXE either immediately (n = 11) or after ≥ 1 interposed biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) (n = 13) were included. Patients were followed on IXE for a mean [SD] period of 9.6 [4.9] months. Among patients with peripheral arthritis (n = 24), the mean [SD] DAPSA decreased from 22.8 [8.6] to 13.6 [7.8] during follow-up (p =  0.0001) with 62.5% of patients showing improvement in the DAPSA disease activity categories. For patients with axial involvement (n = 16), a clinically meaningful improvement (Δ ≥ 1.1 in ASDAS) was noted in 50% (8/16), while dactylitis and enthesitis resolution was observed in 60% (3/5) and 83% (5/6) of patients, respectively. Regarding psoriasis, the mean [SD] BSA of involved skin decreased from 8.7 [8.7] to 2.4 [3.3] (p =  0.001). In this case series, treatment with IXE after inadequate response to another IL-17 inhibitor (SEC) was efficacious in a real-world setting in patients with PsA, including axial disease.

Continuity of Care Within a Single Patient Support Program for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Prescribed Second or Later Line Advanced Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines suggest patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) inadequately controlled by tumor-necrosis-factor-inhibitors (TNFis) may benefit from switching to Janus-kinase-inhibitors (JAKis); however, care coordination and access can be complicated. Disruptions in transitioning to JAKi treatment could lead to disease flares requiring hospitalization; however, transitioning between products within the same patient support program (PSP) services aimed at ensuring continuity of care may minimize disruptions.

METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of adult patients with RA newly prescribed JAKi following TNFi treatment in the Symphony Health claims database. Patients with baseline TNFi use and ≥ 6 months of data before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the initial JAKi claim (approved or denied) were included. Cohorts were defined by transitions between products within the same PSP [adalimumab (ADA) and upadacitinib (UPA)] or not. Disruptions were defined as gap in care ≥ 15 days due to failure/delay in receiving coverage approval or picking up an approved prescription. Disruptions followed by JAKi dispense were considered temporary and those without permanent. Odds ratios (ORs) of disruption and hospitalization were estimated from logistic regressions controlling for patient characteristics and treatment history.

RESULTS

A total of 2371 patients were included: 317 transitioning from ADA-UPA, 321 TNFi-UPA, 860 ADA-another JAKi, and 873 another TNFi-another JAKi. Temporary and permanent disruptions increased odds of hospitalization by 47% and 123% (both p < 0.05). Temporary disruption rates were lowest for ADA-UPA patients (19%) compared to other TNFi-UPA (25%; OR = 1.46), ADA-other JAKi (29%; OR = 1.59), and other TNFi-other JAKi (31%; OR = 1.74), all p < 0.05. For transitions to UPA, temporary disruptions were lower for patients using the PSP (17%) versus not (24%; OR = 1.45, p < 0.05). No differences were found for permanent disruptions.

CONCLUSION

Disruptions for patients with RA transitioning from TNFi to JAKi treatment are associated with increased hospitalization rates. Transitioning between drugs within the same PSP could lower the risk of disruption.

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.

Trends and frontiers of research on pharmacoeconomics from 2012-2021: a scientometric analysis

Background

Research on pharmacoeconomics (PE) promotes the rational allocation of medical resources, which has received attention in the last decade. We conducted a scientometric analysis of PE to determine the current status and frontiers, and promote cooperation and development.

Methods

The Web of Science Core Collection-Science Citation Index Expanded was adopted to retrieve publications associated with PE from 2012–2021. After screening publications, CiteSpace 3.8.R3 was used to conduct a scientometric analysis. We analyzed terms, including publications and citations, countries/regions, institutions, journals, authors, keywords, and references.

Results

In total, 4,715 documents published from 2012–2021 were included in this study, of which 3,829 were articles and 886 were reviews. The documents were cited 54,596 times, at an average of 11.58 times per document. 121 countries/regions and 410 institutions were involved. The top 3 countries/regions by the number of publications were the United States of America (n=1,790), England (n=601), and China (n=403), while the institution with the most publications was Pfizer. Pharmacoeconomics was the main journal of PE, with 310 publications in all, and the top 3 cited journals were New England Journal of Medicine (citation times =1,620), Value in Health (citation times =1,306), and Lancet (citation times =1,255). Bin Wu was the most productive author (n=16), while World Health Organization was the most influential author (citation times =387). 524 keywords altogether were found, and the top 3 keywords by frequency were therapy (frequency =318), impact (frequency =305), and cost-effectiveness (frequency =296). The keyword “modifying antirheumatic drug” associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has continued bursting from 2016–2021. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013 by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, was the most frequently cited publication on PE (citation times =65). Cluster 0 labeled as “cost-effectiveness analysis” (CEA) was the largest and latest cluster, and its citing articles focused on the CEA of first-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Conclusions

The economic analysis of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs related to RA was a popular topic in the last 6 years, and CEA of NSCLC first-line treatment was at the frontier of PE.

Living with Ulcerative Colitis in Japan: Biologic Persistence and Health-Care Resource Use

Objective

The aim of the study was to improve understanding of adherence and persistence to biologics, and their association with health-care resource utilization (HCRU), in Japanese patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC).

Methods

Data were from Medical Data Vision, a secondary care administrative database. A retrospective, longitudinal cohort analysis was conducted of data from UC patients initiating biologic therapy between August 2013 and July 2016. Data collected for 2 years prior (baseline) and 2 years after (follow-up) the index date were evaluated. Patients completing biologic induction were identified, and adherence/persistence to biologic therapy calculated. HCRU, steroid, and immunosuppressant use during baseline and follow-up were assessed. Biologic switching during the follow-up was evaluated. Descriptive statistics (e.g., means and proportions) were obtained and inferential analyses (from Student's t tests, Fisher's exact tests, χ² tests, the Cox proportional hazard model, and negative binomial regression) were performed.

Results

The analysis included 649 patients (adalimumab: 265; infliximab: 384). Biologic induction was completed by 80% of patients. Adherence to adalimumab was higher than that to infliximab (p < 0.001). Persistence at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months was higher with infliximab than with adalimumab (p < 0.05). Overall, gastroenterology outpatient visits increased, and hospitalization frequency and duration decreased, from baseline to follow-up. UC-related hospitalizations were fewer and shorter, and endoscopies fewer, in persistent than in nonpersistent patients, although persistent patients made more outpatient visits than nonpersistent patients. Hospitalization duration was lower in persistent than nonpersistent patients. Approximately 50% of patients received an immunosuppressant during biologic therapy; 5% received a concomitant steroid during biologic therapy. Overall, 17% and 3% of patients, respectively, received 2nd line and 3rd line biologics.

Conclusions

Poor biologic persistence was associated with increased non-medication-associated HCRU. Effective treatments with high persistence levels and limited associated HCRU are needed in UC.

Impact of Non-Persistence on Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Patients With Immune-Mediated Rheumatic Diseases Initiating Subcutaneous TNF-Alpha Inhibitors: A Before-and-After Study

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are chronic progressive immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) that can cause a progressive disability and joint deformation and thus can impact in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. The main outcome of the study was to assess the effect of non-persistence to treatment with subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (SC-TNFis) on HCRU costs in naïve patients with IMRD who started treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab or certolizumab pegol during 12 months after initiation of treatment. The impact of persistence and non-persistence of SC-TNFis on HCRU costs was compared between 12 months before and 12 months after initiating SC-TNFis. Persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. The study was conducted in an acute care teaching hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Data for the period between 2015 and 2018 were extracted from the hospital cost management control database. HCRU costs comprised outpatient care, outpatient specialized rheumatology care, in-patient care, emergency care, laboratory testing and other non-biological therapies. The study population included 110 naïve SC-TNFis patients, divided into the cohorts of persistent (n = 85) and non-persistent (n = 25) patients. Fifty-six percent of patients were women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 47.6 (14.8) years. Baseline clinical features and HCRU costs over the 12 months before the index prescription were similar in the two study groups. Before-and-after differences in mean (standard deviation) HCRU costs were significantly higher in the non-persistence group as compared to the persistence group for outpatient rheumatology care (€110.90 [234.56] vs. €20.80 [129.59], p = 0.023), laboratory testing (−€193.99 [195.88] vs. −€241.3 [217.88], p = 0.025), other non-biological drugs (€3849.03 [4046.14] vs. −€10.90 [157.42], p < 0.001) and total costs (€3268.90 [4821.55] vs. −€334.67 (905.44), p < 0.001). Treatment persistence with SC-TNFis may be associated with HCRU cost savings in naïve IMRD patients. Prescribing SC-TNFis with the best long-term persistence is beneficial.

Treatment patterns and sequencing in patients with rheumatic diseases: a retrospective claims data analysis

OBJECTIVES

Long-term real-world management of inflammatory rheumatic diseases remains unclear, especially with the advent of new treatment options. This study characterizes the number of advanced treatments used by patients with selected rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA], ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis) and provides a contemporary portrait of treatment patterns and therapeutic sequencing among patients with RA and PsA.

METHOD

Patients were selected from a large US claims database and classified into disease subsamples based on the latest rheumatic diagnosis recorded before/on the day of initiation of the first advanced treatment (index date). The total number of advanced treatments was assessed within the first 5 years following the index date. Treatment patterns and therapeutic sequencing were assessed over the first 2 years.

RESULTS

Approximately 20% of patients received ≥2 distinct advanced treatments during the first year following index date - the proportion increased to almost 50% among patients with 5 years of observation. Most patients (RA: 76.8%; PsA: 88.7%) initiated a tumor necrosis factor as the first advanced treatment. Over the first 2 years after the index date, 1/3 of RA and PsA patients switched to another advanced treatment. More than 50% initiated a second treatment with the same mechanism of action (MOA). A small proportion of patients received a biosimilar.

CONCLUSION

Despite advent of treatments with different MOA, cycling between treatments with the same MOA was common. Further studies with longer data follow-up would be needed to assess the impact of higher adoption of biosimilars on treatment patterns/sequencing.

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.

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.

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.

Adherence and persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis at an integrated health system specialty pharmacy

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) improve symptoms and delay progression of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but adherence is often sub-optimal and many patients change medication (either "switching" to a medication with a different mechanism of action or "cycling" to a medication with the same mechanism of action) during the first year of therapy. Some integrated health-system specialty pharmacies embed pharmacists in clinics to help patients access and adhere to specialty medication. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed DMARD switching, cycling, adherence, and persistence at an outpatient rheumatology clinic with an integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults with RA, naïve to biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs, who filled ≥ 2 biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD prescriptions within 12 months. Adherence was measured using proportion of days covered (PDC); persistence was computed at 12 months. Univariate analyses compared adherence and persistence between patients with and without a medication change. Ordinal logistic regression examined whether PDC was associated with patient age, gender, race, insurance type, and medication change. RESULTS: We included 772 patients: 79% female/21% male, 89% White/11% non-White, median age 56 years (interquartile range = 48-63). Most patients (84%) did not change medication during the study period, 5% cycled medication one or more times (but did not switch), 9% switched medication one or more times (but did not cycle), and 2% of patients both switched and cycled during the study period. Median PDC of the sample was 0.94 and 73% of patients were persistent. Patients with a medication change had lower PDC than those without (0.89 vs 0.95, P = 0.004), but rate of persistence did not significantly differ between groups (77 vs 72%, P = 0.300). Odds of higher PDC was more likely for men (Odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-2.48, P < 0.001) and less likely for patients who changed medication (OR = 0.65, CI: 0.47-0.91, P = 0.011); age, race, and insurance type were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA demonstrated high medication adherence and persistence, and low rates of switching and cycling. Findings support evidence that integrated health-system specialty pharmacies with clinical pharmacists embedded in outpatient clinics help patients overcome barriers to medication adherence to persist on therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi, Inc. James and J. Choi were employed by Sanofi, Inc., at the time of this study. Peter, Zuckerman, DeClercq, L. Choi, and Tanner, received research funding from Sanofi, Inc., for work on this study. Tanner has also received advisory board/speaker bureau fees from Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis. This study was presented as a poster at AMCP Nexus in October 2019 at National Harbor, MD.

A Molecular Signature Response Classifier to Predict Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors: The NETWORK-004 Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

Timely matching of patients to beneficial targeted therapy is an unmet need in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that predicts which patients with RA are unlikely to respond to tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapy would have wide clinical utility.

Methods

The protein–protein interaction map specific to the rheumatoid arthritis pathophysiology and gene expression data in blood patient samples was used to discover a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapy. Inadequate response predictions were validated in blood samples from the CERTAIN cohort and a multicenter blinded prospective observational clinical study (NETWORK-004) among 391 targeted therapy-naïve and 113 TNFi-exposed patient samples. The primary endpoint evaluated the ability of the MSRC to identify patients who inadequately responded to TNFi therapy at 6 months according to ACR50. Additional endpoints evaluated the prediction of inadequate response at 3 and 6 months by ACR70, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI.

Results

The 23-feature molecular signature considers pathways upstream and downstream of TNFα involvement in RA pathophysiology. Predictive performance was consistent between the CERTAIN cohort and NETWORK-004 study. The NETWORK-004 study met primary and secondary endpoints. A molecular signature of non-response was detected in 45% of targeted therapy-naïve patients. The MSRC had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.64 and patients were unlikely to adequately respond to TNFi therapy according to ACR50 at 6 months with an odds ratio of 4.1 (95% confidence interval 2.0–8.3, p value 0.0001). Odds ratios (3.4–8.8) were significant (p value < 0.01) for additional endpoints at 3 and 6 months, with AUC values up to 0.74. Among TNFi-exposed patients, the MSRC had an AUC of up to 0.83 and was associated with significant odds ratios of 3.3–26.6 by ACR, DAS28-CRP, and CDAI metrics.

Conclusion

The MSRC stratifies patients according to likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapy and provides patient-specific data to guide therapy choice in RA for targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-021-00330-y.

A blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) integrating next-generation RNA sequencing data with clinical features predicts the likelihood that a patient with rheumatoid arthritis will have an inadequate response to TNFi therapy. Treatment selection guided by test results, with likely inadequate responders appropriately redirected to a different therapy, could improve response rates to TNFi therapies, generate healthcare cost savings, and increase rheumatologists’ confidence in prescribing decisions and altered treatment choices. The MSRC described in this study predicts the likelihood of inadequate response to TNFi therapies among targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi-exposed patients in a multicenter, 24-week blinded prospective clinical study: NETWORK-004. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response are less likely to have an adequate response to TNFi therapies than those patients lacking the signature according to ACR50, ACR70, CDAI, and DAS28-CRP with significant odds ratios of 3.4–8.8 for targeted therapy-naïve patients and 3.3–26.6 for TNFi-exposed patients. This MSRC provides a solution to the long-standing need for precision medicine tools to predict drug response in rheumatoid arthritis—a heterogeneous and progressive disease with an abundance of therapeutic options. These data validate the performance of the MSRC in a blinded prospective clinical study of targeted therapy-naïve and TNFi therapy-exposed patients.

Perceived clinical utility of a test for predicting inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: results from a decision impact study

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) therapies are often the first biologic therapy used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. However, a substantial fraction of patients do not respond adequately to TNFi therapies. A test with the ability to predict response would inform therapeutic decision-making and improve clinical and financial outcomes. A 32-question decision-impact survey was conducted with 248 rheumatologists to gauge the perceived clinical utility of a novel test that predicts inadequate response to TNFi therapies in RA patients. Participants were informed about the predictive characteristics of the test and asked to indicate prescribing decisions based on four result scenarios. Overall, rheumatologists had a favorable view of the test: 80.2% agreed that it would improve medical decision-making, 92.3% said it would increase their confidence when making prescribing decisions, and 81.5% said it would be useful when considering TNFi therapies. Rheumatologists would be more likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when the test reported that no signal of non-response was detected (79.8%) and less likely to prescribe a TNFi therapy when a signal of non-response was detected (11.3%-25.4%). Rheumatologists (84.7%) agreed that payers should provide coverage for such a test. This study shows that rheumatologists support the clinical need for a test to predict inadequate response to TNFi therapies. Test results were perceived to lead to changes in prescribing behaviors as results instill confidence in the ordering rheumatologist.

Persistence on biologic DMARD monotherapy after achieving rheumatoid arthritis disease control on combination therapy: retrospective analysis of corrona registry data

Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) monotherapy may enhance adherence and decrease adverse events compared to combination therapy with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs); however, persistence with bDMARD monotherapy has not been extensively studied. We explore persistence of etanercept monotherapy and monotherapy with other tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) among patients first achieving remission/low disease activity (LDA) while on combination therapy with csDMARDs and a TNFi. Using Corrona registry data, the percentage of patients persistent with the index TNFi (etanercept versus other TNFis) over 6 and 12 months was determined. Factors influencing persistence and treatment patterns at 6 and 12 months were examined. Among 617 eligible patients, 56% of 182 patients on etanercept and 45% of 435 patients on other TNFis persisted with monotherapy at 6 months, 46% and 33%, respectively, at 12 months. Across first-line and subsequent biologic DMARDs, etanercept persistence was greater than other TNFi persistence by 10.8% (95% CI 2.1%, 19.6%) at 6 months and 11.4% (95% CI 0.9%, 21.9%) at 12 months. Patients on other TNFis were more likely to require reintroduction of csDMARD after 6 months (45% versus 35% for etanercept). Remission was the key predictor of persistence for both etanercept and other TNFi monotherapies. This retrospective, cohort study of registry data reflecting real-world practice indicates patients who achieve remission/LDA with combination csDMARD and TNFi therapy may successfully transition to TNFi monotherapy. Patients on etanercept monotherapy experienced greater persistence and less frequent reintroduction of a csDMARD than was observed for patients on other TNFi monotherapies.

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.

Real-World Persistence with Tocilizumab Compared to Other Subcutaneous Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Switching from Another Biologic

INTRODUCTION

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to or intolerance of their first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), guidelines recommend switching to a different biologic class. The objective of this study was to compare persistence with subcutaneous (SC) tocilizumab to persistence with other SC bDMARDs when these drugs are used as subsequent-line therapy in RA patients who previously received ≥ 1 bDMARD.

METHODS

RA patients in a US administrative claims database who initiated a second- or subsequent-line SC bDMARD between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2017 (initiation date = index date) were included. Persistence was defined as the number of days between the bDMARD initiation date and (1) the last supplied day of medication fill (primary) or (2) the day on which the patient switched or there was a gap in treatment of > 90 days (secondary). Parametric survival models utilizing an exponential distribution with a robust variance estimator were used to compare persistence with tocilizumab to persistence with other bDMARDs.

RESULTS

A total of 10,301 patients with 12,704 bDMARD episodes were included. Patients receiving tocilizumab had a significantly higher adjusted median (95% CI) number of days of primary persistence [333 (311-356)] than those receiving adalimumab [280 (268-293); P  < 0.001], certolizumab [262 (241-284); P  < 0.001], and etanercept [289 (274-304); P  = 0.001], and a similar persistence to those receiving abatacept [320 (305-335); P = 0.327] and golimumab [304 (274-333); P = 0.122].

CONCLUSION

Among patients with RA who had previously received ≥ 1 bDMARD, tocilizumab-treated patients exhibited a similar or significantly better biologic persistence than those receiving other bDMARDs.

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.

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.

Impact of Plan-Level Access Restrictions on Effectiveness of Biologics Among Patients with Rheumatoid or Psoriatic Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Novel disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can slow disease progression among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA); however, some health plans require prior authorization (PA) or step therapy for access to treatments.

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study compared treatment effectiveness among RA and PsA patients with and without plan-level access restrictions to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs). Medication adherence, a component of effectiveness, was also examined as a secondary outcome.

METHODS

RA and PsA patients aged 18-64 years with one or more claims for subcutaneous bDMARDs between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015, with plan-level access data available, were identified within the IBM MarketScan claims database. The primary outcome was treatment effectiveness assessed during the 12 months following the first qualifying DMARD claim. Multivariate modeling examined the correlation between access restrictions and treatment effectiveness. Medication adherence during the 12-month follow-up period was also compared between patients with and without access restrictions.

RESULTS

Among 3993 RA and 1713 PsA patients, 34.2 and 35.1%, respectively, had access restrictions, of whom 70.5 and 78.9%, respectively, had plans with step therapy. Compared with patients whose plans did not require step therapy, odds of treatment effectiveness were 19% lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67-0.98; p  = 0.033) for RA patients and 27% lower (OR 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; p = 0.037) for PsA patients in plans with step therapy. Differences in effectiveness were driven by differences in medication adherence, the odds of which were 19% lower (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.96; p = 0.014) among RA patients and 29% lower (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94; p = 0.017) among PsA patients in plans with versus without step therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with patients in plans without access restrictions or with PA only, RA and PsA patients in insurance plans with step therapy had lower odds of treatment effectiveness, mainly due to lower odds of adhering to treatment, during the 12 months following subcutaneous bDMARD initiation.

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.

Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders

Current guidelines recommend treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to reach low disease activity or remission, however, most biologic-naive RA patients fail to reach treatment targets on their first biologic therapy. Approximately 90% of biologic-naive RA patients receive a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (anti-TNF) as their first biologic treatment, even though several alternative mechanism of action (MOA) therapies are approved as first-line options. After 3 months of therapy, patients may remain on anti-TNF therapy even if they fail to achieve the treatment target, mainly due to formulary structures. This means patients have to endure a second and even a third ineffective anti-TNF-called anti-TNF cycling-before changing MOA. This significantly delays patients from reaching their treatment targets. All anti-TNF drugs target the same molecular and inflammatory pathways; thus, it is not surprising that most patients who are primary non-responders to their initial anti-TNF therapy fail to achieve their treatment targets when cycled through alternative anti-TNFs. This suggests that primary non-responders should be switched to an alternative MOA therapy rather than enduring anti-TNF cycling. Avoiding anti-TNF cycling would prevent disease progression and improve quality of life for RA patients who are primary non-responders to anti-TNFs. The development of a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders to anti-TNFs prior to treatment would allow significantly more patients to reach their treatment target by treating them with alternative MOA therapies as first-line therapies.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry

Background

Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent).

Methods

Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates.

Results

Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events.

Conclusions

Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

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.

Persistence with biological drugs in patients treated in rheumatology practices in Germany

The goal of this study was to investigate the persistence with biological drugs in patients treated in rheumatology practices in Germany. This study included patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who received a first prescription of biological drugs between 2008 and 2016 (index date) in 21 rheumatology practices in Germany (n = 4925; Disease Analyzer database). The main outcome measure was the rate of persistence within 5 years of the index date. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to study treatment persistence as a function of diagnosis, gender and age. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the relationship between non-persistence and diagnosis, gender, age, and comorbidities. After 5 years of follow-up, the rate of persistence was 31.8% in patients with RA, 35.2% in those with AS, and 33.2% in those with PA (log-rank p value = 0.028). Furthermore, 33.8% of men and 31.9% of women were persistent (log-rank p value = 0.035). The rate of persistence was 20.8%, 27.9%, 33.0%, 36.6%, 35.2%, and 32.0% in people aged ≤ 30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, and > 70 years, respectively (log-rank p value = 0.002). The risk of discontinuation was lower in participants diagnosed with AS than in those diagnosed with RA [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.96]. In addition, patients aged ≤ 30 years were more likely to discontinue their biological therapy than those aged > 70 years (HR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.10-1.52). Persistence with biological drugs was low after 5 years of follow-up in rheumatology practices.

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.