Effectiveness of switching between biologics in psoriatic arthritis- results of a large regional survey

Long-term effectiveness of tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor treatment for psoriatic arthritis in the UK: a multicentre retrospective study

Objective

Real-world evidence of the long-term effectiveness of TNF-α inhibitor (TNFi) therapy in patients with PsA is limited. This study was conducted to describe patterns of TNFi therapy and treatment responses in patients with PsA treated in UK clinical practice.

Methods

A multicentre, retrospective, observational cohort study of consenting patients treated with TNFi for PsA with ≥3 years follow-up from first TNFi initiation (observation period) was carried out in 11 UK National Health Service hospitals. Data were collected concerning baseline patient characteristics, PsA-related treatment pathways and TNFi treatment responses (PsA response criteria components: swollen/tender joint counts, physician and patient global assessments).

Results

The mean age of patients (n = 141) was 50.3 (s.d.: 12.1) years (50% male). During a median observation period of 4.5 (range: 3.4–5.5) years, patients received a median of one (range: one to five) TNFi. Twelve-week response rates for first TNFi (where available) were as follows: 80% (n = 64/80) for swollen joint counts, 79% (n = 63/79) for tender joint counts, 79% (n = 37/47) for physician global assessments, 69% (n = 41/59) for patient global assessments and 79% (n = 37/47) for PsA response criteria. At the end of the observation period, the proportions of patients remaining on first, second, third and fourth/fifth TNFi were 56, 15, 5 and 3%, respectively; 21% of patients permanently discontinued TNFi therapy.

Conclusion

Long-term TNFi therapy is generally well tolerated and may be effective; however, after initial TNFi failure, there appears to be progressively less benefit and more adverse effects with successive TNFi switches. Strategies are needed for effective therapy for PsA beyond the first TNFi failure.

Economic Burden of Switching to Different Biologic Therapies Among Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor-Experienced Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis

Introduction

Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who receive an initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) may switch to another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy. This study compared the healthcare resource use (HRU), expenditures, and time to discontinuation among TNFi-experienced patients with PsA who switched to different biologic therapies in the United States (US).

Methods

Adults with PsA who discontinued an initial TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, golimumab, or certolizumab pegol) and switched to another TNFi or a non-TNFi (ustekinumab or secukinumab) were identified in the Symphony Health Solutions database [Quarter (Q)1 2010–Q2 2017]. Eligible patients had claims data activity for ≥ 12 months before (baseline) and after (study period) the switching date. All-cause HRU, costs (2017 US dollars), and time to discontinuation during the study period were compared between patients switching to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi (index drug). Multivariable regression models adjusted for baseline covariates (index year, age, sex, initial TNFi, comorbidities, baseline HRU, and PsA-related treatment history).

Results

Of 2107 patients switching to another TNFi and 253 switching to a non-TNFi, adalimumab and etanercept were the most common initial TNFi in both cohorts. During the study period, patients switching to another TNFi had significantly fewer dermatologists visits (0.43; p < 0.01) but more rheumatologist visits (1.56, p < 0.01) than patients switching to a non-TNFi. Patients switching to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi incurred significantly lower total average healthcare expenditures (adjusted difference: $17,625; p < 0.01), driven by lower prescription drug (adjusted difference: $17,172; p < 0.01) and hospitalization expenditures (adjusted difference: $5772; p = 0.04). Patients who switched to another TNFi vs. a non-TNFi continued on their index therapy significantly longer (median time to discontinuation: 8.31 vs. 5.68 months; log-rank p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Patients with PsA who switched to another TNFi had lower total healthcare expenditures and longer persistence compared with patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic.

Funding

AbbVie.

Switching Between Biological Treatments in Psoriatic Arthritis: A Review of the Evidence

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthropathy. Therapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents represents the first therapeutic choice for moderate and severe forms; however, PsA patients can experience anti-TNFα failure, lack of efficacy, or adverse events. Several evidences exist on the effectiveness of switching among different TNFα inhibitors, and we reviewed the published data on the effectiveness of anti-TNFα first-, second- and third-line. Most of the studies report that the main reason for switching to a second anti-TNFα agent is represented by lack of efficacy (primary or secondary) and, more rarely, adverse events. Switchers receiving their second anti-TNFα agent have considerably poorer responses compared with non-switchers. Survival of anti-TNFα treatment appears to be superior in PsA patients when compared with rheumatoid arthritis patients. Switching from anti-TNF agents to ustekinumab or secukinumab or apremilast can represent a valid alternative therapeutic strategy.

Second-line biologic therapy optimization in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis

OBJECTIVE

The Italian board for the TAilored BIOlogic therapy (ITABIO) reviewed the most consistent literature to indicate the best strategy for the second-line biologic choice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature to identify English-language articles on efficacy of second-line biologic choice in RA, PsA, and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Data were extracted from available randomized, controlled trials, national biologic registries, national healthcare databases, post-marketing surveys, and open-label observational studies.

RESULTS

Some previously stated variables, including the patients׳ preference, the indication for anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) monotherapy in potential childbearing women, and the intravenous route with dose titration in obese subjects resulted valid for all the three rheumatic conditions. In RA, golimumab as second-line biologic has the highest level of evidence in anti-TNF failure. The switching strategy is preferable for responder patients who experience an adverse event, whereas serious or class-specific side effects should be managed by the choice of a differently targeted drug. Secondary inadequate response to etanercept (ETN) should be treated with a biologic agent other than anti-TNF. After two or more anti-TNF failures, the swapping to a different mode of action is recommended. Among non-anti-TNF targeted biologics, to date rituximab (RTX) and tocilizumab (TCZ) have the strongest evidence of efficacy in the treatment of anti-TNF failures. In PsA and AS patients failing the first anti-TNF, the switch strategy to a second is advisable, taking in account the evidence of adalimumab efficacy in patients with uveitis. The severity of psoriasis, of articular involvement, and the predominance of enthesitis and/or dactylitis may drive the choice toward ustekinumab or secukinumab in PsA, and the latter in AS.

CONCLUSION

Taking in account the paucity of controlled trials, second-line biologic therapy may be reasonably optimized in patients with RA, SpA, and PsA.

Progress in understanding and utilizing TNF-α inhibition for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

The improved recognition of pathogenetic molecular mechanisms has led to the use of drugs targeting cytokines in different inflammatory arthropathies as well psoriatic arthritis (PsA). In particular, the progress in knowledge on tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in the pathogenesis of PsA has changed the therapeutic approach by use of direct and receptor cytokine antagonists. Currently, infliximab (IFX), adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab and certolizumab pegol represent the five anti-TNF-α available for the treatment of PsA. This review describes evidence on treatment aimed at neutralizing TNF-α in PsA patients, from the first study in 2000 until today, mainly derived from randomized clinical trials. In comparison with traditional therapies, anti-TNF-α agents have shown to have more efficacy both in treating clinical aspects, including enthesitis, dactylitis, joint pain and swelling, axial involvement, nail and skin lesions, and in reducing radiographic progression. Moreover, anti-TNF-α agents have been demonstrated to be reasonably safe in PsA, as confirmed by data derived by different registries.

Psoriatic arthritis for the dermatologist

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, progressive, inflammatory spondyloarthropathy that affects approximately one-third of patients with all types of psoriasis. Dermatologists are in a unique position to recognize early symptoms of PsA, initiate appropriate therapy, and prevent development of further disability. The course of PsA can be modulated by immunosuppressive therapy; patients with moderate-to-severe disease require aggressive management with medications proven to halt disease progression. It is essential for the dermatologist to understand the safety, tolerability, efficacy, cost, and potential to halt disease progression with available medications for this relatively common and potentially disabling disease.