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

Update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological and synthetic targeted therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update the consensus document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER) regarding the use of targeted biological and synthetic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the aim of assisting clinicians in their therapeutic decisions.

METHODS

A panel of 13 experts was assembled through an open call by SER. We employed a mixed adaptation-elaboration-update methodology starting from the 2015 Consensus Document of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in RA. Starting with systematic reviews (SR) of recommendations from EULAR 2019, American College of Rheumatology 2021, and GUIPCAR 2017, we updated the search strategies for the PICO questions of GUIPCAR. An additional SR was conducted on demyelinating disease in relation to targeted biological and synthetic therapies. Following the analysis of evidence by different panelists, consensus on the wording and level of agreement for each recommendation was reached in a face-to-face meeting.

RESULTS

The panel established 5 general principles and 15 recommendations on the management of RA. These encompassed crucial aspects such as the importance of early treatment, therapeutic goals in RA, monitoring frequency, the use of glucocorticoids, the application of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), biological DMARDs (bDMARDs), and targeted synthetic DMARDs. Additionally, recommendations on dose reduction of these drugs in stable patients were included. This update also features recommendations on the use of bDMARDs and Janus Kinase inhibitors in some specific clinical situations, such as patients with lung disease, a history of cancer, heart failure, or demyelinating disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This update provides recommendations on key aspects in the management of RA using targeted biological and synthetic therapies.

Long-term sustainability of response to upadacitinib among patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biological treatments: results up to 5 years from SELECT-BEYOND

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term sustainability of response to the Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib among patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR) in the SELECT-BEYOND phase 3 trial.

METHODS

Patients on background conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) were treated once daily with upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo. Patients who completed the week 24 visit could enter a long-term extension of up to 5 years. The sustainability of response was assessed based on achievement of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score 28-joint count using C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP)) targets and evaluated up to week 260 in all patients receiving the approved upadacitinib 15 mg dose, including those randomised to upadacitinib 15 mg and those who switched from placebo to upadacitinib 15 mg at week 12.

RESULTS

In this bDMARD-IR population, 45% (n=104/229) and 79% (n=172/219) of patients treated with upadacitinib 15 mg plus background csDMARD(s) achieved CDAI remission or CDAI low disease activity (LDA) at any point during the 5-year study, respectively. Of those who achieved CDAI remission/LDA, 25%/43% maintained their initial response through 240 weeks of follow-up after first achieving response. Most patients who lost remission or LDA were able to recapture that response by the cut-off date. Similar overall results were observed for SDAI and DAS28 (CRP). No strong predictors of response were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Over three-quarters of bDMARD-IR patients achieved CDAI LDA with upadacitinib, and almost half of those maintained LDA through 240 weeks of follow-up. Remission was achieved by nearly half of all patients and maintained in approximately a quarter of those achieving remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02706847.

Real-World Treatment and Care Patterns in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis Initiating First-Line Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend targeting low disease activity or remission and switching therapies for patients not reaching those targets. We evaluated real-world use of disease activity measures, treatment discontinuation, and switching patterns among patients with RA initiating a first-line tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi).

METHODS

Data from adult patients with RA initiating a first-line TNFi were collected from the American Rheumatology Network (January 2014-August 2021). The proportion of patients with recorded disease activity scores (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 [RAPID3]) at TNFi initiation was assessed. Among patients with moderate or severe RA at TNFi initiation, reasons for discontinuation and subsequent advanced therapy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among TNFi initiators (n = 15,182), 44.8% recorded a CDAI/RAPID3 score at treatment initiation; of those who did not, 47.0% had recorded a tender and/or swollen joint count or pain score. Among patients with moderate or severe RA (n = 1,651), 52% discontinued their initial TNFi during follow-up, of which 15%, 46%, 28%, and 12% initiated the same TNFi, another TNFi, a non-TNFi biologic, or a Janus kinase inhibitor, respectively. The proportion of patients restarting the same TNFi or initiating another TNFi varied according to TNFi discontinuation reason.

CONCLUSION

In clinical practice, over half of patients with RA initiating a first-line TNFi did not have baseline disease activity assessments. Many patients cycled through TNFi despite citing lack of efficacy as the most common reason for discontinuation. Consistent, objective monitoring of treatment response and timely switch to effective therapy is needed in patients with RA.

Management of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases after treatment failure with a first tumour necrosis factor inhibitor: A narrative review

The emergence of biologics with different modes of action (MoAs) and therapeutic targets has changed treatment patterns in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. While tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) are often utilized as the first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, some patients may not respond adequately (primary failure), fail to sustain response over time (secondary failure), or experience intolerable adverse events. Whether these patients would benefit more from cycling to a different TNFi or switching to a biologic with a different MoA is still unclear. We discuss here treatment outcomes of TNFi cycling versus MoA switching after treatment failure with a first TNFi in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, focusing specifically on rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Treatment guidelines for these patients are ambiguous and, at times, contradictory in their recommendations. However, this is due to a lack of high-quality head-to-head data to definitively support cycling between TNFis after failure to a first-line TNFi over switching to a different MoA.

Comparative effectiveness of TNF inhibitor vs IL-6 receptor inhibitor as monotherapy or combination therapy with methotrexate in biologic-experienced patients with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis from the CorEvitas RA Registry

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with high disease activity and inadequate response/intolerance to methotrexate have shown interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor inhibitors (IL-6Ri) to be superior to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) as monotherapy. This observational study aimed to compare the effectiveness of TNFi vs IL-6Ri as mono- or combination therapy in biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) -experienced RA patients with moderate/high disease activity.

METHODS

Eligible b/ts-experienced patients from the CorEvitas RA registry were categorized as TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators, with subgroups initiating as mono- or combination therapy. Mixed-effects regression models evaluated the impact of treatment on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), patient-reported outcomes, and disproportionate pain (DP). Unadjusted and covariate-adjusted effects were reported.

RESULTS

Patients initiating IL-6Ri (n = 286) vs TNFi monotherapy (n = 737) were older, had a longer RA history and higher baseline CDAI, and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy; IL-6Ri (n = 401) vs TNFi (n = 1315) combination therapy initiators had higher baseline CDAI and were more likely to initiate as third-line therapy. No significant differences were noted in the outcomes between TNFi and IL-6Ri initiators (as mono- or combination therapy).

CONCLUSION

This observational study showed no significant differences in outcomes among b/ts-experienced TNFi vs IL-6Ri initiators, as either mono- or combination therapy. These findings were in contrast with the previous RCTs in biologic-naïve patients and could be explained by the differences in the patient characteristics included in this study. Further studies are needed to help understand the reasons for this discrepancy in the real-world b/ts-experienced population.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Three approaches with a cohort simulation and real-world data

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

We conducted three analyses: a lifetime analysis with a cohort model (Study A) and two short-term analyses (Studies B and C). Study A evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from costs of standard treatments. Study B evaluated yearly costs per person achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70), and Study C evaluated costs per person achieving previously defined claims-based effectiveness (equivalent to 28-joint Disease Activity Score ≤ 3.2). The proportion of ACR responders to the drugs of interest were determined by mixed treatment comparisons. Studies B and C estimated costs using a claims database.

RESULTS

In Study A, ICERs of all b/tsDMARDs were lower than 5.0 million Japanese yen (JPY) per QALY. In Study B, yearly costs per person with ACR50 response were lower for subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC; 1.9 million JPY) and SC abatacept (2.3 million JPY). In Study C, costs per person were lower for TCZ-SC (1.3 million JPY) and intravenous TCZ (1.6 million JPY) and effectiveness rates were higher for intravenous TCZ (45.3%) and infliximab (43.0%).

CONCLUSION

The b/tsDMARDs with lower prices showed higher cost-effectiveness.

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.

Persistence of bDMARD therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis after first-line TNF-inhibitor failure: the RECORD study of the Italian Society for Rheumatology

OBJECTIVE

The optimal choice of a second biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) after failure with first line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) represents a critical therapeutic challenge. This study aims to evaluate the persistence with treatment using second line bDMARDs with different mechanisms of action in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with inadequate response to first line TNFi.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study on administrative healthcare databases was conducted. We analysed the relationship between different bDMARDs and persistence with treatment in RA patients who started second line bDMARD therapy according to two different strategies: cycling (second TNFi) or switching [change in mechanism of action: abatacept (ABA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and rituximab (RTX)] with or without concomitant conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 1434 patients. The mean age was 53.8 years and 1142 (79.6%) were women. Among second line bDMARDs, 969 patients (67.6%) started TNFi, 204 (14.2%) ABA, 145 (10.1%) RTX, and 116 (8.1%) TCZ. A bDMARD was prescribed as monotherapy in 359 patients (25.0%). The switching strategy showed a lower overall discontinuation rate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72], while switching compared to cycling showed significantly better survival for ABA (HR 0.61) and RTX (HR 0.76), but no significant difference for TCZ (HR 0.82). A lower impact of better drug survival in the switching strategy occurred in patients with concurrent methotrexate.

CONCLUSIONS

Among RA patients failing a first TNFi, switching is associated with marginally better persistence, in particular for ABA and RTX, with only marginal differences in patients on concurrent csDMARDs.

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.

Comparison of long-term efficacy between biological agents following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor failure in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is contradictory evidence regarding the best strategy to follow after discontinuation of a first biological agent in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy of switching to a second tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus biopharmaceuticals with other mechanisms of action (non-TNFi) in patients with RA who previously failed a first TNFi.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 127 patients who discontinued a previous TNFi between 1999 and 2016. Disease activity was assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months (m-6, m-12, m-24) after switching. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving good/moderate EULAR response (E-resp). Factors associated with clinical outcomes were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven (61%) patients received a second TNFi and 50 (39%) switched to a non-TNFi. At m-6 and m-12, no differences were observed between groups; nevertheless, at m-24, the proportion of patients with E-resp was higher in the non-TNFi group (49% TNFi group versus 77% non-TNFi group; p = 0.002). In regression models, switching to a non-TNFi was significantly associated with E-resp at m-24 (odds ratio = 3.21; p = 0.01). When assessing the response to the second biological agent based on the reason for discontinuation of the first TNFi, similar results were obtained; at m-24, patients who discontinued the first TNFi due to inefficacy (either primary or secondary) experienced a better E-resp if they had switched to a non-TNFi (primary inefficacy: 52% TNFi group versus 79% non-TNFi group, p = 0.09; secondary inefficacy: 50% versus 76%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of RA patients who discontinued a first TNFi, those who switched to a non-TNFi were three times more likely to attain a sustained clinical response, regardless of whether they had discontinued the first biologic due to a primary or secondary inefficacy.

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.

Immunopathogenic mechanisms of rheumatoid arthritis and the use of anti-inflammatory drugs

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, progressive autoimmune disease characterized by synovitis and symmetrical joint destruction. RA has become one of the key diseases endangering human health, but its etiology is not clear. Therefore, identifying the immunopathogenic mechanisms of RA and developing therapeutic drugs to treat autoimmune diseases have always been difficult. This article mainly reviews the immunopathogenic mechanism of RA and advances in the study of anti-inflammatory drugs in order to provide a reference for the treatment of RA and drug development in the future.

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.

Association of first, second, and third-line bDMARDs and tsDMARD with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis patients: Cohort study in A real world setting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the association of first, second, and third-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and tofacitinib with drug survival among seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.

METHODS

The study population was composed of 8,018 seropositive RA patients who were prescribed bDMARDs or tofacitinib between January 2014 and January 2019 from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database. First, second, and third-line choice of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) including etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab, as well as non-TNFi including tocilizumab, rituximab, tofacitinib, and abatacept were assessed. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for drug failure according to bDMARD or tofacitinib choice starting from the initial prescription date.

RESULTS

Compared to first etanercept users, patients with first tocilizumab (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.68), tofacitinib (aHR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.42), or abatacept (aHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-0.99) had lower risk of drug failure. Second choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.55), tofacitinib (aHR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15-0.37), or abatacept (aHR 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.84) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to second etanercept users. Finally, third choice of tocilizumab (aHR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.62) or tofacitinib (aHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63) was associated with lower drug failure risk compared to third TNFi users.

CONCLUSION

First and second-line tocilizumab, tofacitinib, or abatacept may lead to improved drug survival. Third-line use of tocilizumab or tofacitinib may be beneficiary in reducing drug failure risk among seropositive RA patients.

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.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan

INTRODUCTION

Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy.

RESULTS

In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Effectiveness of golimumab in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy: Results from a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the real-world effectiveness of golimumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had previously received first-line biologic therapy.

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of post-marketing surveillance was performed. The effectiveness of golimumab was assessed in 731 patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy stratified by their prior biologic agents. Outcome variables included DAS28-CRP, DAS28-ESR, SDAI and CDAI, and medication persistence. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the likelihood of achieving a DAS28-CRP response (good/moderate) after 24 weeks of golimumab treatment.

RESULTS

Patients demonstrated significant improvement in the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by the reduction of DAS28-CRP (Δ0.87), DAS28-ESR (Δ0.85), SDAI (Δ7.32), and CDAI (Δ6.98) scores. This result was consistent across the subgroups stratified by previous biologic therapy. Multivariate analysis failed to identify any factors associated with response to golimumab.

CONCLUSION

In the real-world clinical setting, switching to golimumab was effective for Japanese patients with an inadequate response to first-line biologic therapy regardless of the biologic agent, including both TNF and non-TNF inhibitors.

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.

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.

Fenebrutinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Trial (ANDES Study)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective non-covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (cohort 1, n=480) were randomized to fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, 200 mg twice daily), 40 mg adalimumab every other week, or placebo. Patients with RA and inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2, n=98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued methotrexate therapy.

RESULTS

In cohort 1, American College of Rheumatology scores (ACR50) at week 12 were similar for fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo, and higher for fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily (28%) and 200 mg twice daily (35%) than placebo (15%) (p=0.017; p=0.0003). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (p=0.81). In cohort 2, more patients achieved ACR50 with fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (p=0.072). The most common adverse events for fenebrutinib included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers.

CONCLUSION

Fenebrutinib demonstrated efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA.

Towards therapeutic drug monitoring of TNF inhibitors for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Before a clinician decides whether treatment with TNF inhibition in children with JIA has failed, one should ensure adequate systemic exposure has been achieved. Therapeutic drug monitoring might allow for improved treatment outcome with lower treatment-associated costs. However, this requires understanding of the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics, and the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship for children with JIA. We performed a scoping review to summarize the available literature and identify areas for future research.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted of the Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane databases as well as the clinicaltrials.gov registry. In total, 3959 records were screened and 130 publications were selected for full text assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty publications were included and divided into three categories: PK (n = 9), PK/PD (n = 3) and anti-drug antibodies (n = 13). Industry involvement was significant in 14 publications. Although data are limited, systemic exposure to TNF inhibitors is generally lower in younger children but meta-analysis is not possible. The PK/PD relationship has had limited study but there is partial evidence for infliximab. Anti-drug antibodies are common, and are related to impaired clinical outcome with adalimumab and infliximab therapy.

CONCLUSION

The current knowledge about the PK and PK/PD of TNF inhibitors in the treatment of children with JIA is limited, which prevents the introduction of TDM. Re-analysis of available data from previous trials, incorporation of pharmacologic assessments into existing biorepository studies as well as new prospective PK and PK/PD trials are required to obtain this knowledge.

Assessments of the unmet need in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analyses from the NOR-DMARD registry

Objective

To describe the outcomes of MTX and biologic DMARD (bDMARD) treatment in patients with RA and assess unmet needs in patients who fail treatment, using real-world data from the Norwegian DMARD (NOR-DMARD) registry.

Methods

Data included RA treatment courses from January 2007 until July 2016. Patients received MTX monotherapy (in MTX-naïve patients), bDMARD monotherapy, bDMARDs + MTX, or bDMARDs + other conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs). DAS28-4(ESR) was used to measure remission (<2.6) and inadequate response (>3.2) across all groups at Months 6 and 12. Estimated ACR20/50/70 and EULAR good and good/moderate response rates (based on DAS28-4[ESR] score) for bDMARDs were modelled at Months 6 and 12 using logistic mixed regression. DAS28-4(ESR) scores and changes from baseline, and rates and reasons for discontinuation, were evaluated for all groups over 24 months.

Results

The 2778 treatment courses in this analysis included 714 MTX monotherapy, 396 bDMARD monotherapy, 1460 bDMARDs + MTX and 208 bDMARDs + other csDMARDs. Of patients with DAS28-4(ESR) data at Months 6 and 12 (25.0–34.1%), 33.9–47.2% did not switch treatment and were inadequate-responders at Month 12. There were no significant differences in efficacy between bDMARD groups (bDMARD monotherapy, or bDMARDs + MTX or other csDMARDs). Lack of efficacy was the most common reason for stopping treatment across all groups (13.7–22.1% over 24 months).

Conclusion

An unmet treatment need exists for patients still experiencing inadequate response to MTX monotherapy and bDMARDs as monotherapy or in combination with MTX/other csDMARDs after 12 months.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01581294.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations.

RESULTS

Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi.

DISCLOSURES

This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Economic Evaluation of Sarilumab in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs

Introduction

Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate.

Methods

Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care.

Results

Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-00946-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Immunopathogenic Mechanisms and Novel Immune-Modulated Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory autoimmune disease of unknown etiology. It is characterized by the presence of rheumatoid factor and anticitrullinated peptide antibodies. The orchestra of the inflammatory process among various immune cells, cytokines, chemokines, proteases, matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), and reactive oxidative stress play critical immunopathologic roles in the inflammatory cascade of the joint environment, leading to clinical impairment and RA. With the growing understanding of the immunopathogenic mechanisms, increasingly novel marked and potential biologic agents have merged for the treatment of RA in recent years. In this review, we focus on the current understanding of pathogenic mechanisms, highlight novel biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMRADs), targeted synthetic DMRADs, and immune-modulating agents, and identify the applicable immune-mediated therapeutic strategies of the near future. In conclusion, new therapeutic approaches are emerging through a better understanding of the immunopathophysiology of RA, which is improving disease outcomes better than ever.

Identification of sarilumab pharmacodynamic and predictive markers in patients with inadequate response to TNF inhibition: a biomarker substudy of the phase 3 TARGET study

Introduction

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) orchestrates formation of an inflammatory pannus, leading to joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody blocking the IL-6Rα. In TARGET (NCT01709578), a phase 3 study in adults with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg or 150 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) significantly reduced disease activity versus placebo plus csDMARDs.

Methods

Circulating levels of biomarkers associated with synovial inflammation (matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3), collagen type I MMP-cleaved fragment (C1M), collagen type III MMP-cleaved fragment (C3M)), myeloid (soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1), IL-8 and calprotectin) and lymphoid activation (chemokine, CXC motif, ligand 13 (CXCL13), CXCL10, B cell-activating factor) and bone remodelling (receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL), osteoprotegerin and osteocalcin) were evaluated in patients from a TARGET substudy.

Results

Sarilumab significantly decreased C1M, C3M, CXCL13, MMP-3 and total RANKL levels at week 24 versus placebo; some markers were significantly suppressed at week 2 and normalised to levels in healthy controls. Levels of sICAM-1 were predictive of disease activity score by C-reactive protein and clinical disease activity index low disease activity (LDA) response in the sarilumab 200 mg q2w group at week 12. A trend was observed in which patients with lower sICAM-1 levels at baseline had better response compared with patients with higher sICAM-1.

Conclusions

Sarilumab plus csDMARDs decreased circulating biomarkers of synovial inflammation and bone resorption; sICAM-1 was predictive of achieving LDA with sarilumab.

Trial registration number

NCT01709578; Post-results.

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

Introduction

After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers.

Methods

This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies.

Results

There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs.

Conclusion

MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Treatment Persistence and Clinical Outcomes of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Cycling or Switching to a New Mechanism of Action Therapy: Real-world Observational Study of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients in the United States with Prior Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapy

Introduction

To examine treatment persistence and clinical outcomes associated with switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) to a medication with a new mechanism of action (MOA) (abatacept, anakinra, rituximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) versus cycling to another TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

This retrospective, longitudinal study included patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the JointMan^® US clinical database who received a TNFi in April 2010 or later and either cycled to a TNFi or switched to a new MOA therapy by March 2015. Cox proportional hazards models were used for time to non-persistence (switching or discontinuing). An ordinary least squares regression model compared 1-year reduction from baseline for the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI).

Results

There were 332 (54.2%) TNFi cyclers and 281 (45.8%) new MOA switchers. During a median follow-up of 29.9 months, treatment persistence was 36.7% overall. Compared with new MOA switchers, TNFi cyclers were 51% more likely to be non-persistent (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.511; 95% CI 1.196, 1.908), driven by a higher likelihood of switching again (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.016; 95% CI 1.428, 2.847). Clinical outcomes were evaluable for 239 (53.3%) TNFi cyclers and 209 (46.7%) new MOA switchers. One-year mean reduction in CDAI from baseline to end of follow-up was significantly higher for new MOA switchers than TNFi cyclers (−7.54 vs. −4.81; P = 0.037), but the difference was not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline CDAI (−6.39 vs. −5.83; P = 0.607).

Conclusion

In this study, TNFi cycling was common in clinical practice, but switching to a new MOA DMARD was associated with significantly better treatment persistence and a trend toward greater CDAI reduction that was not significant after adjustment for baseline disease activity.

Funding

Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.