Impact of switching from an initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor on health care resource utilization and costs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Onur Başer (MEF Author)Purpose: Despite improved clinical outcomes for the majority of patients, nearly 30% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiate tumor necrosis factor antagonist (anti-TNF) biologic agents fail to respond to their first-line anti-TNF and switch to another anti-TNF or a non-TNF biologic. How this change affects health care costs and resource utilization is unknown. We therefore compared RA patients taking first-line anti-TNFs who switched to a second anti-TNF versus those patients who switched to an alternate biologic. Methods: Health care claims data were obtained from a large US database for eligible adults with confirmed RA diagnoses who initiated anti-TNF treatment and switched to another biologic. Health care costs and utilization during the first 12 months' postswitch were compared. Generalized linear models were used to adjust for differences in demographic and clinical characteristics before switching. Findings: Patients who switched to a second anti-TNF rather than a non-TNF biologic were generally younger (53.0 vs. 55.3 years; P < 0.0001) and less likely to be female (79.7% vs. 82.7%; P = 0.0490). Of the 3497 eligible patients who switched from first-line anti-TNFs, 2563 (73.3%) switched to another anti-TNF and 934 (26.7%) switched to a non-TNF. Adalimumab was the most frequently prescribed (43.4%) second-line anti-TNF, and abatacept was the most common non anti-TNF (71.4%). Patients who switched to a second anti-TNF remained on their first medication for a significantly shorter period (342.5 vs 420.6 days; P < 0.0001) and had lower comorbidity indices and higher disease severity at baseline than those who switched to a non anti-TNF. After adjusting for baseline differences, patients who switched to second anti-TNFs versus a non-TNF incurred lower RA-related costs ($20,938.9 vs$22,645.2; P = 0.0010) and total health care costs ($34,894.6 vs$38,437.2; P = 0.0010) 1 year postswitch. These differences were driven by increased physician office visit costs among the non-TNF group. Implications: Among the anti-TNF initiators who switched therapy, more patients switched to a second anti-TNF than to a non-TNF. Switching to a second anti-TNF treatment was associated with lower all-cause and RA-related health care costs and resource utilization than switching to a non-TNF. Because switching therapy may be unavoidable, finding a treatment algorithm mitigating this increase to any extent should be considered. These data are limited by their retrospective design. Additional confounding variables that could not be controlled for may affect results. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier HS journals, Inc.WOS:0003593921000082-s2.0-84937640448PMID: 25999184Science Citation Index ExpandedQ2ArticleUluslararası işbirliği ile yapılan - EVETTemmuz2015YÖK - 2014-1

Biologic TNF inhibiting agents for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: persistence and dosing patterns in Germany

Objective: To obtain detailed real-world data on persistence and dosing patterns in the utilisation of the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated in Germany. Methods: In this retrospective observational study claims data of a major German health insurance fund between 2005 and 2008 were analysed. Patients receiving at least one prescription of adalimumab, etanercept or infliximab were identified and categorised as "TNF inhibitor naive" or "TNF inhibitor continuing". For the calculation of TNF inhibitor persistence a survival analysis with the Kaplan-Meier estimator was used. A Cox regression was used to analyse, if any relevant factors were influencing persistence. Dosage increase rates were analysed for adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. Sensitivity analyses based on variations in gap length were conducted. Results: A total of 2,201 RA patients were identified. 1,468 of these patients were TNF inhibitor naive patients and 733 were defined as TNF inhibitor continuing patients. There were no significant differences in the treatment persistence rates between adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for TNF inhibitor naive and continuing patients. The persistence rate after three years was 22.47% for adalimumab, 24.27% for etanercept and 21.49% for infliximab naive patients. For continuing patients, the persistence rate after three years was 32.88% for adalimumab, 30.95% for etanercept, and 33.90% for infliximab, respectively. Gender, medication and Charlson Comorbidities Index did not influence the persistence significantly. Dosage increase occurred in 7.3% adalimumab, 1.4% etanercept, and 17.2% infliximab naive patients and 5.8%, 1.1% and 11.9% respectively in the continuing patients. Conclusions: In this study, there were no significant differences in persistence among adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab treated patients. Consistent with previous research, there was a higher dose escalation for infliximab than for the two subcutaneous treatments, adalimumab or etanercept

Rheumatoid arthritis - treatment: 180. Utility of Body Weight Classified Low-Dose Leflunomide in Japanese Rheumatoid Arthritis

Background: In Japan, more than 20 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients died of interstitial pneumonia (IP) caused by leflunomide (LEF) were reported, but many of them were considered as the victims of opportunistic infection currently. In this paper, efficacy and safety of low-dose LEF classified by body weight (BW) were studied. Methods: Fifty-nine RA patients were started to administrate LEF from July 2007 to July 2009. Among them, 25 patients were excluded because of the combination with tacrolimus, and medication modification within 3 months before LEF. Remaining 34 RA patients administered 20 to 50 mg/week of LEF were followed up for 1 year and enrolled in this study. Dose of LEF was classified by BW (50 mg/week for over 50 kg, 40 mg/week for 40 to 50 kg and 20 to 30 mg/week for under 40 kg). The average age and RA duration of enrolled patients were 55.5 years old and 10.2 years. Prednisolone (PSL), methotrexate (MTX) and etanercept were used in 23, 28 and 2 patients, respectively. In case of insufficient response or adverse effect, dosage change or discontinuance of LEF were considered. Failure was defined as dosages up of PSL and MTX, or dosages down or discontinuance of LEF. Last observation carried forward method was used for the evaluation of failed patients at 1 year. Results: At 1 year after LEF start, good/ moderate/ no response assessed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria using Disease Activity Score, including a 28-joint count (DAS28)-C reactive protein (CRP) were showed in 14/ 10/ 10 patients, respectively. The dosage changes of LEF at 1 year were dosage up: 10, same dosage: 5, dosage down: 8 and discontinuance: 11 patients. The survival rate of patients in this study was 23.5% (24 patients failed) but actual LEF continuous rate was 67.6% (11 patients discontinued) at 1 year. The major reason of failure was liver dysfunction, and pneumocystis pneumonia was occurred in 1 patient resulted in full recovery. One patient died of sepsis caused by decubitus ulcer infection. DAS28-CRP score was decreased from 3.9 to 2.7 significantly. Although CRP was decreased from 1.50 to 0.93 mg/dl, it wasn't significant. Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-3 was decreased from 220.0 to 174.2 ng/ml significantly. Glutamate pyruvate transaminase (GPT) was increased from 19 to 35 U/l and number of leukocyte was decreased from 7832 to 6271 significantly. DAS28-CRP, CRP, and MMP-3 were improved significantly with MTX, although they weren't without MTX. Increase of GPT and leukopenia were seen significantly with MTX, although they weren't without MTX. Conclusions: It was reported that the risks of IP caused by LEF in Japanese RA patients were past IP history, loading dose administration and low BW. Addition of low-dose LEF is a potent safe alternative for the patients showing unsatisfactory response to current medicines, but need to pay attention for liver function and infection caused by leukopenia, especially with MTX. Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Disparities in care by insurance status for individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of the medical expenditure panel survey, 2006–2009

<p><b>Objective:</b> Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early, aggressive treatment with nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) to minimize long-term disability. We aimed to assess differences in medical resource utilization, drug therapy, and health outcomes among RA patients by insurance type in the United States.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> Individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of RA were identified in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) database, 2006–2009. Data regarding sociodemographic characteristics, insurance type and status, and outcomes (including health care resource utilization, prescription medication use, health status, and patient-reported barriers to health care) were extracted. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the impact of insurance type (private, Medicare, Medicaid, or uninsured) on outcome measures while controlling for age group, sex, and race/ethnicity.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> A total of 693 individuals with a self-reported diagnosis of RA during the study period were identified; 423 were aged 18–64 years and 270 were aged ≥65 years. Among patients aged 18–64, those with Medicaid or who were uninsured were less likely than those with private insurance to visit a rheumatologist (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.13 and 0.17, respectively; <i>p</i> < .001) and to receive biologic DMARDS (aOR 0.09 [<i>p</i> < .001] and 0.16 [<i>p</i> < .01], respectively); those with Medicaid were also less likely to receive nonbiologic DMARDS (aOR 0.26 [<i>p</i> < .01]). Those with Medicaid were more likely than those with private insurance to be unable/delayed in getting prescription drugs (aOR 2.9 [<i>p</i> < .05]), to experience cognitive, social, and physical limitations (aOR 8.7 [<i>p</i> < .001], 4.7 [<i>p</i> < .001], and 2.5 [<i>p</i> < .05], respectively); they also reported significantly lower general health and health-related quality of life. Patients aged ≥65 experienced greater equity in care and outcomes.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Younger RA patients with Medicaid (including those who receive coverage under the Medicaid expansion component of the Affordable Care Act) may be at risk for inadequate treatment.</p

Worker productivity outcome measures: OMERACT filter evidence and agenda for future research

The objective of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Worker Productivity working group is to identify worker productivity outcome measures that meet the requirements of the OMERACT filter. At the OMERACT I I Workshop, we focused on the at-work limitations/productivity component of worker productivity (i.e., presenteeism) an area with diverse conceptualization and instrumentation approaches. Various approaches to quantify at-work limitations/productivity (e.g., single-item global and multi-item measures) were examined, and available evidence pertaining to OMERACT truth, discrimination, and feasibility were presented to conference participants. Four candidate global measures of presenteeism were put forth for a plenary vote to determine whether current evidence meets the OMERACT filter requirements. Presenteeism globals from the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire (72% support) and Rheumatoid Arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (71% support) were endorsed by conference participants; however, neither the presenteeism global item from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire nor the Quantity and Quality method achieved the level of support required for endorsement at the present time. The plenary was also asked whether the central item from the Work Ability Index should also be considered as a candidate measure for potential endorsement in the future. Of participants at the plenary, 70% supported this presenteeism global measure. Progress was also made in other areas through discussions at individual breakout sessions. Topics examined include the merits of various multi-item measures of at-work limitations/productivity, methodological issues related to interpretability of outcome scores, and approaches to appraise and classify contextual factors of worker productivity. Feedback gathered from conference participants will inform the future research agenda of the working group