Estimating effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: application of a validated algorithm to commercial insurance claims

Validation of new medication use algorithms as proxies for worsening disease activity in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis

PURPOSE

To facilitate claims-based research on populations with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), we sought to validate an algorithm of new medication use as a proxy for worsening JIA disease activity.

METHODS

Using electronic health record data from three pediatric centers, we defined new JIA medication use as (re)initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or glucocorticoids (oral or intra-articular). Data were collected from 201 randomly selected subjects with (101) or without (100) new medication use. We assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) based on a reference standard of documented worsening of JIA disease activity. The algorithm was refined to optimize test characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, the medication-based algorithm had suboptimal performance in representing worsening JIA disease activity (PPV 69.3%, NPV 77.1%). However, algorithm performance improved for definitions specifying longer times after JIA diagnosis (≥1-year post-diagnosis: PPV 82.9%, NPV 80.0%) or after initiation of prior JIA treatment (≥1-year post-treatment: PPV 89.7%, NPV 80.0%).

CONCLUSION

An algorithm for new JIA medication use appears to be a reasonable proxy for worsening JIA disease activity, particularly when specifying new use ≥1 year since initiating a prior JIA medication. This algorithm will be valuable for conducting research on JIA populations within administrative claims databases.

Real-world Comparative Effectiveness of Methotrexate-based Combinations for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Guidelines recommend using disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after monotherapy. Little is known about the real-world comparative effectiveness of these MTX-DMARD combinations. This study compared the effectiveness of various MTX-based DMARD combinations for patients with RA initiating MTX-DMARD combination therapy using administrative claims database.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) with RA who initiated MTX combination treatment with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs), non-TNFi bDMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) between July 1, 2012, and December 31, 2013 (index date), from the MarketScan Commercial Claims Data. Patients had continuous enrollment from the 6 months of preindex period until the 12 months of postindex period. The MTX-based DMARD combination therapy cohort was defined as ≥1 MTX prescription in the first 30 days from the index date and ≥14 days overlapping use of the prescription fills of the MTX and the index DMARD. Effectiveness was measured by using the claims algorithm (dosing, switching, addition, oral glucocorticoid use, or multiple glucocorticoid injection). Propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (PS-IPTW), estimated by using the generalized boosted machine learning method, was used to balance the distribution of baseline variables between the combination groups. Multivariable logistic regression using PS-IPTW was conducted to compare the effectiveness of the combination groups. Sensitivity analysis evaluated the modified effectiveness algorithms or the time to the first treatment failure.

FINDINGS

A total of 3174 adult patients with RA starting an MTX-DMARD combination therapy were identified (mean [SD] age, 50 [9] years), including 1568 (49%) initiating a csDMARD + MTX, 1343 (42%) initiating TNFi + MTX, and 240 (8%) initiating non-TNFi bDMARD + MTX, and 23 (1%) initiating tsDMARD + MTX. Owing to the small sample, the tsDMARD combination group was not included in the comparative analysis. Algorithm-based therapy effectiveness was found in 9.95% of the csDMARD + MTX, 20.48% of the TNFi + MTX, and 20.83% of the non-TNFi + MTX groups. PS-IPTW showed that the csDMARD combination is less effective (adjusted odds ratio, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.341-0.524) than the TNFi combination; however, the non-TNFi biologic combination had similar effectiveness (aOR, 1.063; 95% CI, 0.680-1.662) compared to the TNFi combination. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the main results.

IMPLICATIONS

Among RA patients initiating MTX-DMARD combinations, both non-TNFi biologics and TNFi-based combinations with MTX were equally effective, but csDMARD + MTX was less effective than the TNFi plus MTX.

The Economic Benefit of Remission for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), attaining remission or low disease activity (LDA), as recommended by the treat-to-target approach, has shown to yield improvement in symptoms and quality of life. However, limited evidence from real-world settings is available to support the premise that better disease control is associated with lower healthcare costs. This study fills in evidence gaps regarding the cost of care by RA disease activity (DA) states and by therapy.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study linked medical and prescription claims from Optum Clinformatics Data Mart to electronic health record data from Illumination Health over 1/1/2010–3/31/2020. Mean annual costs for payers and patients were examined, stratifying on DA state and baseline use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biologics, and targeted synthetic (ts)DMARDs. Subgroup analysis examining within-person change in costs pre- and post-initiation of new therapy was also performed. Descriptive statistics, means, and boot-strapped confidence intervals were analyzed by DA state and by RA therapy. Furthermore, multivariate negative binomial regression analysis adjusting for key baseline characteristics was conducted.

Results

Of 2339 eligible patients, 19% were in remission, 40% in LDA, 29% in moderate DA (MDA), and 12% in high DA (HDA) at baseline. Mean annual costs during follow-up were substantially less for patients in remission ($40,072) versus those in MDA ($56,536) and HDA ($59,217). For patients in remission, csDMARD use was associated with the lowest mean annual cost ($25,575), tsDMARD was highest ($75,512), and tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) ($69,846) and non-TNFi ($57,507) were intermediate. Among new TNFi (n = 137) and non-TNFi initiators (n = 107), 31% and 26% attained LDA/remission, respectively, and the time to achieve remission/LDA was numerically shorter in TNFi vs. non-TNFi initiators. For those on biologics, mean annual within-person medical and inpatient costs were lower after achieving LDA/remission, although pharmacy costs were higher.

Conclusions

Cost of care increased with increasing DA state, with patients in remission having the lowest costs. Optimizing DA has the potential for substantial savings in healthcare costs, although may be partially offset by the high cost of targeted RA therapies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40744-022-00473-6.

Effectiveness and Costs Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Targeted Immunomodulators Using Real-World U.S. Data

BACKGROUND

Targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) are used for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include biologic and nonbiologic medications with different mechanisms of action. Data describing disease activity levels in RA are not directly available in claims databases but can be determined using a claims-based effectiveness algorithm. Rheumatology has benefited from the recent introduction of new drugs, many with new mechanisms of action. We provide an analysis of this broader range of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe and summarize the effectiveness of available TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe RA and (b) determine the RA-related health care costs per effectively treated patient, using recent data.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis using data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016. Index date was the new prescription claim for a TIM (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib). A 6-month pre-index baseline period was used to determine demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients without a TIM claim during the baseline period were considered naive; patients with a TIM claim in the baseline period that was different than the index TIM were assessed as receiving second-line therapy. A claims-based algorithm was used to assess 12-month treatment effectiveness and total RA-related costs. Costs included RA-related pharmacy costs and medical costs.

RESULTS

Data from 14,775 patients were analyzed, including patients prescribed abatacept (n = 1,250), adalimumab (n = 4,986), certolizumab pegol (n = 387), etanercept (n = 5,266), golimumab (n = 577), infliximab (n = 969), tocilizumab (n = 451), and tofacitinib (n = 889). Of these, 705 were receiving second-line therapy. TIM effectiveness by first-line and second-line therapy, respectively, were abatacept 27.1%, 18.1%; adalimumab 30.9%, 22.1%; certolizumab pegol 20.9%, 14.3%; etanercept 31.4%, 31.5%; golimumab 32.7%, 22.2%; infliximab 21.9%, 21.3%; tocilizumab 30.9%, 30.6%; and tofacitinib 26.0%, 21.6%. The main reason for failing effectiveness was not achieving an 80% medication possession ratio or being nonadherent. The 1-year total RA-related cost per effectively treated patient for first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, were abatacept $121,835, $174,090; adalimumab $112,708, $154,540; certolizumab pegol $149,946, $236,743; etanercept $102,058, $94,821; golimumab $108,802, $140,651; infliximab $155,123, $185,369; tocilizumab $93,333, $109,351; and tofacitinib $100,306, $130,501.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of TIMs from this real-world experience showed that the range of patients who were effectively treated with first-line therapy was higher for certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tocilizumab. The percentages of effectively treated patients were generally lower in second-line treatment compared with first-line except for etanercept, which had the same percentage between lines of therapy. Etanercept had the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient among tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in first-line use and the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient compared with all second-line treatments.

DISCLOSURES

This study was sponsored by Amgen. Amgen employees contributed to study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Maksabedian Hernandez and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen; Gharaibeh was employed by Amgen at the time of this study. Bonafede was employed by IBM Watson Health, at the time of this study, and McMorrow is employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Data from this study were presented at AMCP Nexus, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.

Prevalence of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Drug Dispensing Patterns Among Medicaid and Medicaid-Medicare Dually Eligible Beneficiaries in Puerto Rico

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Puerto Rico, to describe disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) dispensing patterns by prescriber specialty, and to illustrate the impact of RA case definition on the estimated prevalence.

METHODS

This study estimated the prevalence of RA in Puerto Rico during 2016 among Medicaid and Medicaid-Medicare dually eligible beneficiaries of the Mi Salud health care plan, a federally funded health insurance program. DMARD dispensing and cost patterns were described and stratified by provider specialty. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of RA case definition on estimated prevalence.

RESULTS

The prevalence of RA in 2016 was estimated to be 2 cases per 1,000 beneficiaries, with 3 per 1,000 beneficiaries among females, 4.5 times that of males. In total, 44% of beneficiaries received conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) only, 32% received biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) only, and 24% received a combination of csDMARDs and b/tsDMARDs. Rheumatologists and a combination of specialties accounted for the highest median number of dispensed DMARDs, with 14 each. A sensitivity analysis revealed that when RA cases with ≥3 medical claims were restricted to having ≥1 DMARD claim, the estimated prevalence changed from 6 to 3 cases per 1,000 beneficiaries.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of RA in Puerto Rico in this study is lower than reported in the mainland US, possibly due to more stringent criteria to define RA. DMARD dispensing and cost patterns are similar to those found in other studies. Claims algorithms that identify RA have higher validity when pharmacy data is included.

Patient satisfaction and clinical effectiveness of switching from intravenous tocilizumab to subcutaneous tocilizumab in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: an observational study

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a heterogeneous group of idiopathic inflammatory arthritis affecting children younger than 16 years of age. Tocilizumab (TCZ) is a humanized anti-interleukin 6 (IL-6) receptor antibody that was approved for systemic and polyarticular JIA patients. However, the studies regarding patients' satisfaction while receiving TCZ therapy is scarce. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the effect of subcutaneous (SC) TCZ administration on patient satisfaction and disease control of JIA patients.

METHODS

All JIA patients receiving TCZ were included in the study. Clinical features, laboratory findings and JADAS71 scores were recorded at baseline and every 3 months during follow-up. Nine of the patients on intravenous (IV) TCZ treatment were switched to SC form. All patients receiving TCZ-SC were questioned by a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) to assess patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients receiving TCZ were included in the study. Among them, treatment of nine patients (five female, four male) was switched to SC form with a median of 11.5 (8-69) months after initiation of TCZ. Patients were stable both clinically and in laboratory means at the 3rd month of TCZ-SC treatment. There was no deterioration in terms of active joint counts, physician's VAS, patient's VAS and JADAS71. According to patient satisfaction questionnaire, eight of the patients felt satisfied with SC administrations in terms of life quality, school success and reduced school absenteeism. However, one patient did not agree that the SC form is as effective as IV form and wanted to continue with IV form.

CONCLUSION

TCZ is an effective treatment option in JIA and switching from IV to SC route when necessary is found to be an effective and acceptable alternative by the patients as well.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort study

Background

Tofacitinib is the first oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared the effectiveness and safety of tofacitinib, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and non-TNF biologics in patients with RA previously treated with methotrexate.

Methods

We used MarketScan® databases (2011–2014) to study methotrexate-exposed patients with RA who were newly prescribed tofacitinib, DMARDs other than methotrexate, and biologics. The date of first prescription was defined as the cohort entry. The therapy was considered effective if all of the following criteria from a claims-based algorithm were achieved at the first year of follow-up: high adherence, no biologic or tofacitinib switch or addition, no DMARD switch or addition, no increase in dose or frequency of index drug, no more than one glucocorticoid joint injection, and no new/increased oral glucocorticoid dose. The safety outcome was serious infections requiring hospitalization. Non-TNF biologics comprised the reference group.

Results

We included 21,832 patients with RA, including 0.8% treated with tofacitinib, 24.7% treated with other DMARDs, 61.2% who had started therapy with TNFi, and 13.3% treated with non-TNF biologics. The rates of therapy effectiveness were 15.4% for tofacitinib, 11.1% for DMARDs, 18.6% for TNFi, and 19.8% for non-TNF biologics. In adjusted analyses, tofacitinib and non-TNF biologics appeared to have similar effectiveness rates, whereas DMARD initiators were less effective than non-TNF biologics. We could not clearly establish if tofacitinib was associated with a higher rate of serious infections.

Conclusions

In patients with RA previously treated with methotrexate, our comparisons of tofacitinib with non-TNF biologics, though not definitive, did not demonstrate differences with respect to hospitalized infections or effectiveness.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13075-018-1539-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Refining a Claims-based Algorithm to Estimate Biologic Medication Effectiveness and Cost per Effectively Treated Patient with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Claims data generally lack information on clinical outcomes. However, a validated claims-based algorithm for estimating the effectiveness of biologic agents in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) was recently developed and applied to various databases.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were to implement a claims-based algorithm in a large nationwide database to estimate medication effectiveness and cost for patients with RA using biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and to assess the effect of eliminating one criterion from the algorithm on results.

METHODS

The DMARD groups included patients initiated on etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, or infliximab. Patients were categorized as effectively treated if they met these six criteria: a medication possession ratio of 80% or greater; no escalation in biologic dose; no switch in biologics; no new nonbiologic DMARD; no new or increased oral glucocorticoid treatment; and no more than one glucocorticoid injection. In a follow-up analysis, the dose-escalation criterion was removed because an increase in dose for infliximab may be appropriate. Average costs for RA-related medications were calculated for each DMARD patient group and divided by the number of patients who met all six effectiveness criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 1196 individuals were included in the analysis. Using the algorithm, the index biologic was categorized as effective for 25.4% of patients overall: 30.3% (102/337) of etanercept, 27.6% (104/377) of adalimumab, 32.7% (37/113) of abatacept, and 16.5% (61/369) of infliximab patients. Total costs for RA medication costs per effectively treated patient ranged from more than $80,000 for infliximab to ~$43,000-$46,000 for the other three groups. Removing the no dose-escalation criterion drastically reduced the cost per effectively treated patient in the infliximab group (to ~$42,000).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the original six-criteria claims-based algorithm in a large claims database, infliximab was the least-effective biologic agent and had the highest medication cost per effectively treated patient. However, when a follow-up analysis removed the dose-escalation exclusion criterion, the four groups had similar effectiveness and medication costs per effectively treated patient with RA.

Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in Bulgaria: measuring health benefit by effectively treated patient-years

Background: An elevated level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) constitutes one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Individuals with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) are particularly vulnerable to CVD events. The addition of evolocumab to statins has shown marked reductions in LDL-C levels. The objective of this analysis is to demonstrate the clinical and economic value of LDL-C lowering with evolocumab from the Bulgarian public health care perspective. Methods: A disease-specific measure of health benefit was devised: Effectively treated patient-years (ETPYs) combine length of life with the likelihood of attaining best-practice recommendations on LDL-C lowering. "Effective treatment" was defined as a reduction in LDL-C levels of ≥50%. A Markov cohort state-transition model was adapted, considering a life-long treatment duration. Demographics, baseline characteristics and efficacy data were taken from the RUTHERFORD-2 trial. The model uses the relationship between LDL-C lowering and reduced CVD event rates observed in the meta-analyses conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Outcomes and costs (from year 2015) were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty surrounding the results. Results: The total incremental costs of evolocumab added to statins versus statins alone are BGN 120,329 while adding 9.30 ETPYs over lifetime. These results imply an incremental cost per ETPY of BGN 12,937 (US$ 7,215; € 6,604). The use of evolocumab is associated with a relative reduction in the CVD event rate by 38% (18% per 1 mmol/L). Conclusions: Adding evolocumab to statins may be considered cost-effective in light of an additional expense per patient-year gained in which individuals with HeFH receive effective treatment under the terms of international prevention guidelines. ETPYs are an intuitive and clinically meaningful measure of patient benefit that, in relation to costs, can support health care decision-making that considers quality of care.

Cost-effectiveness of sequenced treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with targeted immune modulators

AIMS

To determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment sequences of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs or Janus kinase/STAT pathway inhibitors (collectively referred to as bDMARDs) vs conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) from the US societal perspective for treatment of patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses to cDMARDs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An individual patient simulation model was developed that assesses the impact of treatments on disease based on clinical trial data and real-world evidence. Treatment strategies included sequences starting with etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, or abatacept. Each of these treatment strategies was compared with cDMARDs. Incremental cost, incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment sequence relative to cDMARDs. The cost-effectiveness of each strategy was determined using a US willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY.

RESULTS

For the base-case scenario, bDMARD treatment sequences were associated with greater treatment benefit (i.e. more QALYs), lower lost productivity costs, and greater treatment-related costs than cDMARDs. The expected ICERs for bDMARD sequences ranged from ∼$126,000 to $140,000 per QALY gained, which is below the US-specific WTP. Alternative scenarios examining the effects of homogeneous patients, dose increases, increased costs of hospitalization for severely physically impaired patients, and a lower baseline Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index score resulted in similar ICERs.

CONCLUSIONS

bDMARD treatment sequences are cost-effective from a US societal perspective.

Costs associated with failure to respond to treatment among patients with rheumatoid arthritis initiating TNFi therapy: a retrospective claims analysis

BACKGROUND

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are common second-line treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study was designed to compare the real-world clinical and economic outcomes between patients with RA who responded to TNFi therapy and those who did not.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort analysis we used medical and pharmacy claims from members of 14 large U.S. commercial health plans represented in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with RA and initiating TNFi therapy (index date) between 1 January 2007 and 30 April 2014 were included in the study. Treatment response was assessed using a previously developed and validated claims-based algorithm. Patients classified as treatment responders in the 12 months postindex were matched 1:1 to nonresponders on important baseline characteristics, including sex, age, index TNFi agent, and comorbidities. The matched cohorts were then compared on their all-cause and RA-related healthcare resource use, and costs were assessed from a payer perspective during the first, second, and third years postindex using parametric tests, regressions, and a nonparametric bootstrap.

RESULTS

A total of 7797 patients met the study inclusion criteria, among whom 2337 (30%) were classified as treatment responders. The responders had significantly lower all-cause hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physical/occupational therapy visits than matched nonresponders during the first-year postindex. Mean total all-cause medical costs were $5737 higher for matched nonresponders, largely driven by outpatient visits and hospitalizations. Mean all-cause pharmacy costs (excluding costs of biologics) were $354 higher for matched nonresponders. Mean RA-related pharmacy costs (conventional synthetic and biologic drugs), however, were $8579 higher in the responder cohort, driven by higher adherence to their index TNFi agent (p < 0.01 for all comparisons). A similar pattern of cost differentiation was observed over years 2 and 3 of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world study we found that, compared with matched nonresponders, patients who responded to TNFi treatments had lower all-cause medical, pharmacy, and total costs (excluding biologics) up to 3 years from initiation of TNFi therapy. These cost differences between the two cohorts provide a considerable offset to the cost of RA medications and should encourage close monitoring of treatment response to minimize disease progression with appropriate therapy choices.

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi ("TNFi cyclers") or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) ("new MOA switchers").

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were "effectively treated" if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

RESULTS

The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12-1.74; p = .003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.51-0.81; p < .001). New MOA switchers were 43% more likely than TNFi cyclers to be effectively treated (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.11-1.85; p = .006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.79-0.88; p < .001) and 11% lower total costs of rheumatoid arthritis-related medical care (cost ratio = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.84-0.94; p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.

Are abatacept and tocilizumab intravenous users willing to switch for the subcutaneous route of administration? A questionnaire-based study

Choosing the subcutaneous (SC) route of administration of abatacept and tocilizumab is more cost-effective than the intravenous (IV) route. The objective of this study was to examine patients' reasons for choosing to keep with their IV infusions or to switch to subcutaneous SC injections. This study was based upon a self-administered questionnaire given to consecutive rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with abatacept or tocilizumab. Patients were asked to express their opinions concerning reasons explaining why they chose to keep the IV route or switch to the SC route. A total of 201 questionnaires completed by 127 patients treated by tocilizumab and 74 by abatacept were analysed. Overall, 45.8% of the patients chose to keep the IV route of administration. Another ongoing SC treatment was noted more often in patients choosing the SC route (15.9 versus 4.3%, p < 0.05). Reasons guiding the choice of the SC route were concerns about repeated hospital day-care (72%), greater autonomy with SC injections (38.7%) and economic considerations (21.5%). Reasons associated with choosing to maintain the IV route were worries about a lack of follow-up (72.1%), the absence of medical assistance during the SC injection (61.2%), maintaining social relationships with other patients developed at the hospital (40.5%), lower frequency of injection (32.9%), fear of adverse events (27.7%) and fear of SC injections (17.9%). Patients reject the SC switch from the IV route of tocilizumab and abatacept mainly because of fears about the unknown SC route, while those who accept it find it more convenient.

Treatment effectiveness and treatment patterns among rheumatoid arthritis patients after switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to another medication

Objectives

After treatment failure with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can switch to another TNFi (TNFi cyclers) or to a targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) with a non-TNFi mechanism of action (non-TNFi switchers). This study compared treatment patterns and treatment effectiveness between TNFi cyclers and non-TNFi switchers in patients with RA.

Methods

The analysis included a cohort of patients from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial database with RA who switched from a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) either to another TNFi or to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2010 and September 30, 2014. A claims-based algorithm was used to estimate treatment effectiveness based on six criteria (adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional therapy, no switch to another targeted DMARD, no new/increased oral glucocorticoid, and intra-articular injections on <2 days).

Results

The cohort included 5,020 TNFi cyclers and 1,925 non-TNFi switchers. Non-TNFi switchers were significantly less likely than TNFi cyclers to switch therapy again within 6 months (13.2% vs 19.5%; P<0.001) or within 12 months (29.7% vs 34.6%; P<0.001) and significantly more likely to be persistent on therapy at 12 months (61.8% vs 58.2%; P<0.001). Non-TNFi switchers were significantly more likely than TNFi cyclers to achieve all six of the claims-based effectiveness algorithm criteria for the 12 months after the initial switch (27% vs 24%; P=0.011).

Conclusion

Although the absolute differences were small, these results support switching to a non-TNFi targeted DMARD instead of TNFi cycling when patients with RA require another therapy after TNFi failure.

Comparing Biologic Cost Per Treated Patient Across Indications Among Adult US Managed Care Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The relative cost of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and ankylosing spondylitis, is a key consideration for managed care payers.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to estimate biologic costs and treatment patterns in US managed care patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study used administrative claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRD^SM) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, psoriasis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis who received abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab, or ustekinumab between 1 July 2009 and 31 January 2013. Biologic costs (based on drug utilization) and treatment patterns (discontinued, restarted after a >45-day gap, switched to another biologic, or persisted without switching or stopping) were analyzed for the first year post-index.

RESULTS

Most of the 24,460 patients received etanercept (48 %), adalimumab (29 %), or infliximab (12 %) as the index biologic. On the index date, 44 % were new to biologic therapy and 56 % were continuing biologic therapy. Biologic cost per treated patient for 1 year was as follows: etanercept $US24,859, adalimumab $US26,537, and infliximab $US26,468. Treatment patterns across indications for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were as follows: persistent (52, 49, 67 %), restarted (23, 21, 12 %), switched (12, 13, 11 %), and discontinued (14, 18, 10 %).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings from a large health benefits organization in the USA are similar to those of several previous cost analyses assessing different populations, which demonstrates the external validity of the results from the previous studies, both over time and across large populations.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Biologic Cost per Effectively Treated Rheumatoid Arthritis Patient in a Large Managed Care Population: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Until recently, the lack of clinical outcomes information for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in administrative claims databases limited their use in comparative effectiveness research. A validated claims-based algorithm has been developed to estimate the effectiveness of biologics for RA, allowing for estimation of cost and effectiveness in the same database. Objectives: To implement a validated claims-based effectiveness algorithm in a US managed care claims database to compute the 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient among first-line biologics approved for moderate-to-severe RA (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and infliximab). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for individuals in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database (HIRDSM). The first claim for a first-line biologic between July 1, 2009, and January 31, 2013, after 6 months of continuous enrollment, was defined as the index event and date. Patients were aged 18-63 years on the index date and had at least one claim for RA in the 6-month pre- index period. Biologic costs included plan and patient paid amounts on claims for the biologic drug and administration. The algorithm defined effectiveness during the 12-month post-index period as achieving all six of the following: high adherence (medication possession ratio ≥80% or infusions consistent with the product label); no increase in biologic dose or decrease in dosing interval; no new biologic; no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; no new or increased oral glucocorticoid use; and ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Cost per effectively treated patient was calculated as the total biologic cost (drug and administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Results: The cohort comprised 4844 patients (mean age 48.6 years, 76.4% female). Average first-year biologic cost ranged from $14 795 (golimumab) to $19 520 (abatacept). Average first-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient was significantly lower for etanercept ($50 217) than for golimumab ($56 427, p<0.001) adalimumab ($56 879, p<0.001), abatacept ($68 062, p<0.001), certolizumab pegol ($76 427, p<0.001), and infliximab ($95 126, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this application of a validated claims-based algorithm to a large managed care population, etanercept had the lowest 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient among first-line biologics.

Application of a validated algorithm to estimate the effectiveness and cost of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis in the US pharmacy benefit manager context

BACKGROUND

Several biologic medicines are available to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and they differ in administration method (subcutaneous or intravenous [IV]). We analyzed a pharmacy benefit manager database to estimate claims-based, algorithm-determined effectiveness and cost per effectively treated patient for biologics used to treat RA.

METHODS

We analyzed the Medco Health Solutions pharmacy benefit manager database to identify patients with one or more claims for a biologic used to treat RA from 2007 to 2012. The first observed claim defined the index date, the previous 180 days were the pre-index period, and follow-up was 365 days after the index date. Effectiveness of a biologic was determined by a validated, published algorithm designed for use in claims database analyses. Cost per effectively treated patient as determined by the algorithm was calculated as the total annual cost of the biologic therapy divided by the number of effectively treated patients. Analyses were conducted for subcutaneous, IV, and individual biologics.

RESULTS

The analysis population was 1,090 patients (subcutaneous: 785, IV: 305; etanercept: 440, adalimumab: 345, infliximab: 201, abatacept: 104). The mean age was 49.7±9.4 years, and 78% of the patients were female. Effectiveness according to the algorithm was higher in subcutaneous (36%) versus IV biologics (23%; P<0.001), and in etanercept (36%) versus infliximab (22%; P<0.001) and versus abatacept (24%; P=0.02). Etanercept and adalimumab were similar (35%; P=0.77). The cost per effectively treated patient according to the algorithm was $64,738 for subcutaneous biologics, $80,408 for IV biologics, $62,841 for etanercept, $67,226 for adalimumab, $90,696 for infliximab, and $62,303 for abatacept.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness according to a validated, claims-based algorithm was higher in subcutaneous versus IV biologics. Cost per effectively treated patient according to the algorithm was approximately $16,000 less in subcutaneous versus IV biologics.

Cost per patient-year in response using a claims-based algorithm for the 2 years following biologic initiation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate cost per patient-year in response during 2 years following biologic initiation among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Adults newly initiating biologics for RA (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2009 and July 2011 were identified in the MarketScan Commercial Database. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled 6 months before (pre-index) and 24 months after (post-index) their first (index) biologic claim. Biologic effectiveness was assessed using six criteria during 2-year follow-up: treatment adherence ≥80%, no biologic dose escalation, no biologic switch, no new disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no new/increased glucocorticoid dose, and limited intra-articular joint injections (≤2). After a 90-day period of non-response for a treatment failure, effectiveness or failure of subsequent treatment was assessed again for the index biologic or new biologic (after switching). Post-index RA-related medical, pharmacy, and drug administration costs were attributed to the index biologic. Cost per patient-year in response was calculated as RA-related costs divided by duration of response.

RESULTS

Overall, 15.0% of patients (1229/8193) did not fail any criterion for 2 years and were effectively treated. Mean duration of response was highest for etanercept (538.3 days), followed by golimumab (537.0 days; p = 0.864), adalimumab (534.7 days; p = 0.301), certolizumab (524.0 days; p = 0.165), infliximab (480.0 days; p < 0.001), and abatacept (482.3 days; p < 0.001). Total disease-related cost per patient-year in response was lower for patients initiated on etanercept ($25,086) than for patients initiated on adalimumab ($25,960), certolizumab ($26,339), golimumab ($26,332), abatacept ($35,581), or infliximab ($36,107).

LIMITATIONS

This study was limited to employer-paid commercial insurance. Database analyses cannot determine reasons for failing criteria. The algorithm was not designed and validated for 2 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An effectiveness algorithm estimated that initiating etanercept was the most effective treatment during 2 years of follow-up, with the lowest cost per patient-year in response.

Cost and effectiveness of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis in a commercially insured population

BACKGROUND

Administrative claims contain detailed medication, diagnosis, and procedure data, but the lack of clinical outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) historically has limited their use in comparative effectiveness research. A claims-based algorithm was developed and validated to estimate effectiveness for RA from data for adherence, dosing, and treatment modifications.

OBJECTIVE

To implement the claims-based algorithm in a U.S. managed care database to estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient.

METHODS

The cohort included patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the Optum Research Database who initiated biologic treatment between January 2007 and December 2010 and were continuously enrolled 6 months before through 12 months after the first claim for the biologic (the index date). Patients were categorized as effectively treated by the claims-based algorithm if they met all of the following 6 criteria in the 12-month post-index period: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥ 80% for subcutaneous biologics, or at least as many infusions as specified in U.S. labeling for intravenous biologics; (2) no increase in biologic dose; (3) no switch in biologics; (4) no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid treatment; and (6) no more than 1 glucocorticoid injection. Drug costs (all biologics) and administration costs (intravenous biologics) were obtained from allowed amounts on claims. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total 1-year biologic cost divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated with that index biologic. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the total health care costs per effectively treated patient during the first year of biologic therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 5,474 individuals were included in the analysis. The index biologic was categorized as effective by the algorithm for 28.9% of patients overall, including 30.6% for subcutaneous biologics and 22.1% for intravenous biologics. The index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year for 32.7% of etanercept (794/2,425), 32.3% of golimumab (40/124), 30.2% of abatacept (89/295), 27.7% of adalimumab (514/1,857), and 19.0% of infliximab (147/773) patients. Mean 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient, as defined in the algorithm, was lowest for etanercept ($43,935), followed by golimumab ($49,589), adalimumab ($52,752), abatacept ($62,300), and infliximab ($101,402). The rank order in the sensitivity analysis was the same, except for golimumab and etanercept. 

CONCLUSIONS

Using a claims-based algorithm in a large commercial claims database, etanercept was the most effective and had the lowest biologic cost per effectively treated patient with RA.