A Real-World Effectiveness Study Using a Mobile Application to Evaluate Early Outcomes with Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis

INTRODUCTION

The impact of upadacitinib on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) symptoms was evaluated during the first 12 weeks of treatment via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using a mobile health application (app).

METHODS

Participating rheumatologists from the CorEvitas RA Registry (prospective, observational cohort) recruited patients with RA initiating upadacitinib treatment. A modified version of the ArthritisPower® app was used to collect PROs, including the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), duration of morning joint stiffness, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue 7a Short Form at baseline and weeks 1-4, 8, and 12. RAPID3 responses over time were assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimation to determine the proportion of patients achieving disease activity improvement and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Results were analyzed for all patients initiating upadacitinib and a subsample of TNF inhibitor (TNFi)-experienced patients with moderate to severe disease at baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients with RA initiating upadacitinib (62.1% TNFi-experienced) were included. At week 12, 53 patients (51.4%) completed the study and provided PRO data via the app. Among all patients, improvements in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue were observed at week 1 and were maintained or further improved through week 12. At week 12, 37.5% of patients achieved RAPID3 low disease activity. Starting at week 1, improvements in RAPID3 disease activity category (19.4% of patients) and achievement of MCID (16.3%) were reported, with nearly 50% of patients achieving these outcomes by week 4 (RAPID3 category: 48.8%; MCID: 49.2%) and 60% by week 12 (RAPID3 category: 59.6%; MCID: 59.8%). TNFi-experienced patients generally reported similar outcomes. Patient-reported medication convenience and compliance were generally high.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib was associated with early and significant improvement in RAPID3, pain, morning stiffness, and fatigue regardless of prior TNFi experience. Clinically meaningful improvement in RAPID3 patient-reported disease activity was observed as early as week 1, with continued improvement reported through week 12.

Real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness of cladribine tablets in patients with relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence on the use of cladribine tablets (CladT) for relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (RMS) in the United States is emerging. The objective of this study was to assess the real-world treatment patterns and effectiveness of CladT in RMS.

METHODS

Adults with RMS initiating CladT were selected from the Symphony Integrated Dataverse. Baseline and follow-up periods were the 12 months before and 24 months after CladT initiation (index date). Switching to another disease-modifying therapy (DMT) and number of CladT courses were described during follow-up. Annualized relapse rate (ARR), MS disease severity, Expanded Disability Status Scale-Derived Disability Indicators (EDSS-DDI), corticosteroid use, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) were described during Years 1 and 2 of follow-up and compared with baseline.

RESULTS

A total of 539 CladT-treated patients were included (mean age: 49.9 years; 77.6 % female). Over the 2-year follow-up, 91 % and 59 % of patients had one and two CladT courses, respectively, and 7 % of patients had evidence of switching to another DMT. ARR, MS disease severity score, and corticosteroid use decreased significantly during follow-up compared with baseline, while EDSS-DDI remained stable. All-cause and MS-related HRU decreased during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

CladT-treated patients with RMS had low switch rates, reduced ARR, disease severity, corticosteroid use, and HRU.

A plain language summary on the effectiveness of cladribine tablets compared with other oral treatments for multiple sclerosis: results from the MSBase registry

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?

Patient registries contain anonymous data from people who share the same medical condition. The MSBase registry contains information from over 80,000 people living with multiple sclerosis (MS) across 41 countries. Using information from the MSBase registry, the GLIMPSE (Generating Learnings In MultiPle SclErosis) study looked at real-life outcomes in 3475 people living with MS who were treated with cladribine tablets (Mavenclad^®) compared with other oral treatments.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?

Results showed that people treated with cladribine tablets stayed on treatment for longer than other treatments given by mouth. They also had fewer relapses (also called flare ups of symptoms) than people who received a different oral treatment for their MS.

WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?

The results provide evidence that, compared with other oral treatments for MS, cladribine tablets are an effective medicine for people living with MS.

Comparative effectiveness of cladribine tablets versus other oral disease-modifying treatments for multiple sclerosis: Results from MSBase registry

BACKGROUND

Effectiveness of cladribine tablets, an oral disease-modifying treatment (DMT) for multiple sclerosis (MS), was established in clinical trials and confirmed with real-world experience.

OBJECTIVES

Use real-world data to compare treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in people with MS (pwMS) treated with cladribine tablets versus other oral DMTs.

METHODS

Retrospective treatment comparisons were based on data from the international MSBase registry. Eligible pwMS started treatment with cladribine, fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide tablets from 2018 to mid-2021 and were censored at treatment discontinuation/switch, death, loss to follow-up, pregnancy, or study period end. Treatment persistence was evaluated as time to discontinuation/switch; relapse outcomes included time to first relapse and annualized relapse rate (ARR).

RESULTS

Cohorts included 633 pwMS receiving cladribine tablets, 1195 receiving fingolimod, 912 receiving dimethyl fumarate, and 735 receiving teriflunomide. Individuals treated with fingolimod, dimethyl fumarate, or teriflunomide switched treatment significantly more quickly than matched cladribine tablet cohorts (adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 4.00 (2.54-6.32), 7.04 (4.16-11.93), and 6.52 (3.79-11.22), respectively). Cladribine tablet cohorts had significantly longer time-to-treatment discontinuation, time to first relapse, and lower ARR, compared with other oral DMT cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Cladribine tablets were associated with a significantly greater real-world treatment persistence and more favorable relapse outcomes than all oral DMT comparators.

Patient-reported outcomes of upadacitinib versus abatacept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 12- and 24-week results of a phase 3 trial

Background

In previous clinical trials, patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with upadacitinib (UPA) have improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This post hoc analysis of SELECT-CHOICE, a phase 3 clinical trial, evaluated the impact of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) with background conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on PROs in patients with RA with inadequate response or intolerance to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

Methods

Patients in SELECT-CHOICE received UPA (oral 15 mg/day) or ABA (intravenous). PROs evaluated included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) by visual analog scale (VAS), patient’s assessment of pain by VAS, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration and severity, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), and EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) index score. Least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 24 were based on an analysis of covariance model. Proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were compared using chi-square tests.

Results

Data from 612 patients were analyzed (UPA, n=303; ABA, n=309). Mean age was 56 years and mean disease duration was 12 years. One-third received ≥2 prior bDMARDs and 72% received concomitant methotrexate at baseline. At week 12, UPA- vs ABA-treated patients had significantly greater improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, EQ-5D-5L, 2/4 WPAI domains, and 3/8 SF-36 domains and Physical Component Summary (PCS) scores (P<0.05); significant differences persisted at week 24 for HAQ-DI, morning stiffness severity, SF-36 PCS and bodily pain domain, and WPAI activity impairment domain. At week 12, significantly more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients reported improvements ≥MCID in HAQ-DI (74% vs 64%) and SF-36 PCS (79% vs 66%) and 4/8 domain scores (P<0.05).

Conclusions

At week 12, UPA vs ABA treatment elicited greater improvements in key domains of physical functioning, pain, and general health and earlier improvements in HAQ-DI. Overall, more UPA- vs ABA-treated patients achieved ≥MCID in most PROs at all timepoints; however, not all differences were statistically significant. These data, however, highlight the faster response to UPA treatment.

Trial registration

NCT03086343, March 22, 2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13075-022-02813-x.

Economic Benefit from Improvements in Quality of Life with Upadacitinib: Comparisons with Tofacitinib and Methotrexate in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

Introduction

To compare the economic benefit of upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy from improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods

Data were analyzed from two trials of upadacitinib (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY) and one trial of tofacitinib (ORAL-Standard) that collected HRQOL measurements using the Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey in patients with RA. Direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg once daily and methotrexate were derived from observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT trials using a regression algorithm. Direct medical costs PPPM for patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily were obtained from a published analysis of SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard trial. Short-term (12–14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) estimates of direct medical costs PPPM were compared between upadacitinib and tofacitinib and between upadacitinib and methotrexate.

Results

Over 12 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $252 lower (95% CI $72, $446) for upadacitinib-treated patients versus tofacitinib-treated patients. Medical costs PPPM at weeks 24 and 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $1759; 95% CI $1162, $2449) were significantly lower for upadacitinib than for tofacitinib. Over 14 weeks, direct medical costs PPPM were $399 lower (95% CI $158, $620) for patients treated with upadacitinib monotherapy compared with those treated with methotrexate alone. Direct medical costs at week 48 and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference $2044; 95% CI $1221, $2846) were significantly lower for upadacitinib monotherapy compared with methotrexate alone.

Conclusion

In the short and long term, upadacitinib combination therapy versus tofacitinib combination therapy and upadacitinib monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy were associated with significantly lower direct medical costs for patients with RA.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02675426, NCT02706951, and NCT00853385.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01930-4.

Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).

METHODS

PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined.

RESULTS

In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values.

CONCLUSION

Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

POS0436 PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH UPADACITINIB: THE OM1 RA REGISTRY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in randomized controlled trials,1-6 but there are limited data available on its real-world use and effectiveness in patients with RA.

Objectives:

To describe the characteristics and clinical outcomes at 3 months among real-world patients with RA initiating UPA.

Methods:

The data source for this study was the OM1 RA Registry, a subset of the OM1 Real-World Data Cloud (OM1, Inc, Boston, MA, US), a large, linked clinical and administrative dataset derived from medical and pharmacy claims, electronic medical record data, and death data. This analysis includes data collected in patients who initiated UPA during or after August 2019. Patients had ≥1 prescription for UPA (index date was first UPA prescription), were ≥18 years of age at index date, had ≥6 months of available data in the OM1 RA Registry prior to index date (ie, baseline period), ≥1 baseline disease activity measure, and ≥1 follow-up disease activity measure (3 or 6 months post-index). Disease activity was based on RAPID3 or CDAI. Multivariate analyses were conducted using a mixed-effects linear model adjusting for age, sex, and baseline scores. Outcomes were also assessed by therapy status (monotherapy or combination therapy) and targeted immunomodulator (TIM) use (naïve vs experienced).

Results:

Inclusion criteria were met by 1,102 patients, of whom 620 were on monotherapy and 482 were on combination therapy at index. Mean age was 57.7 years, 83% were female, 75% had prior treatment with a biologic, and 47% had prior treatment with a Janus kinase inhibitor. Of 651 patients with known disease activity category, 113 (17%) were in low disease activity (LDA)/remission. At baseline, overall mean±SD scores were 19.9±12.3 for CDAI, 4.5±2.4 for RAPID3, 5.7±2.8 for pain, 5.2±3.0 for fatigue, 3.1±2.7 for MDHAQ Physician Global Assessment (PGA), 5.2±2.8 for MDHAQ Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), and 3.1±2.3 for MDHAQ Functional Index. At 3 months post-UPA initiation, mean (95% CI) change in CDAI was –5.1 (–7.5 to –2.7) in the monotherapy group and –5.9 (–8.7 to –3.0) in the combination group. At 3 months, 29% (109/374) of patients were in LDA/remission and 32% (120/374) of patients showed improvement in disease activity. Of 94 patients with moderate disease at baseline, 34 (36%) were in LDA/remission at 3 months. Of 215 patients with high disease at baseline, 30 (14%) were in LDA/remission and 49 (23%) had moderate disease at 3 months. RAPID3 and other outcomes also improved at 3 months in the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 months and maintained at 6 months post-UPA initiation. Of 1,102 patients, 16% were TIM naïve and 84% TIM experienced. Both TIM-naïve and TIM-experienced patients achieved significant mean changes in CDAI (–5.7 [–10.8 to –0.6] and–5.0 [–7.0 to –3.0], respectively) and RAPID3 (–1.0 [–1.6 to –0.4] and –0.5 [–0.8 to –0.1]) at 3 months (Table 1). Improvements in clinical outcomes were maintained at 6 months in both TIM-naïve and TIM-experienced patients.

Conclusion:

Significant improvements in disease activity were consistently observed at 3 months and maintained at 6 months post-UPA initiation regardless of monotherapy, combination therapy, or prior TIM use.

References:

[1]Fleischmann R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1788–800.

[2]Smolen JS. Lancet. 2019;393:2303–11.

[3]Burmester GR. Lancet. 2018;382:2505–12.

[4]Genovese MC. Lancet. 2018;391:2513–24.

[5]van Vollenhoven R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72:1607–20.

[6]Rubbert-Roth A. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1511–21.

Table 1.

Change in clinical outcomes from baseline at 3 months: TIM-naïve and TIM-experienced groups

TIM naïve(N=179)TIM experienced(N=923)nMean changenMean changeCDAI36–5.7*160–5.0*RAPID367–1.0*189–0.5*Pain (VAS)76–1.5*237–0.9*Fatigue46–0.7149–0.5MDHAQ PGA65–0.7*251–0.7*MDHAQ PtGA97–0.6*383–0.3MDHAQ Functional Index72–0.7*215–0.2

*Statistically significant change from baseline (P<0.05).

Acknowledgements:

Funding statement: Financial support for the study was provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the abstract. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content.

Acknowledgment:

Medical writing services were provided by Joann Hettasch of Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, part of Fishawack Health, and funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Bergman Shareholder of: JNJ (parent of Janssen), Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sandoz, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sandoz, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Allison Bryant: None declared, Ia Topuria: None declared, Tom Brecht: None declared, Kendall Dunlap Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Allan Gibofsky Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Horizon, J&J, Pfizer, Regeneron, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Acquist, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, Samumed, Consultant of: AbbVie, Acquist, Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, Sandoz, Samumed

POS0670 ROUTINE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT INDEX DATA 3 (RAPID3) IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TREATED WITH LONG-TERM UPADACITINIB THERAPY

Background:

Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) is a pooled index of 3 patient-reported measures: patient global assessment, pain, and physical function. RAPID3 was shown to correlate with other composite measures of disease activity1 and is recommended by the American College of Rheumatology for use in clinical practice.2

Objectives:

To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib (UPA) versus comparators on RAPID3 over 60 weeks, as well as the correlation of RAPID3 scores with other disease measures in the UPA phase 3 SELECT clinical program.

Methods:

This post hoc analysis included placebo-controlled (SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, and -COMPARE) and active comparator-controlled (SELECT-EARLY, -MONOTHERAPY, and -COMPARE) trials. Patients received UPA as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). Mean change from baseline in RAPID3 and the proportion of patients reporting RAPID3 remission (≤3), low (LDA, >3 to ≤6), moderate (MDA, >6 to ≤12), and high disease activity (HDA, >12) were assessed. Correlations between absolute scores for RAPID3 and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), and 28-joint Disease Activity Score with C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]) were assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. All data are as observed.

Results:

A total of 661, 498, 648, 1629, and 945 patients were included from SELECT-NEXT, -BEYOND, -MONOTHERAPY, -COMPARE, and -EARLY. At baseline, the majority of patients across all studies were in RAPID3 HDA (mean baseline RAPID3 [across all studies], 17.2–19.2) (Table 1 and Figure 1). Improvements from baseline in RAPID3 were observed with UPA 15 mg and 30 mg through Week 60, with numerically greater improvements observed with UPA compared with active comparators (Table 1). Across studies, mean improvements in RAPID3 exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) with UPA and adalimumab (ADA) treatment (MCID=3.83). By Week 60, approximately one-half of UPA-treated patients were in RAPID3 remission or LDA, with only 10–25% remaining in HDA, except for the more refractory population in SELECT-BEYOND, in which ~38% of patients remained in HDA (Figure 1). RAPID3 scores moderately to strongly correlated with CDAI (ρ=0.69–0.83), SDAI (ρ=0.69–0.82), and DAS28(CRP) (ρ=0.58–0.77), across all studies, at Week 60 (all p<0.001).

Conclusion:

UPA, as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, was associated with improvements in patient-reported disease activity, pain, and physical function, as assessed by RAPID3 over 60 weeks in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program. RAPID3 continues to be an important tool in clinical practice to assess disease activity, as it was shown to correlate to other disease activity measures and allows for rapid scoring.

References:

[1]Pincus T, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010;62:181–9.

[2]England BR, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2019;71:1540–55.

[3]Ward MM, et al. J Rheumatol 2019;46:27–30.

Table 1.

Change from BL in RAPID3 at Week 60 (as observed)

Phase 3 studyGroupnaMean (SD) BL scoreMean (SD) change from BLbSELECT-EARLYc(MTX-naïve)MTX23618.5 (5.6)−9.6 (7.5)UPA 15 mg QD26918.9 (5.6)−12.0 (7.6)UPA 30 mg QD25318.2 (5.6)−13.4 (7.2)SELECT-NEXT(csDMARD-IR)UPA 15 mg QD17217.7 (5.1)−11.1 (7.3)UPA 30 mg QD17217.6 (5.3)−10.4 (6.8)SELECT-MONOTHERAPY(MTX-IR)UPA 15 mg QD17217.4 (5.8)−9.6 (7.4)UPA 30 mg QD18017.2 (5.9)−10.6 (7.2)SELECT-COMPAREc(MTX-IR)UPA 15 mg QD55218.5 (5.5)−10.2 (7.1)ADA 40 mg EOW26418.7 (5.4)−8.8 (6.7)SELECT-BEYOND(bDMARD-IR)UPA 15 mg QD13319.2 (5.1)−8.6 (6.8)UPA 30 mg QD11818.5 (5.3)−9.3 (7.3)

b, biologic; BL, baseline; EOW, every other week; IR, inadequate response; MTX, methotrexate; QD, once daily; SD, standard deviation

aNumber of patients with RAPID3 values at both BL and Week 60. bNegative values indicate improvement from BL. cObserved data include patients rescued to UPA and/or ADA; treatment effect may include both the randomized and switch treatments in these patients

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Grant Kirkpatrick, MSc, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi/Regeneron, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, Horizon, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi/Regeneron, and Scipher, Maya H Buch Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, Sandoz, and Sanofi, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Yoshiya Tanaka Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GSK, Janssen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB, and YL Biologics, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi Tanabe, MSD, Ono, Taisho Toyama, and Takeda, Gustavo Citera Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Pfizer, and Roche, Sami Bahlas: None declared, Ernest Wong Consultant of: AbbVie, Chugai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Chugai, Novartis, and UCB, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Vibeke Strand Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Ichnos, Inmedix, Janssen, Kiniksa, MSD, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Scipher, Setpoint, and UCB.

POS0666 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS OF UPADACITINIB AT 3 MONTHS IN US PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS FROM THE UNITED RHEUMATOLOGY NORMALIZED INTEGRATED COMMUNITY EVIDENCE (NICE[TM]) REAL-WORLD DATA

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA), an oral Janus kinase inhibitor (JAKi), has demonstrated efficacy in the phase 3 SELECT clinical program, conducted across a range of patients (pts) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).1–6 Real-world data for UPA, including in pts previously treated with a JAKi, have not yet been reported since global approvals beginning in 2019.

Objectives:

To assess the characteristics of US-based pts receiving UPA and its effectiveness in clinical practice at 3 months.

Methods:

This observational study included US-based pts from the United Rheumatology Normalized Integrated Community Evidence (UR-NICE) database who initiated UPA 15 mg once daily from FDA approval (August 2019) to July 31, 2020 and had ≥6-month pre-baseline data available. Effectiveness was assessed in pts with a reported Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score at 3 months after UPA initiation and included proportions of pts achieving CDAI remission (≤2.8), CDAI low disease activity (≤10), other disease activity measures, and pt-reported outcomes. A subgroup analysis assessed UPA effectiveness in pts with or without prior tofacitinib (TOFA) treatment.

Results:

This analysis included 252 pts treated with UPA 15 mg, of whom 98 (38.9%) received UPA monotherapy and 154 (61.1%) received UPA combined with conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). 64.3% of pts were from the Southern region of the USA. 86.1%, 72.2%, and 47.6% of pts had been previously treated with csDMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and JAKis, respectively. Baseline characteristics were largely similar between UPA monotherapy and combination therapy groups and those with or without prior TOFA treatment (Table 1). Pts with prior TOFA treatment had a longer duration of RA since diagnosis and higher steroid use versus those without. UPA 15 mg improved disease activity scores (including CDAI) and pt-reported outcomes (including physical function and pain) after 3 months of treatment (Figure 1). Similar effectiveness was observed with UPA 15 mg in pts with or without prior TOFA treatment.

Conclusion:

In the UR-NICE real-world database of US-based pts, improvements in clinical and pt-reported outcomes were observed at 3 months in UPA-treated pts with RA, including those with or without prior TOFA treatment, despite the treatment-refractory population included in this dataset.

References:

[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2503–12.

[2]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet 2019;393:2303–11.

[3]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019;71:1788–800.

[4]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet 2018;391:2513–24.

[5]van Vollenhoven R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:1607–20.

[6]Rubbert-Roth A, et al. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1511–21.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics

n (%), unless otherwise statedFull analysis set(n=252)Pts with prior TOFA treatment(n=113)Pts without prior TOFA treatment (n=139)Mean (SD) exposure, days219.7 (112.1)215.7 (116.7)222.9 (108.5)Female199 (79.0)85 (75.2)114 (82.0)Age ≥65 years75 (29.8)34 (30.1)41 (29.5)Oral steroid use140 (55.6)70 (61.9)70 (50.4)Prior csDMARDs217 (86.1)102 (90.3)115 (82.7)Prior TOFA113 (44.8)113 (100.0)0Prior biologic DMARDs182 (72.2)86 (76.1)96 (69.1)Tumor necrosis factor inhibitor147 (58.3)66 (58.4)81 (58.3)Interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor87 (34.5)47 (41.6)40 (28.8)nMean (SD)nMean (SD)nMean (SD)Duration of RA diagnosis, years1884.0 (3.0)895.1 (2.9)993.1 (2.8)Methotrexate dose, mg/week8817.0 (5.1)2817.8 (5.0)6016.6 (5.2)SJC282394.8 (5.7)1084.5 (5.0)1315.0 (6.2)TJC282376.5 (6.7)1076.5 (6.8)1306.5 (6.6)CDAI22520.4 (13.4)10520.2 (13.5)12020.6 (13.3)Routine assessment of patient index data 31654.2 (2.3)724.2 (2.4)934.3 (2.2)Disease Activity Score in 28 joints based on C-reactive protein1673.9 (1.5)833.9 (1.5)843.9 (1.5)Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index1702.5 (2.1)742.4 (2.2)962.5 (2.1)Pain(0–10)22956.5 (28.5)10456.9 (29.3)12556.1 (28.0)SD, standard deviation; S/TJC, swollen/tender joint count

Acknowledgements:

AbbVie funded this study; contributed to its design; participated in data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and participated in the writing, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing support was provided by Hilary Wong, PhD, of 2 the Nth (Cheshire, UK), and was funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Allan Gibofsky Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Flexion, Pfizer, Relburn Pharma, and Samumed. Paid consultant with investment analysts on behalf of the Gerson Lehrman Group, Bhavna Dhillon Shareholder of: May own stock or options in United Rheumatology, Employee of: United Rheumatology, Mark E. Pearson Shareholder of: May own AbbVie stock or options, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: May own stock or options in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kendall Dunlap Shareholder of: May own stocks or shares in AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Grace Wright Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Exagen, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Sanofi/Regeneron, UCB, and Vindico, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Exagen, Gilead, Janssen, Myriad Autoimmune, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi/Regeneron, and UCB, Employee of: President and Founder of the Association of Women in Rheumatology

POS0435 CHARACTERISTICS AND 6-MONTH OUTCOMES AMONG REAL-WORLD PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS INITIATING UPADACITINIB: ANALYSIS FROM THE CORRONA REGISTRY

Background:

Upadacitinib (UPA) has demonstrated efficacy in randomized controlled trials1-3; however, few data are available from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have been treated with UPA in real-world clinical practice.

Objectives:

Describe the characteristics and 6-month outcomes in patients with RA initiating UPA in a real-world setting.

Methods:

We identified adults with RA enrolled in the Corrona RA Registry through October 31, 2020 who initiated UPA during or after August 2019 and had a follow-up visit 6 (±3) months after initiation of UPA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics in all patients initiating UPA who had a 6-month follow-up visit. Outcomes (CDAI, modified HAQ-DI, pain, and fatigue) were described at the 6-month visit for all UPA initiators regardless of UPA use at 6 months and for the subset of patients who continued UPA through the 6-month visit. Patients who discontinued UPA before the 6-month visit were considered non-responders for dichotomous variables and were assigned the value at the time of discontinuation for continuous variables. Mean change from baseline in continuous variables was analyzed with one-sample t tests or one-sample Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in HAQ-DI is defined as an improvement of 0.22 units or more. MCID in CDAI is an improvement of at least 2, 7, and 13 units for patients in low, moderate and severe disease at initiation, respectively. MCID for 100-point VAS is an improvement of ≥10 points. Percentages of patients achieving MCID thresholds were calculated.

Results:

We identified 181 patients who initiated UPA and had a 6-month follow-up visit. Mean±SD age was 58.6±12.1 years, 81% were female. Patients had RA for a mean of 11.5±9.8 years. At UPA initiation, 45% of patients were on monotherapy. Prior use of one or more TNFi and JAKi was 79% and 52%, respectively. Seventy-two percent of patients (n=130) initiated UPA as the third or higher line of therapy. Mean CDAI was 18.7±11.6 and mean HAQ-DI was 1.1±0.8 at initiation. Based on CDAI (n=155), 29%, 52%, and 15% of patients had high, moderate, and low disease activity, respectively; 4.5% were in remission at initiation. At 6 months (n=158), 22%, 39%, and 28% had high, moderate, and low disease activity, respectively; 11% were in remission. Among 138 initiators with valid CDAI measures at initiation and 6 months, mean change in CDAI was –4.8±11.8, P<0.01. At 6 months, 46% (63/138) maintained and 39% (54/138) achieved improvement in any CDAI category. Improvements in other outcomes were significantly different from zero. Improvements >=MCID in CDAI, HAQ-DI, pain, and fatigue were achieved in 36–44% of UPA initiators. Improvements were similar, but larger in the subset of patients (n=122) who continued UPA through the 6-month visit (Table 1).

Conclusion:

Among patients in the Corrona RA Registry, UPA is frequently started in those who failed multiple previous therapies. UPA initiators responded to therapy in the first 6 months with improvements in several disease activity measures including CDAI and HAQ-DI, as well as patient-reported pain and fatigue.

References:

[1]Fleischmann R. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:1788–800.

[2]Smolen JS. Lancet. 2019;393:2303–11.

[3]Burmester GR. Lancet. 2018;382:2505–12.

Outcomes at 6-month follow-upAll initiators(n=181)Subset remainingon UPA (n=122)nValueanValueaRemission (CDAI <2.8)15818 (11)10512 (11)Low (CDAI >=2.8 and <10)15844 (28)10538 (36)Moderate (CDAI >=10 and <22)15862 (39)10536 (34)High (CDAI >=22)15834 (22)10519 (18)Improvement in any CDAI category13854 (39)8940 (45)Maintenance of CDAI category13863 (46)10539 (44)Mean change in CDAI138–4.8±11.8*89–7.1±12.0* HAQ-DI154–0.1±0.5*101–0.2±0.5* Pain154–9.3±25.1*101–13.5±25.8* Fatigue153–7.6±27.3*100–12.5±27.5*MCID achievement in CDAI13857 (41)8943 (48) HAQ-DI15455 (36)10139 (39) Pain15468 (44)10153 (52) Fatigue15365 (42)10049 (49)

aMean±SD or n (%).

*P<0.01 for improvement significantly different from zero.

Acknowledgements:

This study was sponsored by Corrona, LLC. Corrona has been supported through contracted subscriptions in the last 2 years by AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Crescendo, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sun, UCB, and Valeant. The design, study conduct, and financial support for the study were provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the abstract. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

Medical writing services were provided by Joann Hettasch of Fishawack Facilitate Ltd., part of Fishawack Health, and funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Joel M Kremer Shareholder of: Corrona, Consultant of: AbbVie, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Employee of: Corrona, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Robert McLean Employee of: Corrona, Taylor Blachley Employee of: Corrona, anna maniccia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Dimitrios A Pappas Shareholder of: Corrona, Consultant of: AbbVie, Genentech, Novartis, Regeneron, and Roche Hellas, Employee of: Corrona

Healthcare Costs of Not Achieving Remission in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in the United States: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction

To compare all-cause and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)-related healthcare costs and resource use in patients with RA who do not achieve remission versus those who achieve remission, using clinical practice data.

Methods

Data were derived from Optum electronic health records linked to claims from commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. Two cohorts were created: remission and non-remission. Remission was defined as Disease Activity Score 28-joint count with the C-reactive protein level or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-CRP/ESR) < 2.6 or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3 ≤ 3.0). Outcomes were all-cause and RA-related costs and resource use during a 1-year follow-up period. A weighted generalized linear regression and negative binomial regression were used to estimate adjusted annual costs and resource use, respectively, controlling for confounding factors, including patient and socio-demographic characteristics.

Results

Data from 335 patients (remission: 125; non-remission: 210) were analyzed. Annual all-cause total costs were significantly less in the remission versus non-remission cohort ($30,427 vs. $38,645, respectively; cost ratio [CR] = 0.79; 95% CI 0.63, 0.99). All-cause resource use (mean number of visits) was less in the remission versus non-remission cohort: inpatient (0.23 vs. 0.63; visit ratio [VR] = 0.36; 95% CI 0.19, 0.70), emergency department (0.36 vs. 0.77; VR = 0.47; 95% CI 0.30, 0.74), and outpatient visits (20.7 vs. 28.5; VR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.62, 0.86). Annual RA-related total costs were similar in both cohorts; however, RA-related medical costs were numerically lower in the remission versus non-remission cohort ($8,594 vs. $10,002, respectively; CR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.59, 1.25). RA-related resource use was less in the remission versus non-remission cohort.

Conclusions

Significant economic burden was associated with patients who did not achieve remission compared with those who did achieve remission.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01730-w.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE

Objective

To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR).

Methods

PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated.

Results

Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks.

Conclusion

In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

FRI0100 COMPARISON OF PATIENTS (PTS) WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS (RA) AMONG DISEASE ACTIVITY CATEGORIES AFTER 6 MONTHS OF TREATMENT WITH A TUMOUR NECROSIS FACTOR INHIBITOR (TNFI): RESULTS FROM THE CORRONA® RA REGISTRY

Background:

Targeting remission (REM) or low disease activity (LDA) is a widely accepted treatment strategy for RA. However, there are limited data on the proportion of pts who achieve these targets, or remain in moderate (MDA) or high disease activity (HDA) following advanced therapy.

Objectives:

To estimate the proportion of RA pts in disease activity states (REM, LDA, MDA, and HDA) who were biologic-naïve at initiation and had continuous treatment with a TNFi for 6–12 months in the Corrona RA registry.

Methods:

Eligible pts were aged ≥18 years, biologic-naïve, initiated TNFi treatment between January 1, 2010 and July 31, 2019, and had continuous use of a TNFi for 6–12 months. Disease activity was defined based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at the visit closest to 6-month follow-up: REM, ≤2.8; LDA, >2.8–10; MDA, >10–22; and HDA, >22. Disease characteristics, disease activity measures, and pt-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported at TNFi initiation and at the 6-month follow-up visit.

Results:

2586 biologic-naïve pts who initiated a TNFi and had continuous use for 6–12 months were included. At TNFi initiation, 167 (6%) were in REM, 479 (19%) had LDA, 907 (35%) had MDA, and 1033 (40%) had HDA. After 6–12 months of treatment, 563 (21.8%) were in REM, 923 (35.7%) had LDA, 674 (26.1%) had MDA, and 426 (16.5%) had HDA. Pts with HDA/MDA at 6–12 months were more likely to have a history of hypertension (32.7% HDA; 34.0% MDA; vs 23.6% REM) and had higher mean body mass index (BMI) (30.9 HDA; 31.1 MDA; vs 29.0 REM) at baseline compared with pts in REM. Disease activity measures and PROs were worse in pts with MDA and HDA vs LDA and REM after 6–12 months (Table). Pt Global Assessment was higher than Physician Global Assessment across all groups.

Conclusion:

While 57.4% of pts who initiated a TNFi experienced a favorable outcome, >40% required additional or alternative intervention to achieve REM/LDA. Pts who remained in MDA/HDA continued to have an inadequate response to TNFi (as measured by disease activity measures and PROs) after 6–12 months of treatment compared with those who achieved REM/LDA.

Table

Summary of disease activity measures and PROs in previously biologic-naïve pts at the 6–12-month follow-up visit, stratified by disease activity category at the 6–12-month follow-up visit

Characteristics at 6–12 months, mean (standard deviation)Disease activity category at 6–12 monthsREM (n=563)LDA (n=923)MDA (n=674)HDA (n=426)CDAI1.2 (0.8)6.2 (2.1)15.4 (3.4)32.7 (9.2)Tender joint count (28)0.1 (0.3)1.0 (1.3)4.3 (3.3)13.4 (7.0)Swollen joint count (28)0.1 (0.3)1.1 (1.6)4.0 (3.6)9.1 (5.9)C-reactive protein6.4 (22.7)7.0 (10.6)11.1 (19.9)12.6 (22.1)Modified health assessment questionnaire0.1 (0.2)0.3 (0.4)0.5 (0.5)0.8 (0.5)Pt global assessment6.6 (6.8)28.6 (20.9)43.7 (25.7)58.0 (22.7)Physician global assessment3.6 (4.3)12.1 (10.4)27.4 (15.9)44.9 (19.8)Pt pain assessment8.7 (11.0)30.3 (23.5)46.1 (27.0)59.9 (24.4)Pt fatigue assessment15.7 (19.2)34.5 (26.6)48.3 (28.0)59.4 (27.5)Morning stiffness (min)16.5 (36.5)55.4 (146.3)96.9 (197.5)143.6 (260.0)

Disclosure of Interests:

Joel M Kremer Shareholder of: May own stocks and opinions, Grant/research support from: Research and consulting fees from AbbVie Inc., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Genentech, Inc., Gilead, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron and Sanofi, Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Anne Winkler Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, and Novratis, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Janssen, Sanofi, Genentech, Celgene, Eli Lilly, and Novartis., Laura Anatale-Tardiff Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Robert McLean Employee of: Corrona, LLC, Ying Shan Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Page Moore Employee of: Corrona, LLC employee, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: May own stocks and options, Employee of: AbbVie employee, Jessica Suboticki Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., John Tesser Consultant of: Sanofi/Regeneron, Speakers bureau: Sanofi/Regeneron

THU0546 HEALTHCARE COSTS OF NOT ACHIEVING REMISSION IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Guidelines recommend sustained remission as a treatment goal for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, only one-third of patients are known to achieve this goal with current treatments. A few studies have evaluated the impact of remission in a real-world setting, but evidence is limited to the elderly population.

Objectives:

To understand the impact of remission on healthcare costs by comparing overall and RA-related direct healthcare costs and resource use in patients with RA who maintain vs those who do not maintain remission using a real-world database.

Methods:

Data for this retrospective cohort study were derived from Optum electronic health records linked to claims from commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States. Patients with ≥2 diagnoses for RA, ≥1 Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28-CRP/ESR) or Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) measurement, and continuous medical and pharmacy coverage 6 months before and 1 year after the index date were included. Two cohorts were created: remission and non-remission. Remission was defined as DAS28 <2.6 or RAPID3 ≤3.0. In the remission cohort, the index date was defined as the first date remission was achieved. In the non-remission cohort, the index date was defined as the first date of DAS28 or RAPID3 measurement. Outcomes were all-cause and RA-related total, medical, and prescription costs; healthcare resource use (number of inpatient, emergency department [ED], outpatient, and other visits); and number of prescriptions within 1 year of index date. A weighted generalized linear model and binomial regression were used to estimate adjusted annual direct costs and healthcare resource use, respectively. Confounding between cohorts due to age, sex, race and comorbidities using the Elixhauser index was controlled for in the models.

Results:

A total of 335 patients with RA (remission cohort: 125; non-remission cohort: 210) met the study inclusion criteria. Annual all-cause total direct costs in the remission cohort were significantly less than in the non-remission cohort ($30,427 vs $38,645, respectively; cost ratio (CR)=0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.99). All-cause medical costs were significantly lower in the remission cohort than in the non-remission cohort (Figure 1); furthermore, among all-cause medical costs, outpatient visit costs were significantly lower in the remission than in the non-remission cohort. All-cause resource use (mean number of visits) was less in the remission vs non-remission cohort: inpatient (0.23 vs 0.63; visit ratio (VR)=0.36; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.70), ED (0.36 vs 0.77; VR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.74), and outpatient visits (20.7 vs 28.5; VR=0.73; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.86). Annual RA-related total direct costs were similar in both cohorts (Figure 2); however, RA-related medical costs were numerically lower in the remission vs non-remission cohort ($8,594 vs $10,002, respectively; CR=0.86; 95% CI: 0.59, 1.25). RA-related resource use (mean number of visits) was less in the remission vs non-remission cohort: inpatient (0.15 vs 0.22; VR=0.67; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.30), ED (0.04 vs 0.13; VR=0.31; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.95), and outpatient visits (5.4 vs 7.4; VR=0.72; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.91).

Conclusion:

Significant economic burden was associated with patients who did not maintain remission compared with those who maintained remission. Although outpatient visits were the driver of medical costs in both groups studied in this analysis, the contribution of outpatient visits was greater among those who did not maintain remission.

Acknowledgments:

Financial support for the study was provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the interpretation of data, review, and approval of the abstract. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Medical writing services were provided by Joann Hettasch of JK Associates Inc., a member of the Fishawack Group of Companies, and funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson – stockholder, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – speakers bureau, Lili Zhou Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Pankaj Patel Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ruta Sawant Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Jerry Clewell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie

AB1148 ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE WITH UPADACITINIB AND COMPARISONS WITH TOFACITINIB AND METHOTREXATE IN PATIENTS WITH MODERATELY TO SEVERELY ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

Background:

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, debilitating autoimmune disease and is associated with high direct medical costs. Treatment of RA with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) can improve patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and has the potential to reduce direct medical costs associated with RA. Treatment with janus kinase inhibitors, such as upadacitinib (UPA), has shown improvements in HRQOL in patients with RA [1].

Objectives:

To estimate the economic benefit from improvements in HRQOL and to compare estimated direct medical costs between: (1) UPA and tofacitinib (TOFA) and (2) UPA monotherapy and methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy in patients with RA.

Methods:

This economic analysis used individual patient-level data from 2 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of UPA (SELECT-NEXT and SELECT-MONO) and published aggregate data from 1 RCT of TOFA (ORAL-Standard) in patients with moderate to severe RA that collected repeated measurements of HRQOL based on the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). Estimated direct medical costs per patient per month (PPPM) for UPA 15mg once daily (QD) and MTX were estimated based on observed SF-36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in the SELECT RCTs using a published regression algorithm [2]. Direct medical costs PPPM for TOFA 5mg twice daily (BID) were estimated from Rendas-Baum, et al [3], which applied the same regression algorithm to SF-36 PCS and MCS scores observed in the ORAL-Standard RCT. Resulting estimates of direct medical costs PPPM in the short-term (12–14 weeks) and long-term (48 weeks) were compared between UPA and TOFA and between UPA and MTX. Costs were inflation-adjusted to 2018 US dollars. Bootstrapping was used to generate 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results:

Over 12 weeks, estimated direct medical costs PPPM were $186 lower (95% CI: $21, $364) in patients treated with UPA compared with those treated with TOFA. Estimated long-term medical costs PPPM at Weeks 24 and 48 (Figure 1) and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference: $1,452; 95% CI: $906, $2,086; Table) were significantly lower for UPA than for TOFA. Over 14 weeks, estimated direct medical costs PPPM were $370 lower (95% CI: $147, $575) in patients treated with UPA monotherapy compared with those treated with MTX alone. Estimated long-term direct medical costs at Week 48 (Figure 2) and cumulative costs over the entire 48-week period (difference: $2,120; 95% CI: $1,398, $2,861; Table) were significantly lower for UPA monotherapy compared with MTX alone.

Conclusion:

Based on improvements in HRQOL in the short-term and long-term, UPA 15mg QD was associated with significantly lower direct medical costs than TOFA 5mg BID in patients with active RA. UPA 15mg QD monotherapy was associated with significantly lower direct medical costs than MTX monotherapy in patients with active RA. These results provide evidence of the economic benefits of UPA as a novel treatment for moderate to severe RA.

References:

[1]Strand V, et al.Arthritis Res Ther2019;21:272;

[2]Fleishman JA, et al.Med Care2006;44(Suppl 5):I54–63;

[3]Rendas-Baum R, et al.Rheumatology2017;56:1386–94.

Table.

Cumulative cost savings over 48 weeks with UPA vs TOFA and UPA vs MTX

TreatmentTotal 48-week medical costs ($)Difference (95% CI)UPA vs TOFATOFA 5mg BID8,9641,452 (906, 2,086)UPA 15mg QD7,511—UPA vs MTXMTX9,8332,120 (1,398, 2,861)UPA 15mg QD7,713—

Acknowledgments:

Financial support for the study was provided by AbbVie. AbbVie participated in the study design, research, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing, reviewing, and approving the publication. Medical writing services, provided by Joann Hettasch of JK Associates Inc., were funded by AbbVie.

Disclosure of Interests:

Arielle Bensimon Employee of: Analysis Group, Min Yang Employee of: Analysis Group, Eli Orvis Employee of: Analysis Group, Jerry Clewell Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Namita Tundia Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie

Cost-utility analyses of targeted immunomodulators in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review

Aims: Cost-utility (CU) modeling is a common technique used to determine whether new treatments represent good value for money. As with any modeling exercise, findings are a direct result of methodology choices, which may vary widely. Several targeted immuno-modulators have been launched in recent years to treat moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) which have been evaluated using CU methods. Our objectives were to identify common and innovative modeling choices in moderate-to-severe RA and to highlight their implications for future models in RA.Materials and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify CU models in moderate-to-severe RA published from January 2013 to June 2019. Studies must have included an active comparator and used quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the common measure of effectiveness. Modeling methods were characterized by stakeholder perspective, simulation type, mapping between parameters, and data sources.Results: Thirty-one published modeling studies were reviewed spanning 13 countries and 9 drugs, with common methodological choices and innovations observed among them. Over the evaluated time period, we observed common methods and assumptions that are becoming more prominent in the RA CU modeling landscape, including patient-level simulations, two-stage models combining trial results and real-world evidence, real-world treatment durations, long-term health consequences, and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)-related hospitalization costs. Models that consider the societal perspective are increasingly being developed as well.Limitations: This review did not consider studies that did not report QALYs as a utility measure, models published only as conference abstracts, or cost-consequence models that did not report an incremental CU ratio.Conclusions: CU modeling for RA increasingly reflects real-world conditions and patient experiences which are anticipated to provide better information in the assessment of health technologies. Future CU models in RA should consider applying the observed advances in modeling choices to optimize their CU predictions and simulation of real-world outcomes.

Comparative Efficacy of JAK Inhibitors for Moderate-To-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are a class of targeted therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with established clinical efficacy. However, little is known about their efficacy compared with each other. This network meta-analysis (NMA) estimated the comparative efficacy of JAK inhibitors currently approved for RA.

Methods

A targeted literature review was conducted for phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of three approved JAK inhibitors (tofacitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib) as monotherapy or combination therapy among patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD-IR). Using Bayesian NMA, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 responses and clinical remission (defined as DAS28-CRP < 2.6) were evaluated separately at 12 and 24 weeks.

Results

Eleven RCTs were identified and included in the NMA. All JAK inhibitors demonstrated significantly better efficacy than csDMARD. Among combination therapies, upadacitinib 15 mg had the highest 12-week ACR50 responses (median [95% credible interval]: 43.4% [33.4%, 54.5%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (38.7% [28.6%, 49.8%]), baricitinib 2 mg (37.1% [25.0%, 50.6%]), and baricitinib 4 mg (36.7%, [27.2%, 47.0%]). Similar results were observed for ACR20/70 and at week 24. Upadacitinib 15 mg + csDMARD was also found to have the highest clinical remission rates at week 12 (29.8% [16.9%, 47.0%]), followed by tofacitinib 5 mg (24.3%, [12.7%, 40.2%]), baricitinib 4 mg (22.8%, [11.8%, 37.5%]), and baricitinib 2 mg (20.1%, [8.6%, 37.4%]). Similar results were seen at week 24. Among monotherapies, upadacitinib had a higher ACR50 response (38.5% [25.3%, 53.2%]) than tofacitinib (30.4% [18.3%, 45.5%]). The differences in efficacy measures were not statistically significant between the JAK inhibitors.

Conclusions

The NMA found that upadacitinib 15 mg once daily had numerically higher efficacy in terms of ACR response and clinical remission among approved JAK combination therapies and monotherapies for csDMARD-IR patients with RA.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01303-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Economic burden of fatigue or morning stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis from real-world data

Objective: Determine healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with fatigue and stiffness among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: A retrospective claims analysis compared RA patients with fatigue or stiffness to matched RA control patients with neither. Claims from a large US commercial insurance database identified new cases of stiffness/fatigue among newly diagnosed patients. Study patients had ≥2 medical claims for RA ≥45 days apart, continuous insurance coverage ≥12 months before RA index (baseline period) and ≥12 months after fatigue/stiffness index (follow-up period). Controls had no diagnosis of fatigue or stiffness ≥12 months before index. Cases had ≥1 claim of fatigue/stiffness after RA index; the first such claim was the index date. Multivariate logistic regressions, adjusting for baseline demographics, comorbidities, medication use and HCRU, were used to predict the propensity of having a fatigue/stiffness diagnosis. Controls were propensity-score matched to cases. Generalized linear models estimated all-cause and RA-specific costs associated with resource use as well as prescription drugs, adjusting for any unbalanced covariates after propensity-score matching.Results: Approximately 32% of newly diagnosed RA patients suffer from fatigue/stiffness. Matched cohorts were analyzed: fatigue vs. control; stiffness vs. control; fatigue and stiffness vs. control. After RA diagnosis, hospitalizations increased: 83% for fatigue, 117% for stiffness and 148% for both; total office visits increased 63%, 113% and 135%, respectively. Greater HCRU yielded significantly greater (all p < .001) per-patient-per-year hospitalization costs vs. matched controls: fatigue ($2554 vs. $1293); stiffness ($2792 vs. $892); fatigue and stiffness ($3322 vs. $1033). Per-patient-per-year costs of office visits increased significantly (all p < .001) vs. matched controls: fatigue ($1373 vs. $908); stiffness ($1580 vs. $761); fatigue and stiffness ($1989 vs. $921).Conclusions: RA patients with fatigue and/or stiffness report more HCRU and incur significantly higher medical costs than RA patients without them.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT

Background

To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs.

Methods

Patients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests.

Results

Data from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients.

Conclusions

Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR).

METHODS

PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated.

RESULTS

In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

Development and content validity of new patient-reported outcome questionnaires to assess the signs and symptoms and impact of atopic dermatitis: the Atopic Dermatitis Symptom Scale (ADerm-SS) and the Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (ADerm-IS)

Objectives: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing skin condition, with signs and symptoms that impact patients' lives and are best measured from the patient perspective. Therefore, there is a need for AD-specific questionnaires that are consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidance and best measurement practices, assessing sign and symptom severity and associated impacts, to support treatment efficacy in regulated trials. The objectives were to develop patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assessing sign and symptom severity, as well as impacts of moderate-to-severe adult AD. Methods: A targeted literature review and meetings with clinical experts (dermatologists) were conducted to identify AD-related sign, symptom, and impact concepts. Results were harmonized and used to construct two draft PRO questionnaires: the Atopic Dermatitis Symptom Scale (ADerm-SS; 11 items) and the Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale (ADerm-IS; 10 items). The content validity and questionnaire content were evaluated via qualitative concept elicitation/cognitive debriefing interviews with adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Results: From the literature (n = 13 articles), 13 sign and symptom and 43 impact concepts were identified, while 21 sign and symptom and 48 impacts were elicited from experts (n = 3). During the patient interviews (n = 15), 19 sign and symptom and 41 impact concepts were reported, the majority of which were evaluated by the ADerm-SS and ADerm-IS, thus substantiating the content of both questionnaires. Additionally, patients interpreted both questionnaires as intended by the developers. Conclusions: The ADerm-SS and ADerm-IS can be regarded as content-valid PRO questionnaires for moderate-to-severe AD.

Economic Burden of Patients with Inadequate Response to Targeted Immunomodulators for Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

Targeted immunomodulators (TIMs), including biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and JAK/STAT inhibitors, are effective therapies for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but some patients fail to respond or lose response over time. This study estimated the real-world prevalence of RA patients with inadequate responses to an initial TIM (nonresponders) in the United States and assessed their direct and indirect economic burden compared with treatment responders.

METHODS

Administrative claims data (January 1999-March 2014) from a large private-insurer database were used, which included work-loss data from a subset of reporting companies. Eligible patients (classified as responders and nonresponders) had ≥ 1 claim for a TIM approved for the treatment of RA and ≥ 2 RA diagnoses in the claims history, with continuous pharmaceutical and medical benefit eligibility for 6 months before (baseline) and 12 months after (study period) the date of the first TIM claim (index date). All-cause and RA-related health care resource use (HCRU) and costs, work loss, and indirect costs during the study period were compared for responders versus nonresponders. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline covariates. Sensitivity analyses of HCRU and direct costs were conducted for patients with index dates before and after 2008 to account for different approval dates of TIMs.

RESULTS

Of 7,540 eligible patients with RA, 2,527 (34%) were classified as responders, and 5,013 (66%) were classified as nonresponders; 407 and 723 had work-loss data, respectively. After adjusting for baseline covariates, nonresponders had significantly higher HCRU, including inpatient admissions (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.94), outpatient visits (IRR = 1.19), emergency department visits (IRR = 1.53), and number of prescription fills (IRR = 1.09; all, P < 0.001). Nonresponders also had significantly higher adjusted all-cause ($12,868 vs. $9,621, respectively) and RA-related ($5,740 vs. $4,495; both, P < 0.001) medical costs compared with responders. In addition, nonresponders reported significantly more days of work lost compared with responders (22.1 vs. 16.7 days, respectively; IRR = 1.21; P = 0.007) and higher indirect costs ($3,548 vs. $2,890; P = 0.002). Sensitivity analyses of HCRU and direct costs by index date (before and after 2008) were consistent with the full sample.

CONCLUSIONS

A large portion of patients with RA had inadequate responses to their initial TIM therapy with significantly higher economic burden, including higher HCRU, medical costs, and indirect costs due to work loss, compared with TIM therapy responders.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this research was provided by AbbVie, which was involved in all stages of the study research and manuscript preparation. Tundia and Fuldeore are employed by AbbVie. Song and Macaulay are employed by Analysis Group, which received grants from AbbVie to conduct this study. Strand reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Corrona, Crescendo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB outside the submitted work. Study concept and design were contributed by Tundia, Song, and Macaulay, along with other authors. Data analyses were designed and conducted by Song and Macaulay. All authors contributed to data interpretation. Writing of the manuscript was led by Tundia, Song, and Macaulay, with revisions by all authors. A synopsis of the current research was presented at the American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals meeting, which took place in Washington, DC, during November 11-16, 2016.

Economic impact of expanded use of biologic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico

OBJECTIVES

To estimate economic impact resulting from increased biologics use for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and Crohn's disease (CD) in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

METHODS

The influence of increasing biologics use for treatment of RA during 2012-2022 and for treatment of CD during 2013-2023 was modeled from a societal perspective. The economic model incorporated current and projected medical, indirect, and drug costs and epidemiologic and economic factors. Costs associated with expanded biologics use for RA were compared with non-expanded use in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. A similar analysis was conducted for CD in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

RESULTS

Accounting for additional costs of biologics and medical and indirect cost offsets, the model predicts that expanded use of biologics for patients with RA from 2012 to 2022 will result in cumulative net cost savings of ARS$2.351 billion in Argentina, R$9.004 billion in Brazil, COP$728.577 billion in Colombia, and MXN$18.02 billion in Mexico; expanded use of biologics for patients with CD from 2013 to 2023 will result in cumulative net cost savings for patients with CD of R$0.082 billion in Brazil, COP$502.74 billion in Colombia, and MXN$1.80 billion in Mexico. Indirect cost offsets associated with expanded biologics use were a key driver in reducing annual per-patient net costs for RA and CD.

LIMITATIONS

Future economic projections are limited by the potential variance between projected and actual future values of biologic prices, wages, medical costs, and gross national product for each country.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing biologics use to treat RA and CD may limit cost growth over time by reducing medical and indirect costs. These findings may inform policy decisions regarding biologics use in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico.

Impact of Treatment-Related Beliefs on Medication Adherence in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Results of the Global ALIGN Study

INTRODUCTION

Medication adherence is critical in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and could be affected by patients' treatment-related beliefs. The objective of this study was to determine beliefs about systemic medications in patients with IMIDs and to explore the association of those beliefs and other factors with adherence.

METHODS

This was a multi-country, cross-sectional, self-administered survey study. Included were adults diagnosed with one of six IMIDs receiving conventional systemic medications and/or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Patients' necessity beliefs/concerns towards and adherence to treatments were assessed by the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Correlation of patients' beliefs about treatment and other factors with adherence were evaluated by multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

Among studied patients (N = 7197), 32.0% received TNFi monotherapy, 27.7% received TNFi-conventional combination therapy, and 40.3% received conventional medications. Across IMIDs, high adherence to systemic treatment was more prevalent in TNFi groups (61.3-80.7%) versus corresponding conventional treatment groups (28.4-64.7%). In at least four IMIDs, greater perception of the illness continuing forever (P < 0.001), of the treatment helping (P < 0.001), and more concerns about the illness (P < 0.01), but not clinical parameters, were associated with higher treatment necessity beliefs. Higher treatment necessity beliefs, older age, Caucasian race, and TNFi therapy were associated with high medication adherence in at least four IMIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment necessity beliefs were higher than concerns about current medication in patients with IMID. Illness perceptions had a greater impact on treatment necessity beliefs than clinical parameters. Older age, greater treatment necessity beliefs, and TNFi therapy were associated with high self-reported medication adherence in at least four IMIDs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12612000977875.

FUNDING

AbbVie.

Impact of Treatment-Related Beliefs on Medication Adherence in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Results of the Global ALIGN Study

Introduction

Medication adherence is critical in chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and could be affected by patients’ treatment-related beliefs. The objective of this study was to determine beliefs about systemic medications in patients with IMIDs and to explore the association of those beliefs and other factors with adherence.

Methods

This was a multi-country, cross-sectional, self-administered survey study. Included were adults diagnosed with one of six IMIDs receiving conventional systemic medications and/or tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Patients’ necessity beliefs/concerns towards and adherence to treatments were assessed by the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire and four-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. Correlation of patients’ beliefs about treatment and other factors with adherence were evaluated by multivariable regression analyses.

Results

Among studied patients (N = 7197), 32.0% received TNFi monotherapy, 27.7% received TNFi–conventional combination therapy, and 40.3% received conventional medications. Across IMIDs, high adherence to systemic treatment was more prevalent in TNFi groups (61.3–80.7%) versus corresponding conventional treatment groups (28.4–64.7%). In at least four IMIDs, greater perception of the illness continuing forever (P < 0.001), of the treatment helping (P < 0.001), and more concerns about the illness (P < 0.01), but not clinical parameters, were associated with higher treatment necessity beliefs. Higher treatment necessity beliefs, older age, Caucasian race, and TNFi therapy were associated with high medication adherence in at least four IMIDs.

Conclusions

Treatment necessity beliefs were higher than concerns about current medication in patients with IMID. Illness perceptions had a greater impact on treatment necessity beliefs than clinical parameters. Older age, greater treatment necessity beliefs, and TNFi therapy were associated with high self-reported medication adherence in at least four IMIDs.

Trial registration

ACTRN12612000977875.

Funding

AbbVie.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0441-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Direct and indirect resource use, healthcare costs and work force absence in patients with non-infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis

Purpose

To ascertain resource use, costs and risk of workforce absence in non‐infectious uveitis cases versus matched controls.

Methods

In a retrospective claims analysis of employees in the United States, prevalent (N = 705) and incident (N = 776) cases 18–64 years old with ≥2 diagnoses of non‐infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis were matched 1:1 to controls without uveitis. Persistent prevalent cases (treated for ≥90 days, N = 112) also were analysed. Outcomes were annual direct resource use and costs associated with inpatient stays; emergency department, outpatient and ophthalmologist/optometrist visits; and prescription drugs. Indirect resource use and costs associated with work loss from disability and medically related absenteeism also were compared. Multivariate regression assessed cost differences between cases and controls.

Results

Cases had significantly (p < 0.05) more medical resource use versus controls including 0.4 versus 0.2 emergency visits and 16.5 versus 7.6 outpatient/other visits. Cases used more prescription drugs (7.8 versus 4.1) and had more disability days (10.3 versus 4.6), medically related absenteeism days (8.5 versus 3.8), and work loss days (18.7 versus 8.4) than controls (all p < 0.05). Total direct ($12 940 versus $3730) and indirect ($3144 versus $1378) costs were higher in cases than controls (all p < 0.05). Results for persistent cases suggested greater utilization and associated cost and work loss burden. Compared with controls, cases had significantly greater risks of workforce absence, leave of absence and long‐term disability (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Non‐infectious intermediate, posterior or panuveitis, particularly persistent disease, is associated with substantial medical and work loss costs suggesting an unmet need for more effective treatments.

Nomenclature and traceability debate for biosimilars: small-molecule surrogates lend support for distinguishable nonproprietary names

Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the traceability of adverse events (AEs) for branded and generic drugs with identical nonproprietary names and to consider potential implications for the traceability of AEs for branded and biosimilar biologics.

Methods

Adverse event reports in the Food and Drug Administration AE Reporting System (FAERS) were compared with those in a commercial insurance claims database (Truven Health MarketScan^®) for 2 drugs (levetiracetam and enoxaparin sodium) with manufacturing or prescribing considerations potentially analogous to those of some biosimilars. Monthly rates of branded- and generic-attributed AEs were estimated pre- and post-generic entry. Post-entry branded-to-generic AE relative rate ratios were calculated.

Results

In FAERS, monthly AE rate ratios during the post-generic period showed a pattern in which AE rates for the branded products were greater than for the generic products. Differences in rates of brand- and generic-attributed AEs were statistically significant for both study drugs; the AE rate for the branded products peaked at approximately 10 times that of the generic levetiracetam products and approximately 4 times that of the generic enoxaparin sodium products. In contrast, monthly ratios for the MarketScan data were relatively constant over time.

Conclusion

Use of the same nonproprietary name for generic and branded products may contribute to poor traceability of AEs reported in the FAERS database due to the significant misattribution of AEs to branded products (when those AEs were in fact associated with patient use of generic products). To ensure accurate and robust safety surveillance and traceability for biosimilar products in the United States, improved product identification mechanisms, such as related but distinguishable nonproprietary names for biosimilars and reference biologics, should be considered.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0193-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.