Factors associated with initial or subsequent choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Temporal and regional variation in the use of biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs for rheumatoid arthritis: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate temporal and regional variation in biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD (b/tsDMARD) initiation for RA in England and Wales.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted for people with RA enrolled in the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) between May 2018 and April 2022 who had 12-month follow-up data available. Temporal trends in escalation to b/tsDMARDs within 12 months of initial rheumatology assessment were explored, including comparisons before and after publication (July 2021) of national guidelines that lowered the threshold for b/tsDMARD initiation to include moderate-severity RA. Case-mix-adjusted, mixed-effects regression was used to evaluate regional and hospital-level variation in b/tsDMARD initiation.

RESULTS

Of 6098 RA patients with available follow-up, 508 (8.3%) initiated b/tsDMARDs within 12 months of initial assessment. b/tsDMARD escalation increased marginally towards the end of the study period (9.2% in May 2021/22); however, no significant differences were evident after guidelines were published permitting b/tsDMARD use for moderate-severity RA. The proportion of individuals escalated to b/tsDMARDs varied considerably between regions, ranging from 5.1% in Wales to 10.7% in North-West England. Following case-mix adjustment, the intraclass correlation (ICC) for hospitals within regions was 0.17, compared with a between-region ICC of 0.0, suggesting that the observable regional variation reflected hospital-level differences rather than systematic differences between regions themselves.

CONCLUSION

There is marked variation in escalation to b/tsDMARDs for people newly diagnosed with RA throughout England and Wales, despite a universal health-care system. These disparities must be addressed if we are to deliver equitable access to b/tsDMARDs, regardless of geography.

Defining immune cell phenotypes that distinguish treatment responders and non-responders in RA

 .

Health Disparities in Rheumatology in the United States

Objective

Underserved populations are often at risk of experiencing systematic healthcare disparities. Existing disparities in care access, quality of care received, and treatment outcomes among patients with rheumatic disease are not well understood.

Methods

We conducted a targeted literature review to understand disparities in health outcomes, treatment patterns, and healthcare management faced by rheumatology patients in the United States, with a focus on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS).

Results

The findings of this review indicate that disparities in RA, PsA, and AS affect several historically underserved populations, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, persons with lower socioeconomic status (SES), persons experiencing homelessness, and patients with Medicare or Medicaid insurance types. The disparities experienced by these populations include greater disease activity and severity, decreased or delayed access to specialist care, decreased likelihood of receiving advanced therapeutics, and worse clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

To provide equitable healthcare for all patients with RA, PsA, and AS, multiple closely linked health disparities must be addressed. Possible solutions include partnerships between healthcare systems and community-based organizations, targeted outreach tailored to patients with low SES, interventions to improve patient adherence and knowledge, and interventions to improve access to care for rural-residing and unhoused patients. In all, the findings of this literature review underscore the need for mitigation of health disparities in rheumatology care and may serve as a foundation for developing strategies to reduce disparities.

Factors associated with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug initiation for rheumatoid arthritis in underserved patient groups in England and Wales, UK: a national cohort study

BACKGROUND

Quantifying health-care inequality is essential to addressing the imbalance in outcomes attributable to age, sex, race or ethnicity, and multimorbidity. In this study, we analysed differences in the initiation of biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis within the universal health-care system of England and Wales, UK.

METHODS

An observational cohort study was conducted using the National Early Inflammatory Arthritis Audit (NEIAA) dataset. We included all patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were enrolled in NEIAA between May 8, 2018, and April 30, 2022, and who had 12-month follow-up data available. Modified Poisson regression was used to explore factors associated with the initiation of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs within 12 months of initial rheumatology assessment. The factors evaluated included age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (index of multiple deprivation), smoking status, and relevant comorbidities (lung disease, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and depression). NEIAA is supported by people with lived experience of rheumatoid arthritis, who contributed to study design and the interpretation of findings.

FINDINGS

6098 patients in NEIAA had new diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis and available follow-up data. The mean age was 59·2 years (SD 14·9); 3912 (64·2%) patients were women and 2186 (35·8%) were men. 6047 (99·2%) patients had available ethnicity data, of whom 5215 (86·2%) were White, 152 (2·5%) were Black, 478 (7·9%) were Asian, and 202 (3·3%) were of mixed or other ethnicities. 508 (8·3%) of 6098 patients initiated biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs within 12 months. Patients younger than 40 years were more likely to be initiated on biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs than individuals older than 65 years (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio 2·41 [95% CI 1·83-3·19]; p<0·0001). Asian individuals were less likely to be initiated on biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs than White individuals (0·52 [0·36-0·76]; p=0·0007), which persisted after adjustment for socioeconomic status, comorbidities, baseline disease severity, and the initial response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. These differences were evident for Asian women but not Asian men. Black individuals were more likely to be initiated on biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs than White individuals (1·54 [1·10-2·16]; p=0·012), which became non-significant after adjusting for baseline disease severity and autoantibody status.

INTERPRETATION

The initiation of biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs for patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis varies markedly by ethnicity and age in the universal health-care system of England and Wales. This study demonstrates the importance of providing tailored information and ensuring equitable access to high-quality care for underserved patient groups. The one-size-fits-all approach must be reconsidered if health disparities are to be mitigated effectively.

FUNDING

Sandoz UK.

Sex-Related Differences in Dispensation of Rheumatic Medications in Older Patients With Inflammatory Arthritis: A Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to compare dispensation of rheumatic medications between older male and female patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was performed using health administrative data from Ontario, Canada (years 2010-2017), on patients with incident RA and PsA, who were aged ≥ 66 years at the time of diagnosis. Yearly dispensation of rheumatic drugs was compared between older male and female patients for 3 years after diagnosis using multivariable regression models, after adjusting for confounders. The groups of drugs included in the analysis were disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) classified as conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and advanced therapy (biologic DMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs), nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and oral corticosteroids. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

We analyzed 13,613 patients (64% female) with RA and 1116 patients (57% female) with PsA. Female patients with RA were more likely to receive opioids (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22-1.58 to OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.32-1.72) and NSAIDs (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25 to OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04-1.30). Dispensation of DMARDs showed no sex difference in either group. Subgroup analyses showed more intense use of advanced therapy in the RA cohort and of csDMARDs in the PsA cohort when patient and physician sex was concordant.

CONCLUSION

This study did not identify any sex difference in the use of DMARDs among older patients with RA and PsA. The reasons for the higher use of opioids and NSAIDs among female patients with RA warrant further research.

Missed opportunities for treatment of inflammatory arthritis and factors associated with non-treatment: An observational cohort study in United States Veterans with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors associated with non-treatment with biologic and non-biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) during the 12 months after initial inflammatory arthritis (IA) diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified Veterans with incident IA diagnosed in 2007-2019. We assessed time to treatment with Kaplan-Meier curves. We identified associations between non-treatment and factors relating to patients, providers, and the health system with multivariate Generalized Estimation Equation (GEE) log-Poisson. Subgroup analyses included IA subtypes (rheumatoid arthritis [RA], psoriatic arthritis [PsA], and ankylosing spondylitis [AS]) and timeframes of the initial IA diagnosis (2007-11, 2012-15, and 2016-19).

RESULTS

Of 18,318 study patients, 40.7 % did not receive treatment within 12 months after diagnosis. In all patients, factors associated with non-treatment included Black race (hazard ratio, 95 % confidence interval: 1.13, 1.08-1.19), Hispanic ethnicity (1.14, 1.07-1.22), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, (1.15, 1.11-1.20), and opiate use (1.09, 1.05-1.13). Factors associated with higher frequency of DMARD treatment included married status (0.86, 0.81-0.91); erosion in joint imaging report (HR: 0.86, 0.81-0.91); female diagnosing provider (0.90, CI: 0.85-0.96), gender concordance between patient and provider (0.91, CI: 0.86-0.97), and diagnosing provider specialty of rheumatology (0.53, CI: 0.49-0.56).

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of Veterans with IA were not treated with a biologic or non-biologic DMARD within one year after their initial diagnosis. A wide range of factors were associated with non-treatment of IA that may represent missed opportunities for improving the quality of care through early initiation of DMARDs.

Utilization of Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Therapy in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer

OBJECTIVE

Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are immunosuppressants, and there have been concerns that they might impact tumor immunity in patients with cancer with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The purpose of this study was to describe the utilization trends of bDMARD in patients with RA after breast cancer (BC) diagnosis.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults with RA and BC (2008 onward) from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database (CDM); the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) Medicare; and the Texas Cancer Registry (TCR) Medicare databases. We evaluated bDMARD utilization trends during the first three years after BC. We conducted multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association of utilization with patient characteristics.

RESULTS

A total 1,412 patients were identified in CDM and 1,439 patients in SEER/TCR-Medicare. During the three months before BC diagnosis, 28.2% (CDM) and 26.9% (SEER/TCR-Medicare) patients had received bDMARDs. Within the first three years after diagnosis, 24.1% (CDM) and 26.4% (SEER/TCR-Medicare) were receiving bDMARDs. About 70% of the patients in the two cohorts received glucocorticoids with no significant time trend increases. The largest predictor of bDMARD utilization was prior use before BC (CDM: odds ratio [OR] 27.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.29-38.19; SEER/TCR: OR 18.98, 95% CI 13.72-26.26). Regional and distant BC compared to in situ or localized were also associated with lower bDMARDs utilization in SEER/TCR-Medicare (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.82; OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.77, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and other bDMARDs in patients with RA and recent BC has not increased since 2008. Glucocorticoids utilization remained high. The largest predictor of bDMARD utilization was prior use before BC.

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.

Predictors at diagnosis for start of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the relation between patient characteristics at rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis and subsequent initiation of treatment with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients (N=330) with early RA (symptom duration <12 months) diagnosed at Skåne University Hospital, Malmö/Lund, Sweden, from 2012 to 2016, were included. Data on demographics, education, comorbidities and treatment were obtained from national registers.

OUTCOME

The relation between patient characteristics at diagnosis and time to first bDMARD/tsDMARD initiation was analysed using Cox regression models. As a secondary outcome, the relation between characteristics at diagnosis and b/tsDMARD initiation within 3 years was analysed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 330 patients (mean age 59.2 years; SD 16.4) were included. During follow-up, 41% received a bDMARD (never preceded by a tsDMARD). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with a lower probability of starting bDMARD treatment (multivariable-adjusted HR 0.66 per SD; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.78). Anticitrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positivity and higher tender joint count at diagnosis were also associated with subsequent bDMARD treatment initiation in multivariable analysis. A higher level of formal education and absence of comorbidities predicted start of a bDMARD in crude, but not in age-adjusted, analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Older patients with RA were less likely to start bDMARDs, whereas ACPA-positive patients, and those with extensive joint involvement at diagnosis, were more likely to receive early bDMARD treatment. The impact of age on the subsequent start of bDMARD therapy was not explained by level of education or comorbidities, suggesting that other aspects of age influence treatment decisions in early RA.

Impact of IL6R genetic variants on treatment efficacy and toxicity response to sarilumab in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Sarilumab, an IL-6 receptor antagonist, is a first-line biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug for rheumatoid arthritis. The identification of genetic biomarkers as predictors of response to sarilumab could allow for a personalized treatment strategy to improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 62 patients treated with sarilumab to determine whether single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in the IL6R gene could predict efficacy and toxicity responses. Six SNPs previously described in the IL6R gene (rs12083537, rs11265618, rs4329505, rs2228145, rs4537545, and rs4845625) were genotyped in DNA samples obtained from these patients. Using parametric tests, we evaluated the association between these polymorphisms and clinicopathological features. Treatment response was assessed six months after treatment initiation. Satisfactory response was based on EULAR criteria. Low disease activity was determined according to DAS28 and CDAI and quantitative improvements in DAS28 and CDAI scores.

RESULTS

Three SNPs (rs4845625, rs4329505 and rs11265618) were significantly associated with response outcomes. All of the SNPs, except for rs12083537, had at least one significant association with dyslipidemia or hepatotoxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support the potential clinical value of SNPs, particularly rs4845625, as potentially useful biomarkers to predict response to sarilumab in patients with RA.

Trends in total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy based on payer status

INTRODUCTION

Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is often used to manage advanced arthropathies of the elbow caused by inflammatory conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recent literature has shown that use of TEA is decreasing in patients with RA, part of which can be attributed to early medical management involving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, there is a significant economic barrier to accessing DMARD therapy. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of TEA between patients with and without DMARD therapy from 2010 to 2020.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a national insurance claim database to investigate the trends of patients with RA undergoing TEA from 2010-2020. Patients who underwent TEA and had a diagnosis of RA were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes between 2010 and 2020. These patients were then stratified into 2 cohorts: those with DMARD prescription claims and those without. A linear regression, compound annual growth rate (CAGR) analysis, and χ2 analysis were conducted to compare trends and demographic variables, including insurance type, between cohorts. Additionally, a multivariable logistic regression was subsequently performed to observe odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2020, there has been no significant change in the incidence of TEA in RA patients without DMARD prescriptions, whereas there has been a statistically significantly decreasing rate of TEA observed in RA patients with DMARD prescription claims. The analysis showed that there was a CAGR of -4%. For patients with a diagnosis of RA and DMARD prescription claims, the highest incidence of undergoing TEA was seen in the age group of 60-69 years, whereas patients with a diagnosis of RA and no DMARD prescription claims had the highest incidence of undergoing TEA in the age group of 70-79 years.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of patients undergoing TEA with a diagnosis of RA and DMARD prescription claims has shown a statistically significant decrease from 2010 to 2020, whereas no significant difference was observed for patients without DMARD prescription claims. There were no statistically significant differences in the insurance plans between cohorts.

Factors influencing prescribing the first add-on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients initiating methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Advances in Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) have expanded the treatment landscape for Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Guidelines recommend adding either conventional synthetic (cs), biologic (b), or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs to methotrexate (MTX) for managing RA. Limited evidence exists regarding the factors that contribute to adding a DMARD agent to the MTX regimen. This study examined the factors associated with adding the first DMARD in RA patients initiating MTX.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study utilized the MarketScan data (2012-2014) involving adults (aged ≥18) with RA initiating an MTX (index date) between Jul 1, 2012 and Dec 30, 2013, and with continuous enrollment for the 6-month pre-index period. The combination therapy users received the first treatment addition of DMARD starting from day 30 after the index MTX over one year period. The study focused on the addition of csDMARDs, Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors (TNFi) bDMARDs, non-TNFi bDMARDs, or tsDMARDs. Baseline covariates were measured in the 6-month pre-index and grouped into predisposing, enabling, and need factors, as per the Andersen Behavior Model. Multivariable logistic regression examined the factors associated with the addition of TNFi compared to adding a csDMARD. An additional regression model evaluated the factors associated with adding any biologic (combining TNFi and non-TNFi biologics).

Results

Among 8350 RA patients starting MTX, 31.92% (n = 2665) initiated any DMARD within the 1-year post-index period. Among RA patients initiating a DMARD prescription after starting MTX, 945 (11.32%) received combination therapy with treatment addition of a DMARD to MTX regimen; majority added TNFi (550, 58%), followed by csDMARD (352, 37%); non-TNF biologic (40, 4%), or tsDMARD (3, 0.3%). The tsDMARD group was limited and was not included for further analysis. The multivariable model found Preferred Provider Organization insurance coverage (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.93), chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.14-3.44), liver disease (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.77-15.49), and Elixhauser score (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.97) were significantly associated with the addition of TNF-α inhibitors. The separate multivariable model additionally found that patients from metropolitan areas (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.04-2.16) were positively associated with adding any biological agent.

Conclusions

TNFi are often added to MTX for managing RA. Enabling and need factors contribute to the prescribing of a TNFi add-on therapy in RA. Future research should examine the impact of these combination therapies on RA management.

Real-world patient characteristics and use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-national study

INTRODUCTION

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with significant morbidity and economic burden. This study aimed to compare baseline characteristics and patterns of anti-inflammatory drug use and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) use among patients with RA in Southern Italy versus the United States.

METHOD

Using Caserta Local Health Unit (Italy) and Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart (United States) claims databases, patients with ≥ 2 diagnosis codes for RA during the study period (Caserta: 2010-2018; Optum: 2010-2019) were identified. Baseline patient characteristics, as well as proportion of RA patients untreated/treated with NSAIDs/glucocorticoids/conventional DMARDs (csDMARDs)/biological/targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) during the first year of follow-up, and the proportion of RA patients with ≥ 1 switch/add-on between the first and the second year of follow-up, were calculated. These analyses were then stratified by age group (< 65; ≥ 65).

RESULTS

A total of 9227 RA patients from Caserta and 195,951 from Optum databases were identified (two-thirds were females). During the first year of follow-up, 45.9% RA patients from Optum versus 79.9% from Caserta were exclusively treated with NSAIDs/glucocorticoids; 17.2% versus 11.3% from Optum and Caserta, respectively, were treated with csDMARDs, mostly methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine in both cohorts. Compared to 0.6% of RA patients from Caserta, 3.2% of the Optum cohort received ≥ 1 b/tsDMARD dispensing. Moreover, 61,655 (33.7%) patients from Optum cohort remained untreated compared to 748 (8.3%) patients from the Caserta cohort. The subgroup analyses stratified by age showed that 42,989 (39.8%) of elderly RA patients were untreated compared to 18,666 (24.9%) young adult RA patients in Optum during the first year of follow-up. Moreover, a higher proportion of young adult RA patients was treated with b/tsDMARDs, with and without csDMARDs, compared to elderly RA patients (Optum_<65: 6.4%; Optum_≥65: 1.0%; P-value < 0.001; Caserta_<65: 0.8%; Caserta_≥65: 0.1%; P-value < 0.001). Among RA patients untreated during the first year after ID, 41.2% and 48.4% RA patients from Caserta and Optum, respectively, received NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, and cs/b/tsDMARDs within the second year of follow-up. Stratifying the analysis by age groups, 50.6% of untreated young RA patients received study drug dispensing within the second year of follow-up, compared to only 36.7% of elderly RA patients in Optum. Interestingly, more young adult RA patients treated with csDMARDs during the first year after ID received a therapy escalation to b/tsDMARD within the second year after ID in both cohorts, compared to elderly RA patients (Optum_<65: 7.8%; Optum_≥65: 1.8%; Caserta_<65: 3.2%; Casert_a≥65: 0.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of RA patients, with heterogeneous baseline characteristics in Optum and Caserta cohorts, were treated with anti-inflammatory/csDMARDs rather than bDMARDs/tsDMARDs during the first year post-diagnosis, especially in elderly RA patients, suggesting a need for better understanding and dealing with barriers in the use of these agents for RA patients. Key Points • Substantial heterogeneity in baseline characteristics and access to bDMARD or tsDMARD drugs between RA patients from the United States and Italy exists. • Most of RA patients seem to be treated with anti-inflammatory/csDMARD drugs rather than bDMARD/tsDMARD drugs during the first year post-diagnosis. • RA treatment escalation is less frequent in old RA patients than in young adult RA patients. • An appropriate use of DMARDs should be considered to achieve RA disease remission or low disease activity.

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.

Treatment Sequence After Initiating Biologic Therapy for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis in Korea: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective

To evaluate treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) after initiating biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Patients newly diagnosed with RA in 2014 were identified and followed up on using the Korean National Health Insurance Database until 2018. The initial line of therapy (LOT) or LOT1 included patients treated with conventional DMARDs (cDMARD). Patients who started a bDMARD were assigned to LOT2 bDMARD. Those who moved from a bDMARD to a Janus kinase inhibitor were assigned to LOT3. Analyzed outcomes were treatment patterns and HCRU in LOT2 bDMARD.

Results

The most prescribed initial bDMARD was a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Seventy-five percent of patients had changes in treatment after starting a bDMARD, such as addition/removal or switch of a DMARD, and transition to LOT3. For the first and second changes in LOT2 bDMARD, adding a cDMARD to a bDMARD was more common than switching to another bDMARD (7.98% vs. 2.93% for the first change, and 17.10% vs. 6.51% for the second change). Tocilizumab was the most common bDMARD that was switched to. Forty-eight percent of patients had at least one hospitalization after initiating bDMARDs. Of these patients, 64.3% were admitted due to RA-related reasons.

Conclusion

This real-world study provides information on treatment characteristics of RA patients in Korea after starting a bDMARD. In contrary to guidelines, cDMARD addition was more often than bDMARD switches in daily clinical practice.

Patient outcomes improve when a molecular signature test guides treatment decision-making in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) predicts tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitor (TNFi) non-response in rheumatoid arthritis. This study evaluates decision-making, validity, and utility of MSRC testing.

METHODS

This comparative cohort study compared an MSRC-tested arm (N = 627) from the Study to Accelerate Information of Molecular Signatures (AIMS) with an external control arm (N = 2721) from US electronic health records. Propensity score matching was applied to balance baseline characteristics. Patients initiated a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug, or continued TNFi therapy. Odds ratios (ORs) for six-month response were calculated based on clinical disease activity index (CDAI) scores for low disease activity/remission (CDAI-LDA/REM), remission (CDAI-REM), and minimally important differences (CDAI-MID) .

RESULTS

In MSRC-tested patients, 59% had a non-response signature and 70% received MSRC-aligned therapy . In TNFi-treated patients, the MSRC had an 88% PPV and 54% sensitivity. MSRC-guided patients were significantly (p < 0.0001) more likely to respond to b/tsDMARDs than those treated according to standard care (CDAI-LDA/REM: 36.0% vs 21.9%, OR 2.01[1.55-2.60]; CDAI-REM: 10.4% vs 3.6%, OR 3.14 [1.94-5.08]; CDAI-MID: 49.5% vs 32.8%, OR 2.01[1.58-2.55]).

CONCLUSION

MSRC clinical validity supports high clinical utility: guided treatment selection resulted in significantly superior outcomes relative to standard care; nearly three times more patients reached CDAI remission.

Cardiovascular Risks of Hydroxychloroquine vs Methotrexate in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Hydroxychloroquine is often used as a first-line treatment of rheumatoid arthritis despite limited evidence on its cardiovascular risk.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a cardiovascular safety evaluation comparing hydroxychloroquine to methotrexate among patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

METHODS

Using Medicare data (2008-2016), we identified 54,462 propensity score-matched patients with rheumatoid arthritis, aged ≥65 years, who initiated hydroxychloroquine or methotrexate. Primary outcomes were sudden cardiac arrest or ventricular arrythmia (SCA/VA) and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalized heart failure (HF). We also examined treatment effect modification by history of HF.

RESULTS

Hydroxychloroquine was not associated with risk of SCA/VA (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35) or MACE (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.18) compared with methotrexate. In patients with history of HF, hydroxychloroquine initiators had a higher risk of MACE (HR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.08-1.56), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.06-1.70), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04-1.43), myocardial infarction (HR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.25-2.42), and hospitalized HF (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.07-1.54) compared to methotrexate initiators. Cardiovascular risks were not different in patients without history of HF except for an increased hospitalized HF risk (HR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.30-1.90) among hydroxychloroquine initiators.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with rheumatoid arthritis, hydroxychloroquine and methotrexate showed similar SCA/VA and MACE risks; however, hydroxychloroquine initiators with history of HF had higher risks of MACE, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. An increased hospitalized HF risk was observed among hydroxychloroquine initiators regardless of an HF history.

Improvement in clinical disease activity index when treatment selection is informed by the tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitor molecular signature response classifier: analysis from the study to accelerate information of molecular signatures in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

A blood-based molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) predicts non-response to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is an interim analysis of data collected in the Study to Accelerate Information of Molecular Signatures (AIMS) in RA from patients who received the MSRC test between September 2020 and November 2021. Absolute changes in clinical disease activity index (CDAI) scores from baseline were evaluated at 12 weeks (n = 470) and 24 weeks (n = 274).

RESULTS

Predicted TNFi non-responders who received a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) with an alternative mechanism of action (altMOA) experienced up to 1.8-fold greater improvements in CDAI scores than those treated with a TNFi (12 weeks: 12.2 vs 8.0; p-value = 0.083; 24 weeks: 14.2 vs 7.8 p-value = 0.009). In patients with a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi in high disease activity at baseline, this corresponded to 43.2% relative improvement in achieving a lower CDAI disease activity level when likely TNFi non-responders were treated with a non-TNFi therapy (38.9% vs 55.7%). Commensurate improvements in efficiency of spend are expected when TNFi are avoided in favor of altMOA.

CONCLUSIONS

RA treatment selection informed by MSRC test results improves clinical outcomes in real-world care and offers improvements in efficiency of healthcare spending.

Focus on Sex and Gender: What We Need to Know in the Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease, affecting mostly women with a female/male ratio of 3:1. It is characterized by symmetrical polyarthritis, leading to progressive joint damage. Sex differences have been reported in terms of disease course and characteristics, influencing patients reported outcome measures (PROMs) and pain perception, ultimately leading to male–female disparities in treatment response. Notwithstanding, sex and gender discrepancies are still under-reported in clinical trials. Therefore, there is a consistent need for a precise reference of sex and gender issues in RA studies to improve treat-to-target achievement. This narrative review explores the above-mentioned aspects of RA disease, discussing the latest core principles of RA recommendations, from safety issues to early arthritis concept and management, treat-to-target and difficult-to-treat notions, up to the most recent debate on vaccination. Our final purpose is to evaluate how sex and gender can impact current management guidelines and how this issue can be integrated for effective disease control.

Clinical utility of therapy selection informed by predicted nonresponse to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors: an analysis from the Study to Accelerate Information of Molecular Signatures (AIMS) in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

The molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) is a blood-based precision medicine test that predicts nonresponders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) so that patients with a molecular signature of non-response to TNFi can be directed to a treatment with an alternative mechanism of action.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study evaluated decision choice and treatment outcomes resulting from MSRC-informed treatment selection within a real-world cohort.

RESULTS

Therapy selection by providers was informed by MSRC results for 73.5% (277/377) of patients. When MSRC results were not incorporated into decision-making, 62.0% (62/100) of providers reported deviating from test recommendations due to insurance-related restrictions. The 24-week ACR50 responses in patients prescribed a therapy in alignment with MSRC results were 39.6%. Patients with a molecular signature of non-response had significantly improved responses to non-TNFi therapies compared with TNFi therapies (ACR50 34.8% vs 10.3%, p-value = 0.05). This indicates that predicted non-responders to TNFi therapies are not nonresponders to other classes of RA targeted therapy. Significant changes were also observed for CDAI, ACR20, ACR70, and for responses at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of the MSRC into patient care could fundamentally shift treatment paradigms in RA, resulting in substantial improvements in real-world treatment outcomes.

Risk of venous thromboembolism associated with methotrexate versus hydroxychloroquine for rheumatoid arthritis: A propensity score-matched cohort study

AIMS

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), likely related to underlying inflammation. We examined VTE risk associated with two commonly used immunomodulators in RA patients, methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using U.S. Medicare claims data (2008-2017), we identified RA patients (≥65 years) who initiated methotrexate or hydroxychloroquine without prior use of any immunomodulators. The primary outcome was VTE, a composite of pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Secondary outcomes included PE, DVT, and all-cause mortality. After 1:1 propensity score matching for confounding control, we identified 26,534 pairs of methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine initiators (mean (SD) age 74 (7) years; 79% female). During a total of 56,686 person-years of follow-up, 208 methotrexate and 83 hydroxychloroquine initiators developed VTE. The incidence rate of VTE was higher among methotrexate initiators (6.94/1,000 person-years) than hydroxychloroquine initiators (3.11/1,000 person-years) with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.26 (95% CI 1.75, 2.91). Methotrexate initiators had a greater risk of PE (HR 3.30, 95% CI 2.28, 4.77) and DVT (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07, 2.19) than hydroxychloroquine initiators. All-cause mortality was similar between the two groups (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83, 1.00).

CONCLUSION

In this large real-world cohort of older RA patients, treatment with methotrexate was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of VTE relative to hydroxychloroquine, although all-cause mortality was similar. Future experimental studies with non-user control groups are needed to determine the causal relationships between the study drugs and VTE and whether methotrexate elevates or hydroxychloroquine reduces the risk of VTE.

Analytical and clinical validation of an RNA sequencing-based assay for quantitative, accurate evaluation of a molecular signature response classifier in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

This study reports analytical and clinical validation of a molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) that identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are non-responders to tumor necrosis factor-ɑ inhibitors (TNFi).

METHODS

The MSRC integrates patient-specific data from 19 gene expression features, anti-cyclic citrullinated protein serostatus, sex, body mass index, and patient global assessment into a single score.

RESULTS

The MSRC results stratified samples (N = 174) according to non-response prediction with a positive predictive value of 87.7% (95% CI: 78-94%), sensitivity of 60.2% (95% CI: 50-69%), and specificity of 77.3% (95% CI: 65-87%). The 25-point scale was subdivided into three thresholds: signal not detected (<10.6), high (≥10.6), and very high (≥18.5). The MSRC relies on sequencing of RNA extracted from blood; this assay displays high gene expression concordance between inter- and intra-assay sample (R² > 0.977) and minimal variation in cumulative gene assignment diversity, read mapping location, or gene-body coverage. The MSRC accuracy was 95.8% (46/48) for threshold concordance (no signal, high, very high). Intra- and inter-assay precision studies demonstrated high repeatability (92.6%, 25/27) and reproducibility (100%, 35/35).

CONCLUSION

The MSRC is a robust assay that accurately and reproducibly detects an RA patient's molecular signature of non-response to TNFi therapies.

A Bridge Too Far? Real-World Practice Patterns of Early Glucocorticoid Use in the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of glucocorticoid use in a large real-world cohort with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and assess the impact on disease activity and treatment.

METHODS

Data are from adults with new RA (≤1 year) recruited to the Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) and are stratified on the basis of whether a person was prescribed oral glucocorticoids within 3 months of study entry. Disease activity was compared over 24 months. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used for adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of escalation to biologics separately for 12 and 24 months, with random effects terms to account for prescribing patterns clustering by study site.

RESULTS

Among 1891 persons, 30% received oral steroids. Users were older, were less often employed, and had shorter disease duration and higher disease activity. Disease activity improved over time, with early glucocorticoid users starting at higher levels of disease activity. Participants with early oral glucocorticoids were more likely to be on a biologic at 12 months (aOR = 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.7) and 24 months (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-3.0). Despite Canadian clinical practice guidelines to limit corticosteroid use to short-term or 'bridge' therapy, 30% of patients who used oral glucocorticoids still used them 2 years later.

CONCLUSION

Early steroids were prescribed sparingly in CATCH and were often indicative of more active baseline disease as well as the need for progression to biologics.

Guided therapy selection in rheumatoid arthritis using a molecular signature response classifier: an assessment of budget impact and clinical utility

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be treated with a range of targeted therapies following inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs such as methotrexate. Whereas clinical practice guidelines provide no formal recommendations for initial targeted therapies, the tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) class is the prevalent first-line selection based on clinician experience, its safety profile, and/or formulary requirements, while also being the costliest. Most patients do not achieve adequate clinical response with a first-line TNFi, however. A molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test that assesses RA-related biomarkers can identify patients who are unlikely to achieve adequate response to TNFi-class therapies. OBJECTIVE: To model cost-effectiveness of MSRC-guided, first-line targeted therapy selection compared with current standard care. METHODS: This budget impact analysis used data sourced from August to September 2020. The prevalence of each first-line targeted therapy was obtained using market intelligence from Datamonitor/Informa PLC Rheumatology Dashboard Forecast 2020, and the average first-year cost of treatment for each class was calculated using wholesale acquisition costs from IBM Micromedex RED BOOK Online. Average effectiveness for each class was based on manufacturer-reported ACR50 response rates (American College of Rheumatology adequate response criteria of 50% improvement at 6 months after therapy initiation). The impact of MSRC testing on first therapy selection was predicted based on a third party-generated decision-impact study that analyzed potential alterations in rheumatologist prescribing patterns after receiving MSRC test reports. Sensitivity analysis evaluated potential impacts of variation in first-year medication cost, adherence to MSRC report, and test price on the first-year cost of treatment. Cost for response (first-year therapy cost therapy divided by probability of achieving ACR50) was compared between standard care and MSRC-guided care. RESULTS: The estimated cost for first-year, standard-care treatment was $65,117, with 80% of patients initiating treatment with a TNFi. Cost for achieving ACR50 response was $177,046. After applying MSRC-guided patient stratification and therapy selection, the first-year cost was $56,543, net of test price, with 49.0% of patients initiating with a TNFi. First-year MSRC-guided care cost, including test price, was estimated at $117,103, a 33.9% improvement over standard care. Sensitivity analysis showed a net cost improvement for guided care vs standard care across all scenarios. Patients predicted to be inadequate TNFi responders, when modeled with lower-priced alternatives, were predicted to show increased ACR50 response rates. Those with MSRC test results indicating a first-line TNFi were predicted to show an ACR50 response rate superior to that for any other class. In this model, if implemented clinically, MSRC-guided care might save the US health care system more than $850 million annually and improve ACR50 by up to 31.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Precision medicine using MSRC-guided patient stratification and therapy selection may both decrease cost and improve efficacy of targeted RA therapies. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded in full by Scipher Medicine Corporation, which participated in data analysis and interpretation and drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to data analysis and interpretation and publication preparation, maintaining control over the final content. Arnell, Withers, and Connolly-Strong are employees of and have stock ownership in Scipher Medicine Corporation. Bergman has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Scipher Medicine and owns stock or stock options in Johnson & Johnson. Kenney, Logan, and Lim-Harashima are consultants for Scipher Medicine Corporation. Basu has nothing to disclose.

Opioid Prescribing Among Outpatients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To examine the outpatient opioid prescribing practices and the factors associated with opioid prescriptions in patient visits with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DESIGN

This cross-sectional study used the 2011-2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Descriptive weighted analyses were used to examine the trends in opioid prescribing practices for RA. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the factors associated with opioid prescriptions among RA visits.

SUBJECTS

Adult patients (>18 years of age) with a primary diagnosis of RA based on the International Classification of Diseases.

RESULTS

According to the national surveys, an average of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.30-6.60) million office visits were made annually for RA. Approximately 24.28% of these visits involved opioid prescriptions. The RA visits involving opioid prescriptions increased from 1.43 million in 2011-2012 to 3.69 million in 2015-2016 (P < .0001). Being in the age group of 50-64 years (odds ratio [OR] = 3.40; 95% CI, 1.29-9.00), being Hispanic or Latino (OR = 2.92, 95% CI, 1.10-7.74), visiting primary physician (OR = 4.67; 95% CI, 1.86-11.75), prescribing of muscle relaxants (OR = 64.32; 95% CI, 9.71-426.09), acetaminophen (OR = 93.40; 95% CI, 26.19-333.04), antidepressants (OR = 6.10; 95% CI, 2.63-14.14), and glucocorticoids (OR = 3.20; 95% CI, 1.61-6.38), were associated with an increased likelihood of receiving opioid prescriptions in RA.

CONCLUSIONS

One in four adult RA visits resulted in opioid prescriptions, and the opioid visits more than doubled during the study period. Several patient and provider factors were associated with the opioid prescribing among RA visits. Understanding these prescribing practices can help to devise strategies for safe opioid prescribing practices in RA.

Factors associated with drug survival on first biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a population-based cohort study

Lack of sufficient head-to-head trials comparing biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), makes the choice of the first bDMARD a matter of rheumatologist's preference. Longer drug survival on the first bDMARD usually correlates with early remission. We aimed to identify factors associated with longer drug survival. We conducted a population-based retrospective longitudinal cohort study. We identified RA patients using the relevant International Classification of Disease 9th codes. "True" RA patients were defined as patients fulfilling, additionally, at least one of the following: receiving conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs), being positive for rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, or being diagnosed by a rheumatologist. We compared drug survival times and identified factors associated with longer drug survival. We identified 4268 true RA patients between the years of 2000-2017. 820 patients (19.2%) received at least one bDMARD. The most commonly prescribed bDMARDs were etanercept (352, 42.9%), adalimumab (143, 17.4%), infliximab (142, 17.3%) and tocilizumab (58, 7.1%). Infliximab was associated with the longest drug survival (47.1 months ± 46.3) while golimumab was associated with the shortest drug survival (14.9 months ± 15.1). Male gender [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63-0.86, p = 0.001], concurrent conventional DMARDs use (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 - 0.98, p = .031) and initiating bDMARD therapy in earlier calendric years (HR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.10 -1.18, p = 0.0001) were associated with longer drug survival. Male gender, concomitant cDMARDs and initiating biologic therapy at earlier calendric years are associated with longer drug survival.

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.

Deciphering Role of Cytokines for Therapeutic Strategies Against Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a systemic, chronic, autoimmune, inflammatory disorder that affects both large and small synovial joints in a symmetric pattern. RA initiates as painful inflammation of the joints leading to stiffness of joint, joint destruction and further worsens the condition causing permanent irreversible damage to the joints, making them physically disabled. Across the globe, there are around 1.2 million cases of RA reported. Inspite of various available therapeutic and pharmacological agents against RA, none of the treatments assure complete cure. Understanding the in depth-role of cytokines and interleukins in the disease pathogenesis of RA could help in exploiting them for developing novel therapeutic strategies against RA. This review provides insights into the pathogenesis of RA and gives a brief overview of cytokines, which play an important role in the progression of the disease. We have also discussed the possible role of interleukins in the context of RA, which could help future researchers to explore them for identifying new therapeutic agents.

Cycling of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors versus switching to different mechanism of action therapy in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction:

For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), main options include cycling onto a different TNFi or switching to a biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug with a different mechanism of action (MOA). This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed comparative clinical efficacy of cycling versus switching.

Methods:

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Outcomes included proportion of patients with 20%, 50%, or 70% response to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/ACR50/ACR70 response), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) score below 2.6 or between 2.6 and 3.2, mean change in DAS28 score, mean reduction in and proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful reduction (⩾0.22) in Health Assessment Questionnaire score, number of serious adverse events (AEs), and withdrawals for any reason/due to AEs/lack of treatment efficacy. To account for the wide range of study populations and designs, we developed three models to conduct the NMA: fixed-effect, random-effects, and hierarchical Bayesian. PROSPERO ID: CRD42019122993.

Results:

We identified nine randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. The fixed-effect model suggested a 0.99 probability that switch was the better strategy for increasing odds of a clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 [odds ratio (OR): 1.35 (95% credible interval (CI): 0.96–1.81)]. The fixed-effect model also suggested that switch was associated with lower rates of withdrawal for any reasons [OR: 0.53 (95% CI: 0.40–0.68)]. The random-effects and hierarchical Bayesian models suggested additional uncertainty as they considered more variability than the fixed-effect model.

Discussion:

Results suggest that switching to a drug with a different MOA is more effective and associated with lower rates of withdrawal than cycling to a different TNFi after failure of first-line TNFi. Further trials that directly compare cycling with switching are warranted to better assess comparative efficacy.

Plain language summary

Assessment of the effectiveness of different drug treatment strategies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the published literature

Clinical Utility and Cost Savings in Predicting Inadequate Response to Anti-TNF Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The PrismRA® test identifies rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who are unlikely to respond to anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies. This study evaluated the clinical and financial outcomes of incorporating PrismRA into routine clinical care of RA patients.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was created to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in the 12-month period following first biologic treatment. Two treatment strategies were compared: (1) observed clinical decision-making based on a 175-patient cohort receiving an anti-TNF therapy as their first biologic after failure of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and (2) modeled clinical decision-making of the same population using PrismRA results to inform first-line biologic treatment choice. Modeled costs include biologic drug pharmacy, non-biologic pharmacy, and total medical costs. The odds of inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies and various components of patient care were calculated based on PrismRA results.

RESULTS

Identifying predicted inadequate responders to anti-TNF therapies resulted in a modeled 38% increase in ACR50 response to first-line biologic therapies. The fraction of patients who achieved an ACR50 response to any therapy (TNFi and others) within the 12-month period was 33% higher in the PrismRA-stratified population than in the unstratified population (59 vs. 44%, respectively). When therapy prescriptions were modeled according to PrismRA results, cost savings were modeled for all financial variables: overall costs (4% decreased total, 19% decreased on ineffective treatments), total biologic drug pharmacy (4% total, 23% ineffective), non-biologic pharmacy (2% total, 19% ineffective), and medical costs (6% total, 19% ineffective). Female sex was the clinical metric that showed the greatest association with inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.20, 4.88).

CONCLUSIONS

If PrismRA is implemented into routine clinical care as modeled, predicting which RA patients will have an inadequate response to anti-TNF therapies could save > $7 million in overall ineffective healthcare costs per 1000 patients tested and increase targeted DMARD response rates in RA.

Association of High Serum Interleukin-6 Levels With Severe Progression of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Increased Treatment Response Differentiating Sarilumab From Adalimumab or Methotrexate in a Post Hoc Analysis

Objective

The development of biomarkers to guide treatment decisions is a major research focus in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients with RA have elevated interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) levels; however, the utility of IL‐6 as a predictor of treatment response is unclear. This study was undertaken to investigate, by post hoc analysis, whether baseline IL‐6 levels are predictive of sarilumab treatment responses in 2 phase III studies.

Methods

Serum IL‐6 concentrations were measured in patients with RA prior to receiving sarilumab 200 mg (n = 148) or adalimumab 40 mg (n = 152) every 2 weeks (in the MONARCH trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02332590) or sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo every 2 weeks plus methotrexate (MTX) (n = 401, n = 396, and n = 397, respectively) (in the MOBILITY trial; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01061736). Efficacy and patient‐reported outcomes were compared between and within groups according to IL‐6 tertile using linear and logistic regression.

Results

In MONARCH, patients with high baseline IL‐6 levels (all ≥3 times the upper limit of normal; n = 100) had higher disease activity at baseline than those with low IL‐6 levels (n = 100). The magnitude of clinical improvement over 24 weeks with sarilumab versus adalimumab was greater in patients with high compared to those with low baseline IL‐6 levels. In MOBILITY, compared to patients with low IL‐6 levels (n = 397), patients with high IL‐6 levels (n = 398) had higher disease activity and joint damage at baseline, were more likely to have joint progression, and had less clinical improvement over 52 weeks’ treatment with placebo plus MTX compared to sarilumab 150 mg or 200 mg plus MTX. Baseline IL‐6 and C‐reactive protein levels were both predictive of outcomes. Safety profiles were similar between defined IL‐6 tertiles.

Conclusion

IL‐6 may be a prognostic marker of disease progression and severity, and patients with high IL‐6 levels may be likely to benefit from sarilumab compared to adalimumab or MTX. Prospective validation is warranted to confirm the results of these post hoc analyses.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Do Patients With Moderate or High Disease Activity Escalate Rheumatoid Arthritis Therapy According to Treat-to-Target Principles? Results From the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness Registry of the American College of Rheumatology

OBJECTIVE

Despite strong recommendations for routine measurement of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity and associated treatment changes to attain remission/low disease activity, the measurement tools that clinicians use to evaluate RA patients' disease activity and frequency of treatment change have not been well characterized. Therefore, we evaluated different measurement tools that physicians used to assess RA disease activity and associated RA treatment changes.

METHODS

Using data from the Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness (RISE) registry from January 2016 through June 2017, and using the following criteria: age ≥18 years, diagnosis of RA (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, codes), ≥2 RISE visits, and ≥1 RA disease activity measure scored in 2016, we classified eligible patients' drug use at the index visit as monotherapy or combination therapy with conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Outcomes include change in treatment over 12 months. Mixed models identified factors associated with treatment change.

RESULTS

Among 50,996 eligible patients, 27,274 had longitudinal data. The most commonly used measures were RAPID3 (78.9%) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) (34.2%). The frequency of treatment change during follow-up was relatively low (35.6-54.6%), even for patients with moderate/high disease activity according to RAPID3 or CDAI scores. Older patients (age ≥75 years; adjusted odds ratio [OR_adj ] 0.63 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.50-0.78]) and those already receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs (OR_adj 0.45 [95% CI 0.33-0.61]) or combination therapy with bDMARDs (OR_adj 0.30 [95% CI 0.24-0.38]) were less likely to change RA treatment even after multivariable adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Using the American College of Rheumatology's national RISE registry, one- to two-thirds of RA patients failed to change their treatment, even when experiencing moderate/high disease activity. Multimodal interventions directed at both patients and providers are needed to encourage shared decision-making, goal-directed care, and to overcome barriers to treatment escalation.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication.

METHODS

A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs.

RESULTS

Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557).

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Increased Nonexudative Age-Related Macular Degeneration Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Rheumatoid Arthritis

Purpose

AMD is the leading cause of blindness in the United States. The role of secondary inflammatory disease on AMD progression is largely unknown. Here we investigate the association between AMD and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using MarketScan data for patients aged ≥65 years on Medicare.

Methods

Baseline data were extracted for subjects with at least two International Classification, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnosis codes of RA and control subjects (no RA) and were matched at baseline by propensity score. Matched cohort data were extracted post-baseline time and examined up to 4.5 years of follow-up for ICD-9 diagnosis code AMD records. Multivariable regression models compared risk of an AMD diagnosis post-baseline for RA subjects and matched controls. Days until first AMD diagnosis between RA patients and controls was examined using survival analysis.

Results

Risk of new AMD diagnosis was elevated in RA patients (odds ratio [OR] 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98–2.18), with an increase in nonexudative AMD patients (P < 0.0001). Risk was elevated in female (n = 27,548) (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05–1.17) compared with male (n = 9704; P < 0.001) patients. The time to first AMD diagnosis was shorter for RA subjects than controls (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Our analysis provides support of association between RA diagnosis and increased nonexudative AMD diagnosis.

Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders

Current guidelines recommend treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients to reach low disease activity or remission, however, most biologic-naive RA patients fail to reach treatment targets on their first biologic therapy. Approximately 90% of biologic-naive RA patients receive a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (anti-TNF) as their first biologic treatment, even though several alternative mechanism of action (MOA) therapies are approved as first-line options. After 3 months of therapy, patients may remain on anti-TNF therapy even if they fail to achieve the treatment target, mainly due to formulary structures. This means patients have to endure a second and even a third ineffective anti-TNF-called anti-TNF cycling-before changing MOA. This significantly delays patients from reaching their treatment targets. All anti-TNF drugs target the same molecular and inflammatory pathways; thus, it is not surprising that most patients who are primary non-responders to their initial anti-TNF therapy fail to achieve their treatment targets when cycled through alternative anti-TNFs. This suggests that primary non-responders should be switched to an alternative MOA therapy rather than enduring anti-TNF cycling. Avoiding anti-TNF cycling would prevent disease progression and improve quality of life for RA patients who are primary non-responders to anti-TNFs. The development of a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders to anti-TNFs prior to treatment would allow significantly more patients to reach their treatment target by treating them with alternative MOA therapies as first-line therapies.

Methodologic considerations for noninterventional studies of switching from reference biologic to biosimilars

PURPOSE

As more biosimilars become available in the United States, postapproval noninterventional studies describing biosimilar switching and comparing effectiveness and/or safety between switchers and nonswitchers will play a key role in generating real-world evidence to inform clinical practices and policy decisions. Ensuring sound methodology is critical for making valid inferences from these studies.

METHODS

The Biologics and Biosimilars Collective Intelligence Consortium (BBCIC) convened a workgroup consisting of academic researchers, industry scientists, and practicing clinicians to establish best practice recommendations for the conduct of noninterventional studies of biosimilar and reference biologic switching. The workgroup members participated in eight teleconferences between August 2017 and February 2018 to discuss specific topics and build consensus.

RESULTS

This report provides workgroup recommendations covering five main considerations relating to noninterventional studies describing reference biologic to biosimilar switching and comparing reference biologic to biosimilars for safety and effectiveness in the presence of switching at treatment initiation and during follow-up: (a) selecting appropriate data sources from a range of available options including insurance claims, electronic health records, and registries; (b) study designs; (c) outcomes of interest including health care utilization and clinical endpoints; (d) analytic approaches including propensity scores, disease risk scores, and instrumental variables; and (e) special considerations including avoiding designs that ignore history of biologic use, avoiding immortal time bias, exposure misclassification, and accounting for postindex switching.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations provided in this report provide a framework that may be helpful in designing and critically evaluating postapproval noninterventional studies involving reference biologic to biosimilar switching.

Switching of biological therapies in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Aim:

To assess drug switching, rates of remission and disease activity in Brazilian patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with biologic agents.

Materials & methods:

Using a retrospective method, a total of 94 adult patients were included.

Results:

Anti-TNF was the first choice therapy in 85 (90.4%) patients. After an average of 8 years of follow-up, 55 (59%) patients were taking anti-TNF, 18 (19%) abatacept, eight (9%) tocilizumab and 13 (14%) rituximab. In this period, 99 switches of biological therapy were registered in 55 patients.

Conclusion:

After 8 years of follow-up, 54% of the RA patients on biological therapy were still experiencing high or moderate activity despite established treatment, including switching between different biologic agents.

Biological therapies are new drugs made through biotechnology processes that have greatly improved the treatment of RA. However, sometimes biologic agents must be switched to another biologic or other therapy due to lack of response, intolerance, adverse effects or other reasons. This study aimed to assess drug switching, rates of remission and disease activity in Brazilian patients with RA treated with biologics. Within a follow-up of 8 years, 99 switches of biological therapy were registered in 55 patients. After 8 years of follow-up, activity of disease still remained high or moderate in nearly half of patients.

Biologic and Glucocorticoid Use after Methotrexate Initiation in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Biologic therapies can improve disease control for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but may be both overused and underused. We aimed to identify predictors of greater use of biologic therapies and to identify factors associated with persistent glucocorticoid use.

METHODS

Using national US Veteran's Affairs databases 2005-2016, we identified patients with RA receiving a first-ever prescription of methotrexate (MTX), requiring ≥ 6 months of baseline data. We evaluated predictors of biologic therapy initiation within 2 years of starting MTX and factors associated with baseline and persistent glucocorticoid use at 6-12 months using multivariable models.

RESULTS

Among 17,415 patients starting MTX, 3263 patients received biologic therapy within 2 years (20.6% 2-yr incidence). In adjusted analyses, biologic use was substantially lower in older patients [e.g., aHR 0.20 (95% CI 0.16, 0.26) for patients ≥ 80 vs < 50] and patients with more comorbidities [aHR 0.79 (95% CI 0.72, 0.87) for Charlson score ≥ 3 vs < 3]. Patients with heart failure [aHR 0.68 (95% CI 0.54, 0.84)], cancer [aHR 0.78 (95% CI 0.66, 0.92)], or who were nonwhite [aHR 0.79 (95% CI 0.72, 0.87)] were also less likely to receive a biologic. In contrast, baseline and persistent glucocorticoid use was similar across age groups and more common in patients with greater comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

Biologic therapy is initiated less frequently in patients with RA who are older, have more comorbidities, and who are nonwhite. While biologics may be avoided in older and sicker patients because of safety concerns, glucocorticoid use is similar regardless of age and is more frequent in patients with comorbidities, with implications for patient outcomes.

Therapeutic potency of mTOR signaling pharmacological inhibitors in the treatment of proinflammatory diseases, current status, and perspectives

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway controls cell energy metabolism. There is an interplay between mTOR and proinflammatory signaling pathways, supporting the role of the pathway in the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases. Inhibition of mTOR signaling using specific pharmacological inhibitors could offer therapeutic promise in several inflammatory-associated diseases. In this review, we summarize recent findings on the regulatory effects of mTOR signaling on inflammation and the therapeutic potency of mTOR pharmacological inhibitors in the treatment of inflammatory diseases including cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, atherosclerosis, sepsis, and rheumatoid arthritis for a better understanding and hence a better management of these diseases.