Disability outcomes and dose escalation with etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis patients: a US-based retrospective comparative effectiveness study

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcomes of infliximab dose escalation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION

Dose escalation of infliximab in both primary and secondary nonresponders is widely reported; however, the usefulness of dose escalation has been disputed. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate trends in clinical efficacy following multiple infliximab dose escalations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Patients enrolled in a US RA registry were included if they initiated infliximab at 3 mg/kg every 8 weeks, received ≥ 1 infliximab dose escalation within 12 months of initiation, and had ≥ 1 visit following dose escalation. Trends in mean Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores from visits following dose escalations were evaluated.

RESULTS

In patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations, the initial (1 or 2) dose escalations resulted in reduced mean CDAI scores, but subsequent escalations did not further reduce disease activity. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean CDAI scores did not further reduce disease activity over time. Mean HAQ scores were stable over time in patients who received 2 or 3 dose escalations. In patients who received ≥ 4 dose escalations, mean HAQ scores decreased following 1 dose escalation but progressively increased following subsequent dose escalations.

CONCLUSION

Initial dose escalations (from 3 mg/kg to the equivalent of approximately 5 to 7 mg/kg) may be useful in controlling disease activity; however, there may be diminishing clinical benefit of further escalations, which can also increase the potential risk for infection and increase incremental drug costs.

KEY POINTS

• Initial infliximab dose escalations (1 to 2) may be useful in lowering disease activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. • There does not appear to be a clinical benefit in infliximab dose escalations above the equivalent of 5 to 7 mg/kg.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of treatment effectiveness with selected biologic treatment in rheumatoid arthritis therapy

Objectives

Modern treatment of autoimmune diseases is becoming increasingly widely used. We owe it to the continuous and rapid development of biotechnology, molecular biology, immunology, and biochemistry. The proven effectiveness of biological therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should result in its widespread use. At present, only about 1% of patients with RA have access to biological therapy in Poland.

Material and methods

The study material was retrospectively collected in the Rheumatology and Systemic Tissue Diseases Clinic and Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic in dr Jan Biziel University Hospital No. 2 in Bydgoszcz 2009–2014. Patients were divided into 3 groups: patient receiving infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab.

Results

The study involved analyses of cost effectiveness. The time horizon of patient documentation analysis ranged from the time a patient was enrolled to infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab therapy until remission of the disease. The majority of patients achieved remission in the case of adalimumab treatment (85.29%), followed by etanercept (74.07%), then infliximab (37.21%). Taking into account the DAS28 parameter, analysis was performed using medical costs of the analyzed treatment regimens. For this purpose, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. According to the analysis, obtaining one DAS28 unit, replacing infliximab with etanercept, would cost PLN 40 964 67. Higher costs would be required in the case of replacement of infliximab with adalimumab – PLN 43 076 08. Obtaining one additional DAS28 unit (in this case, a decrease in DAS28 by one unit) by introducing adalimumab instead of etanercept would amount to PLN 45 409 74.

Conclusions

Undoubtedly, the pharmacoeconomic analysis makes it easier to decide on the appropriate treatment. Therefore, its implementation should be a widely used solution not only for RA, but also for other diseases. Health care and other entities’ systems should also be improved in such a way that the data needed for pharmacoeconomic analysis are fully available.

Dose Escalation and Co-therapy Intensification Between Etanercept, Adalimumab, and Infliximab: The CADURA Study

Objective

To compare anti-TNF dose escalation, DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification, switches to another biologic, and drug and drug-related costs over 12 and 18 months for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating etanercept (ETN), adalimumab (ADA), or infliximab (IFX) in routine clinical practice across Canada.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of biologic-naïve adult RA patients newly initiating ADA, ETN, or IFX between January 01, 2006 and December 31, 2012 from 11 practices across Canada.

Results

There were 314 patients in the 12-month analysis and 217 in the 18-month analysis. No dose escalation occurred with ETN over 12 and 18 months versus 38% and 32% for IFX (p<0.001) and 2% and 2% for ADA (p=0.199, p=0.218). Over 18 months, dose escalation and/or DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification was less frequent among ETN (16%) versus IFX (44%, p=0.005) and ADA (34%, p=0.004). By 18 months, 22% of patients initiating ADA had switched to another biologic compared with 6% of ETN patients (p=0.001).Patients initiating ETN had lower total (drug and drug-related) costs over 12 and 18 months compared to IFX, and no difference compared to ADA when adjusted for potential confounders. Patients with dose escalation had higher costs compared to those with no dose escalation.

Conclusion

Physicians were more likely to escalate the dose of IFX, but optimize co-therapy with ADA and ETN. ETN patients had no dose escalation and were less likely to have DMARD and/or glucocorticoid intensification than ADA patients. ETN-treated patients had lower costs compared to IFX patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Drug usage analysis and health care resources consumption in naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

The use of biologic agents has revolutionized the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the past 2 decades. These biologic agents directly target molecules and cells involved in the pathogenesis of RA. The purpose of this study was to assess the usage of biologic agents in terms of persistence to treatment, dose escalation, and consumption of health care resources (hospitalizations, drugs, and outpatients service) in the real clinical practice in naïve patients with RA.

METHODS

We conducted a real-world, retrospective, observational cohort study based on data obtained from administrative databases of three Local Health Units in Italy. The population included adults diagnosed with RA who had at least one prescription between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, for a biologic that was approved for treatment of RA. The patients were followed for 12 months after enrollment. The clinical characteristics of the patients enrolled in this study were also investigated in the 1-year period before the index date. The main and secondary endpoints were evaluated only in biologic-naïve patients without switches. The overall health care costs for patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 594 patients met the study criteria (mean age 53.5±13.5, female:male ratio =3:1). Thirty-nine percent received etanercept, 25% adalimumab, 14% infliximab, 10% abatacept, 9% tocilizumab, and 3% golimumab. After 1 year of observation, patients showed similar use of other RA-related medication. For the naïve patients without switches, the persistence levels were: 78% for etanercept, 72% for tocilizumab, 71% for adalimumab, 69% for infliximab, and 64% for abatacept. For all agents, dose escalation was 21.4% for infliximab, 11.5% for adalimumab, 5.6% for abatacept, 4% for tocilizumab, and 3.8% for etanercept. The annual costs per treated patients were €12,803 for adalimumab, €11,924 for etanercept, €11,830 for tocilizumab, €11,201 for infliximab, and €10,943 for abatacept.

CONCLUSION

The role of biologic therapies in the treatment of RA continues to evolve; our study reflects real-world drug utilization data in adult patients with RA. These observations could be used by decision makers to support formulary decisions, although further research is needed using a larger sample to validate these results.

What is the best biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic review of effectiveness

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of the biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis through a systematic review of observational studies.

METHODS: The studies were searched in the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and LILACS databases (until August 2014), in the grey literature and conducted a manual search. The assessed criteria of effectiveness included the EULAR, the disease activity score (DAS), the Clinical Disease Activity Index, the Simplified Disease Activity Index, the American College of Rheumatology and the Health Assessment Questionnaire. The meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager^® 5.2 software using a random effects model. A total of 35 studies were included in this review.

RESULTS: The participants anti-tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF) naïve, who used adalimumab (P = 0.0002) and etanercept (P = 0.0006) exhibited greater good EULAR response compared to the participants who used infliximab. No difference was detected between adalimumab and etanercept (P = 0.05). The participants who used etanercept exhibited greater remission according to DAS28 compared to the participants who used infliximab (P = 0.01). No differences were detected between adalimumab and infliximab (P = 0.12) or etanercept (P = 0.79). Better results were obtained with bDMARD associated with methotrexate than with bDMARD alone. The good EULAR response and DAS 28 was better for combination with methotrexate than bDMARD monotherapy (P = 0.03 e P < 0.00001). In cases of therapeutic failure, the participants who used rituximab exhibited greater DAS28 reduction compared to those who used anti-TNF agents (P = 0.0002). The participants who used etanercept achieved greater good EULAR response compared to those who did not use that drug (P = 0.007). Studies that assessed reduction of the CDAI score indicated the superiority of abatacept over rituximab (12.4 vs +1.7) and anti-TNF agents (7.6 vs 8.3). The present systematic review with meta-analysis found that relative to anti-TNF treatment-naïve patients, adalimumab and etanercept were more effective when combined with methotrexate than when used alone. Furthermore, in case of therapeutic failure with anti-TNF agents; rituximab and abatacept (non anti-TNF) and etanercept (as second anti-TNF) were more effective. However, more studies of effectiveness were found for the rituximab.

CONCLUSION: The best treatment for treatment-naïve patients is adalimumab or etanercept combined with methotrexate. For anti-TNF therapeutic failure, the best choice is rituximab, abatacept or etanercept.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Economic evaluation of anti-TNF agents for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Greece

Objectives

We aimed to estimate the total mean annual treatment cost of different therapy options for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Greece.

Methods

A cost-minimization approach was adopted. An economic model was developed to estimate the direct costs of the three widely used treatments within a 1-year time horizon, from a health care payer perspective, either for new or for existing patients. Data on resource use, dose escalation, and frequency of therapy were based on a nationwide field survey of rheumatologists. Other analyses were also undertaken based on evidence from the literature. Total cost comprised the cost of drugs, administration, and hospital day care visits. Unit cost data were obtained from the price bulletin and the government gazettes issued by the Ministry of Health. Due to the short time horizon of the study, the cost was not discounted.

Results

The mean annual total cost per new (or per existing) responder patient on etanercept was estimated at €9,845 (€9,840), and the total cost on etanercept/methotrexate (MTX) was estimated at €9,857 (€9,852). Therapy with etanercept had lower annual cost relative to adalimumab and infliximab. On an annual basis, it was estimated that the difference between etanercept monotherapy and adalimumab monotherapy was €544 (€1,323). Similarly, the difference between etanercept/MTX and infliximab/MTX was €1,871 (€1,490) and €543 (€1,323), respectively, relative to adalimumab/MTX. Results remained constant under other scenario analyses undertaken.

Conclusion

In the real-life practice setting in Greece, where dose intensity and frequency differences occur, etanercept alone or in combination with MTX, if prescribed as per label, represents the option with lower annual cost per patient when compared with adalimumab or infliximab in patients with RA. These results hold true as long as the assumptions and data used in the analysis remain stable and may alter if any of the underlying parameters, such as drug price, change.

Dose modification of anti-TNF in rheumatoid arthritis and estimated economical impact: a review of observational studies

Anti-TNF drugs indicated for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) presents similar efficacy, safety and potential toxicity profiles, with more than 10 years' treatment experience. Several pharmacoeconomic evaluations had demonstrated their favorable cost-effectiveness profile in RA patients, based on pivotal clinical studies data from different countries and perspectives. However, in clinical practice, individual profiles of patients and drugs leads to dose modifications that may be associated with substantial cost deviations. Here, we further discuss the effect of dose titration of these biological drugs in clinical practice over their RA cost-effectiveness profiles.

Arthritogenic alphaviruses: new insights into arthritis and bone pathology

Arthritogenic alphaviral infection begins as a febrile illness and often progresses to joint pain and rheumatic symptoms that are described as polyarthritis. Alphaviral arthritis and classical arthritides share many similar cellular and immune mediators involved in their pathogenesis. Recent in vitro and in vivo evidence suggests that bone loss resulting from increased expression of bone resorption mediators may accompany alphaviral infection. In addition, several longitudinal studies have reported more severe and delayed recovery of alphaviral disease in patients with pre-existing arthritic conditions. This review aims to provide insights into alphavirus-induced bone loss and focuses on aspects of disease exacerbation in patients with underlying arthritis and on possible therapeutic targets.

Cost of tumor necrosis factor blockers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis in a multistate Medicaid population

Background

The purpose of this study was to estimate the annual cost per treated patient for the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers, etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients covered by Medicaid.

Methods

The MarketScan Medicaid Multistate Database was used to identify adult RA patients who used etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab (index agents) from 2007 to 2011. The index date was the first claim preceded by 180 days and followed by 360 days of continuous enrollment. Patients with other conditions for which these agents are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration were excluded. “Continuing” patients had one or more pre-index claim for their index biologic, and “new” patients did not. Cost per treated patient was calculated in the 360 day post-index period for each index agent as the total index drug and administration cost to the payer and the costs of switched-to agents divided by the number of patients who received the index agent.

Results

A total of 1,085 patients met the study criteria. Forty-eight percent received etanercept (n=521); 37% received adalimumab (n=405); and 15% received infliximab (n=159). Patient characteristics were similar across groups (mean age 47.4 years, 83% female). The annual cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept ($18,466), followed by adalimumab ($20,983) and infliximab ($26,516). For all agents, annual costs were lower for new patients ($17,996 for etanercept, $18,992 for adalimumab, and $24,756 for infliximab) than for continuing patients ($19,004 for etanercept, $24,438 for adalimumab, and $28,127 for infliximab).

Conclusion

Etanercept had lower costs per treated patient than adalimumab or infliximab in both new and continuing Medicaid enrollees with RA.

Use of a validated algorithm to estimate the annual cost of effective biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients with RA aged 18-63 years in the IMS PharMetrics Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch.

RESULTS

Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2243/7247), 28.6% adalimumab (1426/4991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching.

CONCLUSIONS

When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.

Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

METHODS

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

RESULTS

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n = 32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n = 20,582; 30%), infliximab (n = 11,157; 16%), abatacept (n = 2633; 4%), rituximab (n = 1359; 2%), golimumab (n = 687; <1%), ustekinumab (n = 388; <1%), and certolizumab (n = 245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

LIMITATIONS

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.

Biomarkers in reproductive medicine: the promise, and can it be fulfilled?

A biomarker can be used for early diagnosis of a disease, identification of individuals for disease prevention, as a potential drug target, or as a potential marker for a drug response. A biomarker may also limit the use of drug (and therefore costs) to the population of patients for which the drug will be safe and efficacious. A biomarker in reproduction could be used to improve assessment of exposure, identify subgroups susceptible to treatment, predict outcome, and/or differentiate subgroups with potentially different etiologies of disease. Despite many potential uses there is low participation in reproductive biology to develop molecular biomarkers, which may be directly related to the low number of new molecular entities entering clinical trials. As the number of candidate markers in reproductive medicine is increasing, it is important to understand the pathway of development from discovery to clinical utility and recognize that the vast majority of potential markers will not be clinically useful, owing to a variety of pitfalls. Extensive testing, validation, and modification needs to be performed before a biomarker is demonstrated to have clinical utility. New opportunities and partnerships exist and should hasten the development of biomarkers in reproduction. As more biomarkers are moved into practice, a better-educated biomarker consumer will enhance the possibility that biomarker(s) will realize their great potential.

Celastrus treatment modulates antigen-induced gene expression in lymphoid cells of arthritic rats

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a debilitating autoimmune disease of global prevalence and the disease process primarily targets the synovial joints. Despite improvements in the treatment of RA over the past decade, there still is a need for new therapeutic agents that are efficacious, less expensive, and free of severe adverse reactions. Celastrus has been used in China for centuries for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Furthermore, we previously reported that ethanol extract of Celastrus aculeatus Merr. (Celastrus) attenuates adjuvant-induced arthritis (AA) in rats. However, the mechanisms underlying the anti-arthritic activity of Celastrus have not yet been fully defined. We reasoned that microarray analysis might offer useful insights into the pathways and molecules targeted by Celastrus. We compared the gene expression profiles of the draining lymph node cells (LNC) of Celastrus-treated (Tc) versus water-treated (Tw) rats, and each group with untreated arthritic rats (T(0)). LNC were restimulated with mycobacterial heat shock protein-65 (Bhsp65). We identified 104 differentially expressed genes (DEG) (8 upregulated, 96 downregulated) when comparing Tc with T(0) rats, in contrast to 28 (12 upregulated, 16 downregulated) when comparing Tw and T(0) rats. Further, 20 genes (6 upregulated, 14 downregulated) were shared by both Tw and Tc groups. Thus, Celastrus treatment (Tc) significantly downregulated a large proportion of genes compared to controls (Tw). The DEG were mainly associated with the processes of immune response, cell proliferation and apoptosis, and cell signaling. These results provide novel insights into the mechanism of Celastrus anti-arthritic activity, and unravel potential therapeutic targets for arthritis.