Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Associated With Switching Biologics in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Incidence and risk factors of discontinuation of tofacitinib and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A population-based cohort study

To investigate the incidence of the discontinuation among tofacitinib and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This retrospective population-based cohort study included 5,008 RA patients who initiated treatment with either tofacitinib or bDMARDs (etanercept, adalimumab, golimumab, tocilizumab, or abatacept) between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020. We conducted Cox proportional hazards regression and subsequent time-dependent regression to assess the risk of drug discontinuation, with adjustments for potential variables. The highest drug discontinuation rate was observed with etanercept (43.27%), while the lowest was with tofacitinib (21.8%). Tofacitinib was associated with a significantly lower risk of discontinuation compared to etanercept (HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57-0.80) and other bDMARDs. Higher steroid dosage and the presence of concomitant connective tissue diseases were significant risk factors for drug discontinuation. Conversely, the use of methotrexate was associated with a reduced risk of discontinuation. Tofacitinib demonstrated a lower risk of drug discontinuation compared to TNFi, with the risk factors for discontinuation including higher steroid dosage and concomitant connective tissue diseases. The study highlights the importance of considering several potential risk factors in drug discontinuation. Key Points • Non-TNFi biologic agents demonstrated better drug retention than TNFi among patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, with tofacitinib showing the lowest discontinuation rate (21.8%), underscoring its potential for superior drug retention in rheumatoid arthritis management. • Several factors were associated with drug discontinuation: higher steroid dosage and concomitant connective tissue diseases were linked to a higher discontinuation rate, whereas the concomitant use of methotrexate was associated with a lower risk of discontinuation.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Graphical Abstract

Supplementary Information

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

Switching from one reference biological to another in stable patients for non-medical reasons: a literature search and brief review

Background: The practice of non-medical switch (NMS) from a reference biological (originator) to a biosimilar is widely accepted in some countries. However, there is little documentation on the impact of NMS from one originator to another originator. Objectives: To assess the consequences for patients of NMS from one biological originator to another, based on existing literature. The focus was on efficacy and cost of treatment with TNF-α-inhibitors in three disease areas. Methods: A literature search was conducted in Ovid (PubMed, EMBASE) and abstracts from meetings in key therapeutic areas, to identify studies reporting efficacy, safety or costs by switching between originator biologics. Results: 167 references were identified and abstracts screened; 36 papers reviewed in full text, and 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three clinical studies of NMS had very small sample sizes, but suggested that NMS is beneficial. The remaining three studies used administrative data with little clinical information, indicating that NMS was disadvantageous and associated with increased health care utilization and costs. Conclusions: There is very limited documentation on NMS from one originator biological to another, and the literature suffers from methodological limitations. The results are mixed and preclude drawing an overriding conclusion. Future studies, are warranted.

Emerging protein kinase inhibitors for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Protein tyrosine kinase inhibitors are emergent drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); they block the signal transduction in immune cells preventing the production and release of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

AREAS COVERED

The current research aims to review the role of Janus, Bruton's and spleen kinase inhibitors for the treatment of RA. Mechanism of action, rationale for usage, and the main efficacy and safety outcomes in phase II and III clinical trials are described.

EXPERT OPINION

In RA, the development of Bruton kinase inhibitors was interrupted because they failed to demonstrate superiority versus placebo. The spleen kinase inhibitors had their development deprioritized because their risk/benefit profile was unfavorable compared to janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). JAKi proved to be effective in treatment naïve patients and in those with previous failure to methotrexate and/or biological therapy. There still remain important points about JAKi that need more studies: the clinical importance of JAKi selectivity should be further evaluated in head-to-head trials and the safety profile of JAKi, mainly regarding the risk of malignancy and thromboembolic events, must be analyzed in long-term real-life studies.

A Cost per Responder Model for Abatacept versus Adalimumab Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Seropositivity

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare the cost per responder (CPR) between abatacept and adalimumab among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

Patients and Methods

CPR analysis was conducted from a US payer perspective over 24 weeks for early moderate-to-severe seropositive RA patients. Efficacy data (American College of Rheumatology [ACR] improvement criteria [ACR20/50/70] and DAS28-C reactive protein <2.6) for abatacept and adalimumab were sourced from the post hoc analysis of the Early AMPLE trial (NCT02557100). Medication costs were considered assuming complete adherence. A 30% rebate was applied for adalimumab in the base case.

Results

At week 24, the total per patient pharmacy cost was $26,273.34 and $21,731.18, whereas the CPR (using ACR70 as the responder definition) was $46,337.46 and $74,935.10 (difference of -$28,597.64) for abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. The CPR was consistently lower for abatacept compared to adalimumab across all clinical measures, with differences ranging from -$7099.32 to -$43,608.97.

Conclusion

While the pharmacy cost was higher for abatacept compared to adalimumab, due to its higher clinical efficacy, the CPR was consistently lower for seropositive RA patients treated with abatacept. The results may be useful for healthcare decision-makers in understanding how to optimize treatment for seropositive RA patients while minimizing costs in today’s budget-constrained health environment.

Comparing Medical Utilization and Cost Outcomes in Oral Versus Injectable Immunotherapy Users with Chronic Inflammatory Joint and Skin Diseases

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis (PSO) are immune-mediated systemic, chronic inflammatory conditions. Moderate to severe disease is treated with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide. If a patient does not respond to these firstline treatments, then tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi immunotherapy agents are administered via infusion, injection, or taken orally. Although the effectiveness of established infusion, injection, and newer oral therapies are known, the relative effectiveness among the routes of administration is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To compare drug use, health care resource utilization, and costs among patients who are treatment-naive to oral immunotherapy and injectable biologic immunotherapy.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study used claims data from a large U.S. health plan to identify new users of oral and injectable immunotherapy, diagnosed with a joint (RA or PsA), skin (PSO), or joint and skin condition from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017. The index date was the first claim for an oral or injectable medication. Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial plan patients aged 19-89 years with continuous enrollment 6 months before and 12 months after the index date were included in the study. Outcomes were adjusted using propensity score by inverse probability of treatment weighting. Treatment discontinuation, switching, health care resource utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period.

RESULTS

Oral versus injectable users with joint (n = 458 vs. 3,875), skin (n = 265 vs. 951), or joint and skin (n = 171 vs. 805) conditions were identified. For drug utilization outcomes, no differences in discontinuation rates were observed between oral and injectable groups for any of the cohorts. However, those in skin and joint and skin cohorts had higher rates of switching to other immunotherapies in patients initiated on orals compared with injectables. Health care resource utilization outcomes were mixed. While mean outpatient and physician office visits were significantly higher in oral compared with injectable groups across all 3 cohorts, no differences were observed for inpatient stays. Total costs (medical plus pharmacy) were lower for oral groups across all 3 cohorts. Pharmacy costs were lower for oral groups, but medical costs were higher for oral groups across all 3 cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first population-level study at a route-of-administration level, which compared switching, health care resource utilization, and costs across several conditions. Switching drugs was more likely in the oral group, which may indicate lower effectiveness or tolerability of oral immunotherapies relative to injectables. Health care resource utilization was higher in the oral group, but total costs were lower, which was likely driven by the lower costs of oral drugs.

DISCLOSURES

This study was a Humana internal study, and all authors were at the time employees of Humana and used Humana resources. The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose that relate to the research described in this study. This study was presented as a podium and poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

A budget impact analysis for making treatment decisions based on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing in rheumatoid arthritis

Aim: Given that rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA) titer values respond well to abatacept, the aim of this study was to estimate the annual budget impact of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) testing and treatment selection based on anti-CCP test results.Materials and methods: Budget impact analysis was conducted for patients with moderate-to-severe RA on biologic or Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi) treatment from a hypothetical US commercial payer perspective. The following market scenarios were compared: (1) 90% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing do not impact the treatment selection; (2) 100% of target patients receive anti-CCP testing and the results of anti-CCP testing have an impact on treatment selection such that an increased proportion of patients with high titer of ACPA receive abatacept. A hypothetical assumption was made that the use of abatacept would be increased by 2% in Scenario 2 versus 1. Scenario analyses were conducted by varying the target population and rebate rates.Results: In a hypothetical health plan with one million insured adults, 2,181 patients would be on a biologic or JAKi treatment for moderate-to-severe RA. In Scenario 1, the anti-CCP test cost was $186,155 and annual treatment cost was $101,854,295, totaling to $102,040,450. In Scenario 2, the anti-CCP test cost increased by $20,684 and treatment cost increased by $160,467, totaling an overall budget increase of $181,151. This was equivalent to a per member per month (PMPM) increase of $0.015. The budget impact results were consistently negligible across the scenario analyses.Limitations: The analysis only considered testing and medication costs. Some parameters used in the analysis, such as the rebate rates, are not generalizable and health plan-specific.Conclusions: Testing RA patients to learn their ACPA status and increasing use of abatacept among high-titer ACPA patients result in a small increase in the total budget (<2 cents PMPM).