Search

Introduction: Subsequent lines of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (SC-TNFi) treatment may be well motivated in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)-collectively named inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, the costs associated with switching SC-TNFis are largely unknown. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to explore costs of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with switching SC-TNFi treatment among biologic-naïve Swedish patients with IA., Methods: Using population-based register data, adult patients filling prescriptions between May 6, 2010 and December 31, 2014 for an SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and golimumab) were included. Patients switching treatment (cyclers) were matched to treatment persistent patients on the basis of propensity score and follow-up time. HCRU-associated costs were captured and compared 12 months before and 12 months after the index date (defined as the date of the switch)., Results: A balanced cohort of 594 matched pairs was derived. Prior to the index date, cyclers had significantly higher non-treatment HCRU costs compared to persistent patients ($3815 [3498-4147] vs. $2900; 95%CI [2565-3256]). However, 12 months after the index date, cyclers had significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs while persistent patients lowered theirs ($822 [232-1490] vs. $- 313 [- 664-36]). This resulted in a statistically significant difference in difference of $1135 between the groups., Conclusions: In biologic-naïve patients treated with SC-TNFi for IA, cyclers significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs 12 months after switching treatment while persistent patients lowered their costs during the same time period. As these findings indicate that differences in treatment persistence may have an impact on costs, further research utilizing more comprehensive data sources in alternate settings is warranted.

Introduction: Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate., Methods: Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care., Results: Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold., Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment., Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Introduction: After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers., Methods: This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies., Results: There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs., Conclusion: MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers., Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Introduction: Only limited information is available on cost efficacy of the various biological agents used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis with intolerance or for whom it would be inappropriate to continue treatment with conventional agents. We estimated the efficacy and treatment costs of monotherapy with biological agents in the treatment of this group of patients., Methods: Data from two previous meta-analyses in the treatment of patients who are intolerant to methotrexate (MTX), or for whom it would be inappropriate to continue treatment with MTX was used. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between biological agents was carried out to estimate the respective cost for the number needed to treat (NNT) compared to placebo using both American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. The analysis involved the four agents approved in Italy: adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETN), certolizumab pegol (CTZ), and tocilizumab (TCZ). A six-month period was considered sufficient to understand the most important differences in efficacy and treatment costs. Direct medical costs, including pharmacological therapy, administration and monitoring were considered., Results: Using both ACR and EULAR criteria, TCZ (intravenous [iv]/subcutaneous [sc]) had a lower NNT than the other agents. The difference in NNT observed for ETN was more pronounced with EULAR criteria, whereas in the comparison with ADA, the most sensitive differences were observed with ACR criteria. ETN had the lowest treatment cost (€6402.19), followed by ADA (€6698.84), TCZ sc (€6887.61), and TCZ iv (€7130.83). TCZ sc had the lowest cost for NNT with both ACR and EULAR criteria. The differences compared to ETN and ADA were significant and related with the level of efficacy. Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results., Conclusion: TCZ is a cost-effective therapeutic option compared to other tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (ADA, ETA, CTZ) as first-line monotherapy for patients who are intolerant to MTX, or for whom it is inappropriate to continue treatment with MTX., Funding: Roche SpA.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and drug/administration costs of treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) agents in US veterans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating TNFi therapy. The analysis compared patients initiating and continuing a single TNFi with patients who subsequently switched to a different TNFi., Methods: Data from patients enrolled in the Veterans Affairs Rheumatoid Arthritis (VARA) registry who initiated treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab from 2003 to 2010 were analyzed. Outcomes included duration of therapy, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28), and direct drug and drug administration costs., Results: Of 563 eligible patients, 262 initiated a single TNFi therapy, 142 restarted their initial TNFi after a ≥90-day gap in treatment (interrupted therapy), and 159 switched to a different TNFi. Patients who switched had higher mean DAS28 before starting TNFi therapy than patients with single or interrupted therapy: 5.3 vs 4.5 or 4.6, respectively. Mean duration of the first course was 34.3 months for single therapy, 18.3 months for interrupted therapy, and 17.7 months for switched therapy. Mean post-treatment DAS28 was highest for patients who switched TNFi. Mean annualized costs for first course were $13,800 for single therapy, $13,200 for interrupted therapy, and $14,200 for switched therapy; mean annualized costs for second course were $12,800 for interrupted therapy and $15,100 for switched therapy., Conclusion: Patients who switched TNFi had higher pre-treatment DAS28 and higher overall costs than patients who received the same TNFi as either single or interrupted therapy., Funding: This research was funded by Immunex Corp., a fully owned subsidiary of Amgen Inc., and by VA HSR&D Grant SHP 08-172.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to examine healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with switching to another tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) therapy versus a non-TNFi therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) discontinuing use of an initial TNFi biologic therapy., Methods: Patients with ≥2 RA diagnoses who used ≥1 TNFi on or after their initial RA diagnosis were identified in a US employer-based insurance claims database. Patients were selected based on ≥1 claim of another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy (occurring after 2010, and within 30 days before to 60 days after discontinuation of the initial TNFi), and continuous insurance ≥6 months before (baseline period) and ≥12 months after the switch date (study period). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were measured during the baseline period. All-cause and RA-related HRU and costs were analyzed during the 12-month study period using multivariable regression analysis controlling for baseline characteristics and selected comorbidities., Results: Of the 1577 patients with RA that switched therapies, 1169 patients used another TNFi and 408 patients used a non-TNFi biologic. The most commonly used initial TNFi treatments were etanercept (50%) and adalimumab (34%) among the TNFi cohort, and infliximab (39%) and etanercept (28%) among the non-TNFi cohort. The TNFi cohort had significantly fewer outpatient visits [all-cause: 23.01 vs. 29.77 visits/patient/year; adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.78, P < 0.001; RA-related: 7.42 vs. 13.58; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001] and rheumatologist visits (all-cause: 4.01 vs. 6.81; adjusted IRR = 0.66, P < 0.001; RA-related: 3.23 vs. 6.40; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001) than the non-TNFi cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly lower for patients who switched to another TNFi instead of a non-TNFi therapy ($36,932 vs. $44,566; adjusted difference = $7045, P < 0.01), as were total RA-related costs ($26,973 vs. $31,735; adjusted difference = $4904, P < 0.01)., Conclusion: Adult patients with RA discontinuing TNFi therapy who switched to an alternative TNFi incurred lower healthcare costs than patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic., Funding: AbbVie, Inc.