Search

Aim: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of biologics in inhibiting radiographic progression among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Materials & Methods: Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials investigating the USA FDA approved biologics treatment in RA patients, using methotrexate (MTX) as the reference comparator., Results: Nine trials met the inclusion criteria for base case analysis. Compared with MTX, most biologics (except golimumab) + MTX had significantly lower rates of radiographic progression at 1 year. Mean difference in radiographic progression rates between MTX monotherapy and biologics + MTX was highest for adalimumab + MTX (-3.8) and lowest for tocilizumab + MTX (-0.7). Inhibition of radiographic progression was sustained., Conclusion: Biologics inhibit radiographic progression in patients with RA at 1 year; however, published evidence beyond 1 year is limited.

Objectives: We assessed the level of maintained effectiveness and associated healthcare costs in stabilised rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who reduced doses of adalimumab or etanercept., Methods: Eligible patients were identified from a U.S. commercial insurance database using the following criteria: adults with ≥2 RA diagnoses; effectively treated on standard dose of adalimumab or etanercept for a 6-month baseline period; and ≥3 months of dose reduction within a 6-month assessment period following the index date (date of the first reduced dose). Effectiveness was estimated using a validated claims-based algorithm. Multivariate regression models were used to assess maintained effectiveness and healthcare costs in the short-term (months 7-12) and long-term (months 13-24) following the index date, while adjusting for baseline characteristics. Cost per patient maintaining effective treatment (CPME) was calculated as the average total healthcare costs divided by the proportion of patients with maintained effectiveness., Results: Both groups (etanercept=375; adalimumab=610) had 70% females and a mean age of 48 years. Adjusted rates of maintained effectiveness for etanercept vs. adalimumab were 57.5% vs. 64.7% (p=0.028) in the short-term and 44.3% vs. 51.9% (p=0.047) in the long-term. Adjusted healthcare costs were similar for etanercept- and adalimumab-treated patients (short-term: $15,043 vs. $15,041; long-term: $31,461 vs. $30,449). The CPME was $2,915 higher with etanercept-treated patients in short-term and $12,349 higher in long-term compared with adalimumab-treated patients., Conclusions: Among stabilised RA patients who reduced biologic dosing, a greater proportion of adalimumab-treated patients maintained effectiveness than etanercept-treated patients. Adalimumab was associated with a lower total CPME than etanercept.

Purpose: Many hospital-based infusion centers treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with intravenous biologic agents, yet may have a limited understanding of the overall costs of infusion in this setting. The purposes of this study were to conduct a microcosting analysis from a hospital perspective and to develop a model using an activity-based costing approach for estimating costs associated with the provision of hospital-based infusion services (preparation, administration, and follow-up) in the United States for maintenance treatment of moderate to severe RA., Methods: A spreadsheet-based model was developed. Inputs included hourly wages, time spent providing care, supply/overhead costs, laboratory testing, infusion center size, and practice pattern information. Base-case values were derived from data from surveys, published studies, standard cost sources, and expert opinion. Costs are presented in year-2017 US dollars. The base case modeled a hospital infusion center serving patients with RA treated with abatacept, tocilizumab, infliximab, or rituximab., Findings: Estimated overall costs of infusions per patient per year were $36,663 (rituximab), $36,821 (tocilizumab), $44,973 (infliximab), and $46,532 (abatacept). Of all therapies, the biologic agents represented the greatest share of overall costs, ranging from 87% to $91% of overall costs per year. Excluding infusion drug costs, labor accounted for 53% to 57% of infusion costs., Implications: Biologic agents represented the highest single cost associated with RA infusion care; however, personnel, supplies, and overhead costs also contributed substantially to overall costs (8%-16%). This model may provide a helpful and adaptable framework for use by hospitals in informing decision making about services offered and their associated financial implications., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued etanercept treatment and subsequently received another tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitor or a non-TNF-α biologic in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany., Methods: Medical record data of patients with RA were collected from a panel of rheumatologists in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Patients were required to have a diagnosis of RA, be ≥18 years old, and have initiated use of another TNF-α inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, golimumab, or infliximab) or a non-TNF-α biologic (abatacept or tocilizumab) between January 2014 and May 2015 after discontinuing use of etanercept. Reasons for discontinuing use of etanercept and selecting a second biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) were described. Study outcomes included European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response and change in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score. The study outcomes were compared among treatment groups (ie, TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics) using descriptive and multivariable-adjusted analyses. As a secondary analysis, the study outcomes were also descriptively compared between each of the TNF-α inhibitors. Because adalimumab is one of the most commonly used TNF-α inhibitor to treat RA, a secondary analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes among adalimumab, other TNF-α inhibitors, and non-TNF-α inhibitors., Findings: Patient characteristics before initiating treatment with a second DMARD were similar across treatment groups (all TNF-α inhibitors [n = 296] and non-TNF-α biologics [n = 276]). The most common reasons for discontinuing etanercept treatment were inadequate response, adverse effects, and patient preference. After etanercept, TNF-α inhibitors overall were associated with a significantly lower EULAR good response rate (56.0% vs. 64.4%, P < 0.05) and smaller CDAI score change (-6.3 vs -7.3, P = .06) relative to non-TNF-α biologics. However, the proportion of patients achieving an EULAR good response was numerically higher for adalimumab versus other TNF-α inhibitors (61.1% vs 51.6%, P = 0.11) and comparable versus non-TNF-α biologics (61.1% vs 64.4%, P = 0.52). Adalimumab was also associated with a CDAI score change significantly greater than that of other TNF-α inhibitors (-7.1 vs -5.8, P < 0.05) and comparable to that of non-TNF-α biologics (-7.1 vs -7.3, P = 0.79). The results were consistent in the multivariable-adjusted analysis and secondary analysis., Implications: In this retrospective analysis of patients with RA in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, after discontinuation of etanercept treatment, TNF-α inhibitors as a class were overall less effective as second biologic DMARDs relative to non-TNF-α biologics; however, adalimumab was more or as effective as other TNF-α inhibitors and non-TNF-α biologics., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess trends and predictors of mechanical devices/aids use by rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients since the introduction of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)., Methods: Sociodemographic characteristics, disease characteristics, and mechanical aid use (assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire) were compared among RA patients ages >17 years at diagnosis, enrolled in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry during January 2001 to December 2003 and January 2010 to December 2012. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of mechanical aid use among patients in both cohorts., Results: Sociodemographic characteristics were similar between 1,096 patients in the 2001-2003 cohort and 11,140 patients in the 2010-2012 cohort. Disease activity was significantly lower among patients in the 2010-2012 cohort (mean ± SD Clinical Disease Activity Index score 10.1 ± 11.1 versus 17.0 ± 13.8; P < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients in the 2010-2012 cohort received biologic DMARDs (50.7% versus 32.5%; P < 0.001) and fewer were biologic-naive (39.1% versus 61.6%; P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the 2010-2012 cohort used any mechanical devices/aids (31.1% versus 40.8%; P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, patients in the 2010-2012 cohort and those with a history of biologic agent use were less likely to use devices/aids (odds ratio [OR] 0.77 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.66-0.90] and OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.62-0.75], respectively). Predictors of greater devices/aids usage included older age, female sex, higher disease activity, and less employment. Effect sizes were greatest for disease activity and employment., Conclusion: Mechanical devices/aids use among patients with RA was significantly lower during 2010-2012 versus 2001-2003 and among biologic-experienced patients, suggesting reduced disability., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)