Efficiency of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in ankylosing spondylitis in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Information on the use of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) therapies in clinical practice is a key factor in decision making, as more efficient treatments may involve substantial savings while maintaining the clinical benefits for the patient. OBJECTIVE: To assess the mean annual doses and associated costs of the three main anti-tumour necrosis factor agents used in Spanish daily clinical practice in ankylosing spondylitis patients and to correlate these costs with disease activity. SETTING: This retrospective, observational study included adult ankylosing spondylitis patients over a 4-year period that had been treated for at least 6 months with adalimumab, etanercept or infliximab at two University Hospitals in Spain. METHODS: Disease activity was estimated with Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) scores at the start of anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy and in the last visit or whenever the drug was switched. Mean costs were estimated for a 52-week horizon from the delivered doses registered by pharmacy records. Outcomes were the doses and costs of anti TNFs administered to each patient, and the BASDAI score. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients (137 cases) were included (28 cases treated with adalimumab, 48 cases with etanercept and 61 with infliximab). Mean doses of adalimumab and etanercept were 92.8 and 88.8% of the initially prescribed doses, respectively, while the mean dose of infliximab administered was 102%. There were no statistical differences among treatments in terms of clinical effectiveness. Associated mean patient-year costs were significantly higher in the infliximab group (€14,235), compared to the other treatments [adalimumab €11,934; etanercept €10,516; (P < 0.05)]. CONCLUSION: In certain ankylosing spondylitis patients, doses and associated costs of biological therapies can be reduced while controlling disease activity. Mean doses used in our clinical practice vary from the recommended doses and are significantly lower for adalimumab and etanercept than for infliximab. These differences impact directly on associated patient-year costs, and, thus, on treatment efficiency.

Efficiency of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis patients: dosing patterns and effectiveness in daily clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: This retrospective, multicentre, observational study aimed to assess the mean annual doses and associated costs of three anti-tumour necrosis factor agents in daily clinical practice in rheumatoid arthritis patients, correlating these costs with disease activity. METHODS: Adult rheumatoid arthritis patients were treated and followed at the Rheumatology departments of two Spanish hospitals for at least 6 months, with adalimumab, etanercept or infliximab over a 4-year period. ANOVA and multivariate statistical analyses of dosing patterns, disease activity and annualised costs were carried out. RESULTS: A total of 198 patients, comprising 215 cases, met the inclusion criteria (73 on adalimumab, 81 etanercept and 61 infliximab). Compared to recommended doses, mean doses of adalimumab and etanercept decreased by 7% and 19%, respectively, while the mean dose of infliximab increased by 36%. There were no statistical differences between treatments in terms of clinical effectiveness. The hazard of dose escalation was significantly higher for either adalimumab (4.4-fold) or infliximab (11.8-fold) compared to etanercept (p<0.05). Clinical control was achieved and maintained in more than half of the patients treated with reduced doses of etanercept. Associated mean patient-year costs were significantly higher in adalimumab patients (€11.962.58) (etanercept €9.594.73; infliximab €10.094.53; [p<0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: In rheumatoid arthritis patients, it is possible to reduce doses and associated costs of biological therapies while controlling disease activity. Mean doses used in our clinical practice were significantly lower with etanercept than with the anti-TNF monoclonal antibodies, adalimumab and infliximab. Dose differences impact directly on associated patient-year costs, and thus on treatment efficiency.

Influence on effectiveness of early treatment with anti-TNF therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between starting early treatment with anti-TNF and effectiveness as well as the possibility of applying therapeutic spacing in daily practice in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Observational, retrospective study conducted in two universitary hospitals in Spain. RA patients who received the first anti-TNF (adalimumab: ADA, etanercept: ETN or infliximab: IFX) during the study period (October 2006-2010) were included. Demographic data, time since diagnosis, disease activity (DAS28-ESR) and anti-TNF dosage were analyzed. Therapeutic objective was defined as DAS28 DAS28 < 2.6. Also the response related to criteria of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) was evaluated. Therapeutic spacing was defined as the use of a lower dose or a higher interval according to label doses. The main endpoint was to assess the association between the effectiveness and the moment when the anti-TNF therapy begins. The secondary target was to evaluate the association between RA activity at the beginning of treatment with anti-TNF and dose used. Results. 82 patients were included. The prescription profile was: ADA (48.8%), ETN (31.7%) and IFX (19.5%). 71.4% of patients treated with anti-TNF during the first year since diagnosis, 57.1% of those who started after 1-5 years and 30.6% of patients who started after 5 years were in remission when the study ended. De-escalation strategy was performed in 25.6% of patients: ETN (38.5%), ADA (20.0%) and IFX (18.8%). The patients treated with a higher dose according to label doses were: IFX (81%), ADA, (12.5%) and ETN (7.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that early treatment with anti-TNF can achieve a higher percentage of remissions. Therapeutic spacing is established as a strategy that improves the efficiency in those patients in remission, being the ETN the anti-TNF most susceptible for spacing, although a relation between the early beginning with anti-TNF and the used dose was not found.