Treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: results from a US claims analysis

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis taking systemic oral or biologic therapies

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic, immune-mediated, systemic inflammatory disorder associated with high costs. This study evaluated real-world treatment patterns and associated costs in patients in the United States with psoriasis initiating systemic oral or biologic treatments.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used IBM^® (now Merative™) MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare claims (1 January 2006-31 December 2019) to evaluate patterns of switching, discontinuation, and nonswitching in two cohorts of patients initiating oral or biologic systemic therapy. Total pre-switch and post-switch costs were reported per-patient per-month (PPPM).

RESULTS

Each cohort was analyzed (oral, n = 11,993; biologic; n = 9753). Among the oral and biologic cohorts, 32% and 15% discontinued index and any systemic treatment within 1 year of initiation; 40% and 62% remained on index therapy; and 28% and 23% switched treatment, respectively. In the oral and biologic cohorts, total PPPM costs within 1 year of initiation for nonswitchers, patients who discontinued, and patients who switched were $2594, $1402, and $3956, respectively, and $5035, $3112, and $5833, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study identified lower persistence in the oral treatment cohort, higher costs associated with switching, and a need for safe and effective oral treatment options for patients with psoriasis to delay the switch to biologic therapy.

Apremilast Adherence and Persistence in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis in the Telehealth Setting Versus the In-person Setting During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

Limited access to healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted patients to seek care using telehealth. In this study, we assessed whether treatment patterns differed for patients with psoriasis (PsO) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) initiating apremilast by either a telehealth or an in-person visit.

METHODS

We estimated adherence and persistence among US patients in the Merative© MarketScan© Commercial and Supplemental Medicare Databases who newly initiated apremilast between April and June 2020, categorized by the type of visit (telehealth or in-person) when apremilast was first prescribed. Adherence was defined as the proportion of days covered (PDC), with PDC ≥ 0.80 considered to indicate high adherence. Persistence was defined as having apremilast available to take without a 60-day gap during follow-up. Factors associated with high adherence and persistence were estimated with logistic and Cox regression.

RESULTS

Among apremilast initiators (n = 505), the mean age was 47.6 years, 57.8% were female, and the majority had PsO (79.6%). Telehealth index visits were more likely among patients residing in Northeast USA (odds ratio [OR] 3.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63-6.71) and Western USA (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.07-5.93]), those with a prescribing rheumatologist (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.10-4.68), and those with any baseline telehealth visit (OR 1.91, 85% CI 1.20-3.04). Those initiating apremilast with a telehealth visit (n = 141) had similar mean PDC to those initiating apremilast with an in-person visit (n = 364) (0.695 vs. 0.728; p = 0.272). At the end of the 6-month follow-up, 54.3% of the overall population had high adherence (PDC ≥ 0.80) and 65.1% were persistent. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients initiating apremilast via telehealth had similar full adherence (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52-1.21) and persistence as those initiating apremilast in-person.

CONCLUSION

Patients with PsO and patients with PsA initiating apremilast via telehealth or in-person during the COVID-19 pandemic had similar medication adherence and persistence during the 6-month follow-up period. These data suggest that patients initiating apremilast can be as effectively managed with telehealth visits as with in-person visits.

Suboptimal Clinical and Quality of Life Outcomes in Patients with Psoriasis Undertreated with Oral Therapies: International Physician and Patient Survey

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory, immune-mediated disease. This study assessed the time at which patients switched from a conventional oral systemic treatment to a biologic therapy; patient clinical and quality of life (QoL) outcomes associated with oral systemic treatments; and the proportion of patients who persisted on oral therapy (nonswitchers), despite reported suboptimal clinical and QoL outcomes.

METHODS

This data analysis used the Adelphi Real World Psoriasis Disease Specific Programme, a non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional survey conducted in the USA, France, Germany, and United Kingdom (August 2018-April 2019). Kaplan-Meier (KM) analysis assessed switching from oral to biologic therapy in patients treated ≥ 3 years at survey completion (n = 597). The severity of psoriasis was reported by physicians as the percentage of body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were calculated for three groups: nonswitchers who met treatment failure criteria, nonswitchers who did not meet failure criteria, and switchers to a biologic therapy.

RESULTS

In KM analysis, approximately 50% of the patient population switched by 24 months. A substantial portion of nonswitchers continued to have moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Among nonswitchers, 57-77% had BSA ≥ 3% and 16-24% had BSA ≥ 10% at the time of the survey compared with 37% of switchers who had BSA of ≥ 3% and 9% who had BSA of ≥ 10%. QoL was poor among nonswitchers. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] DLQI scores for nonswitchers meeting treatment failure criteria, nonswitchers not meeting failure criteria, and switchers were 6.11 (4.55), 2.62 (3.29), and 2.25 (4.23), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is a clear unmet need for more effective oral therapies, and further research into the reasons for patients remaining undertreated, which may include patient preference for oral treatments (despite lack of response), contraindications, or insurance/formulary-related barriers to access, are needed.

Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial

OBJECTIVES

Risankizumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor under study for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial investigated the efficacy and safety of risankizumab versus placebo in patients with active PsA who had previous inadequate response or intolerance to ≤2 biological therapies (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). Results through week 24 are reported here.

METHODS

Adults with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR were randomised to receive subcutaneously administered risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16 during a 24-week, double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Secondary endpoints assessed key domains of PsA and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 444 patients (median age 53 years, range 23-84 years) were randomised to risankizumab (n=224) or placebo (n=220); 206 patients (46.5%) were Bio-IR. At week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (51.3% vs 26.5%, p<0.001) and all secondary endpoints (p<0.05) compared with placebo. Serious adverse events were reported for 4.0% and 5.5% of risankizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively; serious infections were reported for 0.9% and 2.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with risankizumab resulted in significant improvements versus placebo in key disease outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03671148.

Effectiveness and clinical predictors of drug survival in psoriasis patients receiving apremilast: A registry analysis

Background

Little is known about the effectiveness and drug survival associated with apremilast under real-world conditions.

Objective

To investigate the influence of patient and disease characteristics on drug survival associated with apremilast and to elucidate clinical effectiveness with regard to the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) reduction.

Methods

This was an observational, retrospective, multicenter analysis from the Austrian Psoriasis Registry.

Results

Data from 367 patients were eligible for analysis. The 12-month drug survival rate associated with apremilast (ie, the proportion of patients on the drug) was 57.3% and decreased significantly in patients younger than 40 years (relative hazard ratio = 1.49, P = .007918). Sex; concomitant arthritis; previous biologic therapy; obesity; and palmoplantar, scalp, nail, and intertriginous involvement did not significantly affect drug survival. At 12 months, the response rates in patients receiving apremilast per protocol with a PASI of 50, 75, 90, and 100 were 80.0%, 56.4%, 38.2%, and 22.7%, respectively.

Limitations

Inclusion of a substantial number of patients with no record of absolute PASI at study entry and lack of PASI reduction follow-up data of 103 patients (28.1%) after starting apremilast treatment.

Conclusion

Apremilast is a robust antipsoriatic drug for which the drug survival is not strongly influenced by most patient- or disease-related factors except age. Drug survival is significantly shorter in patients younger than 40 years.

Treatment Persistence and Adherence Among Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis Who Initiated Targeted Immune Modulators in the US: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

This study compared treatment persistence and adherence among psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients in the US who initiated an interleukin-12/23 inhibitor (IL-12/23i) versus those who initiated tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), or interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17is).

Methods

Adults diagnosed with PsA with ≥ 1 claim for a targeted immune modulator were selected from the IBM MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (October 1, 2013–October 31, 2018). The date of the first claim was the index date. Patients had continuous health plan enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index and ≥ 12-month post-index period. Pairwise propensity score matching with nearest-neighbor technique was performed. Persistence duration, discontinuation rate, and the proportion of days covered (PDC) were evaluated in biologic/tsDMARD naïve patients who initiated TNFis, IL-17is, tsDMARDs, or IL-12/23i (reference group).

Results

There were 238 matched patient pairs for TNFi versus IL-12/23i, 238 pairs for tsDMARD versus IL-12/23i, and 189 pairs for IL-17is versus IL-12/23i. Duration of persistence was longer for the IL-12/23i cohort than for the TNFi (269 vs. 215 days, p < 0.001) or tsDMARD (269 vs. 213 days, p < 0.001) cohorts, but comparable between the IL-12/23i and IL-17i cohorts (267 vs. 246 days, p = 0.199). Fewer patients in the IL-12/23i cohort discontinued their index medication than in the TNFi (53.4% vs. 73.9%, p < 0.001) or tsDMARD (53.4% vs. 71.8%, p < 0.001) cohorts, but no significant difference was observed between the IL-12/23i and IL-17i cohorts (52.9% vs. 58.2%, p = 0.288). During the 12-month follow-up, adherence (i.e., PDC) was higher among those who initiated an IL-12/23i than among those who initiated TNFis (0.64 vs. 0.56, p = 0.004) or tsDMARDs (0.64 vs. 0.58, p = 0.027), but similar to those who initiated IL-17is (0.64 vs. 0.65, p = 0.589).

Conclusion

In this real-world study of PsA therapies with differing mechanisms of action, the IL-12/23i demonstrated longer persistence and higher adherence than either TNFis or tsDMARDs, and comparability to IL-17is.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01687-w.

Health resource utilization and associated healthcare costs of biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in German patients with psoriatic arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate healthcare costs associated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in a German real-world cohort of adult biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Claims data from the InGef research database for patients with a PsA diagnosis and bDMARD claims record (index date) between January 1^st , 2014 and December 31^st , 2017; and no bDMARD prescription for 365 days before the index date, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were determination of healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated annual healthcare costs for overall and individual bDMARDs in the 12-month pre- and post-index periods. These outcomes were compared between persistent and non-persistent groups. Non-persistence was defined as treatment gap or switch to bDMARD other than the index therapy.

RESULTS

Among 10,954 patients with a PsA diagnosis, 348 were eligible. Although mean (SD) post-index costs were significantly higher in the persistent group than the non-persistent group (€27,869 [8,001] vs. €21,897 [10,600]; P<0.001) due to higher bDMARD acquisition costs (€23,996 [4,818] vs. €16,427 [9,033]; P<0.001), persistence reduced inpatient treatment costs (-€760), outpatient treatment costs (-€192), other drug costs (-€724), and sick leave costs (-€601).

CONCLUSION

Although initiation of bDMARDs increased the total healthcare costs irrespective of persistence status, partial cost offsets were observed in the persistent patient population.

Evaluation of Adherence and Persistence Differences Between Adalimumab Citrate-Free and Citrate Formulations for Patients with Immune-Mediated Diseases in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to evaluate patient adherence and persistence with citrate-free adalimumab (ADA-CF), introduced in 2018 to reduce injection-site pain, compared with citrate-containing adalimumab (ADA-C).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using a US claims database (IBM^® MarketScan^® Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Claims Database) from February 2018 to January 2020. Patients at least 18 years of age who were naïve to adalimumab 6 months before the index date (date of first adalimumab claim) and with at least 12 months of continuous medical and pharmacy coverage were eligible for the study. Adherence was assessed by determining the proportion of days covered (PDC) and the percentage of patients with PDC ≥ 80% during the 12-month follow-up period. Persistence was evaluated by measuring the rate of discontinuation and days to discontinuation (i.e., time on treatment) from the index date over the 12-month follow-up period. Continuous adherence outcomes (PDC) were evaluated using linear regression models. Binary adherence outcomes (PDC ≥ 80%) were assessed using logistic regression models. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess persistence outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 2195 and 1005 patients in the ADA-CF and ADA-C cohorts, respectively, with most using adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis (ADA-CF 29.7%, ADA-C 27.2%) and psoriasis (ADA-CF 24.5%, ADA-C 31.9%). Significantly greater adherence was achieved with ADA-CF compared with ADA-C (mean PDC [standard deviation] 0.68 [0.30] vs 0.61 [0.32], P < 0.0001). A significantly greater percentage of patients receiving ADA-CF (47.2%) vs ADA-C (39.6%) had PDC ≥ 80% (P < 0.0001). The discontinuation rate was significantly lower for the ADA-CF cohort (46.4%) compared with ADA-C (55.9%, P < 0.0001), resulting in a 27% lower likelihood of discontinuation during the 12-month follow-up period (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.66, 0.82; P < 0.0001) and longer time on treatment (260 vs 232 days, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Adherence and persistence are significantly improved with ADA-CF compared with ADA-C.

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.