Search

Masatoshi Arikawa,1 Kazumi Ota,2 Takaharu Azekawa,1 Shizuko Ohashi,1 Yoichi Funaoka,1 Hiroshi Yoshiie,1 Haruka Koshi,1 Yohei Takaishi,1 Saeka Nakao1 1Department of Psychiatry, Shioiri Mental Clinic, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan; 2Department of Psychiatry, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, JapanCorrespondence: Masatoshi ArikawaDepartment of Psychiatry, Shioiri Mental Clinic, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, JapanEmail masatoshi.arikawa@gmail.comPurpose: One of the challenges of treating schizophrenia is how to improve persistence with outpatient treatments. Lengthening community life by improving persistence and preventing relapse and rehospitalization can have positive influence on the patients’ personal recovery and well-being. In Japan, there is “Medical Expenses for Services and Supports for Persons with Disabilities” (“Jiritsu-shien-iryo-hi” in Japanese) which is the public financial support system for psychiatric outpatient treatments. However, it is not clear how this financial support affects persistence with outpatient treatments for patients with schizophrenia. The purpose of the study is to investigate how the financial support affects persistence with outpatient treatments for schizophrenia.Patients and Methods: Data of outpatients who visited the clinic between October 1, 2006 and September 30, 2016 was collected. The variables for the analysis were continuation and discontinuation of treatment of those who used the financial support (user) and those who did not (nonuser). The covariates were sex, age, time from onset of the disease to first visit to the clinic, number of hospitalizations in the past, use of psychiatric day care, and use of psychiatric home nursing care. Kaplan–Meier analysis was performed using propensity score matching. The observation period was five years from the first visit to the clinic.Results: Among 1155 patients who were diagnosed with schizophrenia, 718 were excluded, based on the exclusion criteria. The propensity score matching was performed for 437 patients, and the subjects for the final analysis were 278. Average survival period was 1.09 (SD ± 1.66) years for nonuser, 3.02 (SD ± 1.77) years for users, and users exhibited a significantly longer number of years of outpatient treatments (P< 0.001).Conclusion: The results indicated that use of the financial support can contribute to persistence with outpatient treatments.Keywords: schizophrenia, treatment persistence, financial support, jiritsu-shien-iryo-hi

Mustafa Acar,1 Prabhjot Juneja,2 Malcolm Handel1 1Janssen-Cilag Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia; 2Prospection Pty Ltd., Sydney, NSW, Australia Introduction: To describe the persistence of treatment with subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab in immune-mediated rheumatic disease (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis) by treatment sequence (first-line treatment, second-line or further lines of treatment). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using the Australian Commonwealth Department of Human Services Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 10% sample data from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2016. Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme indications were used to identify patient prescriptions for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. A patient was considered persistent until a 3-month gap period where a prescription was not dispensed. The 3-month gap interval was chosen because only 1% of all discontinuations occurred beyond this 3-month period. Results: Data from 2,612 first-line patients were included. Treatment discontinuation among first-line patients treated with etanercept or adalimumab was not significantly different from those treated with golimumab (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95–1.28, P=0.22; HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93–1.22, P=0.39; respectively). Among the 1,276 patients in the second-line cohort (etanercept=41%, adalimumab=41%, golimumab=18%) discontinuation was significantly higher for patients on etanercept compared with golimumab (HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03–1.50, P=0.03); but not for adalimumab compared with golimumab (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.91–1.34, P=0.31). In the third-line setting, treatment persistence with etanercept was longer than golimumab (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.96, P=0.02), but there was no difference between golimumab and adalimumab. Similar findings occurred in the propensity score matched population. Conclusion: Our study shows there is variance in real-world persistence to TNFi in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease by line of therapy, with the time on therapy decreasing by line. Australian persistence has been reported at lower overall rates than international evidence. Keywords: tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, arthritis, psoriatic, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, treatment persistence

Axel Svedbom,1 Chiara Storck,2 Sumesh Kachroo,3 Marinella Govoni,4 Ahmed Khalifa5 1Real World Strategy and Analytics, Mapi Group, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Real World Strategy and Analytics, Mapi Group, Munich, Germany; 3Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence (CORE), Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA; 4MSD Italy, Rome, Italy; 5Medical Affairs Immunology, MSD Switzerland, Luzern, Switzerland Purpose: In immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRDs), persistence to treatment may be used as a surrogate marker for long-term treatment success. In previous comparisons of persistence to tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFis), a paucity of data for subcutaneous (SC) golimumab was identified. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of persistence to SC golimumab in clinical practice and contextualize these data with five-year persistence estimates from long-term open-label extension (OLE) trials of SC TNFis in IMRDs.Patients and methods: PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and conference proceedings from European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) were searched. All studies on patients treated with SC golimumab for IMRD were included if they reported data on the persistence to golimumab.Results: Of 376 available references identified through the searches, 12 studies with a total of 4,910 patients met the inclusion criteria. Furthermore, nine OLE trials were available. Among the included studies from clinical practice, at six months, one year, two years, and three years, the proportion of patients persistent to treatment ranged from 63% to 91%, 47% to 80%, 40% to 77%, and 32% to 67%, respectively. In the four studies that included comparisons to other biologics, golimumab was either statistically noninferior or statistically superior to other treatments, an observation that was supported by indirect comparisons of unadjusted point estimates of OLE trials.Conclusion: The data reviewed in this study indicate that golimumab may have higher persistence than other TNFis, a notion that is supported by indirect comparisons of persistence data from OLEs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Furthermore, the study suggests that persistence may be lower in biologic-experienced compared with biologic-naive patients and higher in axial spondyloarthritis compared with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis. Keywords: golimumab, Simponi, Treatment persistence, drug survival, retention rates, real-world evidence (RWE)

Jay Lin,1 Melissa Lingohr-Smith,1 Tao Fan2 1Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Novosys Health, Green Brook, NJ, USA; 2North America Medical Affairs, Sanofi US, Inc., Bridgewater, NJ, USA Background: Free-dose combination treatment with basal insulin and short-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) reduces hyperglycemia via complementary targeting of fasting and postprandial blood glucose levels, however, in the real world, due to injection burden and clinical inertia, the full efficacy may not be able to translate into clinical and economic benefits. Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate treatment persistence and associated outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with a GLP-1 RA in free-dose combination with basal insulin. Methods: Claims data were extracted on US adults with T2D with ≥1 prescription claim for both a GLP-1 RA and a basal insulin from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2013, and continuous health plan coverage for 6 months prior to (baseline) and 12 months after the index date (follow-up period). Outcomes analyzed for patients stratified by treatment persistence included glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and health care costs and resource utilization. Multivariate analyses were used to examine factors associated with persistence or hypoglycemia. Results: The analysis included 7,320 patients, of whom 16.9% were persistent with free-dose combination treatment. The median time to treatment discontinuation was 133 days. Compared with ­nonpersistent patients, persistent patients had greater glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) reductions (–0.80% vs –0.42%; P=0.032), were more likely to achieve A1C

Background: In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, basal-bolus strategies can improve treatment by offering dosing flexibility, and improved satisfaction, adherence, and clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare real-world outcomes between US patients initiating analog insulin therapy with insulin glargine and those initiating with a premixed analog insulin (PMX)., Methods: This was a retrospective study of data from patients (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the IMPACT® database who initiated insulin treatment with insulin glargine (GLA) or a PMX. Clinical and economic outcomes were measured over one year, including persistence and adherence, consumption of insulin, glycemic outcomes, incident hypoglycemia, and health care resource utilization and cost., Results: Data from 2,502 patients were included in the analyses (n = 834 for PMX, n = 1,668 for GLA). Compared with PMX, persistence was higher and consumption of insulin was lower for GLA (both P < 0.0001). Adherence, glycemic outcomes, and hypoglycemia-related events were similar between groups, as were health care utilization and total health care costs. Diabetes-related drug and supply costs were lower for GLA than for PMX (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.046, respectively)., Conclusion: In US patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, initiating insulin with once-daily GLA, rather than a PMX, is associated with increased treatment persistence and similar clinical and hypoglycemic outcomes, but lower diabetes pharmacy and supply costs. GLA may be a more flexible option than PMX. However, these results also show suboptimal glycemic control in the real-world setting despite change in treatment regimens and call for optimization in management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.