Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab). OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes. METHODS: We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients. RESULTS: The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs). CONCLUSION: Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Cost per treated patient for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab across adult indications: a claims analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This paper aims to estimate the annual cost of etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab per treated patient across adult indications using US-managed care drug use data. METHODS: Adult patients who used etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database (Thomson Reuters Healthcare, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) between January 1, 2005 and June 30, 2009. The index event was the first use of etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab preceded by a diagnosis for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Patients were defined as either newly initiating or continuing tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker treatment based on their use during the 6 months before the index event. Annual cost per treated patient was the sum of the etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab medication and administration costs during the 12 months following the index claim. Annual costs were calculated across all patients as well as within each indication group and patient type (new initiator or continuing). RESULTS: In total, 21,652 patients met the study criteria (etanercept n = 12,065; adalimumab n = 5,685; infliximab n = 3,902); 43% of patients were new initiators. Patient characteristics were similar across treatment groups in terms of age (mean = 49, SD = 10) and gender (66% female). Across indications, the mean annual TNF-blocker cost per treated patient was $15,345 for etanercept, $18,046 for adalimumab, and $24,018 for infliximab. In new initiators, the TNF-blocker cost per treated patient across indications was $14,543 for etanercept, $16,978 for adalimumab, and $21,086 for infliximab; among patients continuing therapy, annual costs were $15,836 for etanercept, $19,457 for adalimumab, and $25,748 for infliximab. CONCLUSION: Patients on etanercept had the lowest TNF-blocker cost per treated patient for adult indications when applying actual drug use from a US-managed care population. TNF-blocker costs per treated patient on adalimumab and infliximab were approximately 18% and 57% higher than etanercept, respectively, using real-world drug use data.

Tumor necrosis factor blocker dose escalation among biologic naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients in commercial managed-care plans in the 2 years following therapy initiation.

OBJECTIVE: This study uses real-world US managed-care claims data to estimate dose escalation rates over the first and second years of therapy among biologic naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab. METHODS: Non-elderly adult (age 18-65 years) RA patients initiating etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab from July 1, 2005 to April 30, 2009, were identified using the MarketScan Commercial Database. National and regional dose-escalation patterns were evaluated 12 and 24 months after initiation. In the single-instance method, dose escalation was defined as having one average weekly dose 115%, 130%, or 150% greater than the initial average weekly dose. By the two-instances method, dose escalation was defined as having two consecutive claims with an average weekly dose 115% or 130% greater than the initial average weekly dose. RESULTS: A total of 2747 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 50 years [SD=10]; 74% female). More patients initiated etanercept (44%) than adalimumab (37%) or infliximab (20%). Using the single-instance method, dose escalation at 12 months ranges were 0.8-1.5% for etanercept, 10.8-12.5% for adalimumab, and 16.4-42.5% for infliximab; ranges at 24 months were 0.8-2.1% for etanercept, 14.3-17.5% for adalimumab, and 26.4-57.6% for infliximab. The two-instances method showed a similar relationship among the treatment cohorts at both 12 and 24 months, with lower dose-escalation rates for etanercept (0.8%, 0.8%) than adalimumab (8.7%, 13.3%) or infliximab (22.9%, 37.6%) at the 130% threshold (p<0.001). Dose-escalation rates for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were consistent across US geographic regions. CONCLUSION: Patients initiating etanercept had lower rates of dose escalation than patients initiating adalimumab or infliximab in the first and second year following therapy initiation, as well as across US geographic regions. These results may not be generalizable to the entire US RA population.

Factors associated with the initiation of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective claims database study.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to quantify the proportion of US patients with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy was initiated within 12 months following diagnosis, to determine mean time to initiation, to compare the characteristics of initiators versus noninitiators, and to identify factors associated with noninitiation. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using claims from the databases of commercial managed care and Medicare supplemental managed care to identify patients with claims containing codes for RA dated January 1, 2004, through September 30, 2008. The percentage of patients with RA and a prescription for a DMARD within 12 months after the index date (initiators) was evaluated. The characteristics of DMARD initiators and noninitiators during the preindex period were compared, including demographic and clinical characteristics, health care resource utilization, and cost variables. The probability of DMARD initiation was determined using survival analysis. Multivariate analysis was performed to estimate mean time from diagnosis to DMARD initiation based on demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Of 26,911 patients with newly diagnosed RA identified in the database searches, 63% had been prescribed a DMARD within 12 months after diagnosis. DMARD initiators were significantly more likely to have had a rheumatologist visit and rheumatoid factor testing and were more likely to have received a corticosteroid and/or an NSAID (all, P < 0.001). DMARD initiators had significantly lower total costs ($10,534 vs $12,725, respectively) and pharmacy drug costs ($2438 vs $2822) over the preindex period compared with noninitiators (both, P < 0.001). Independent factors associated with a greater likelihood of DMARD initiation included a rheumatologist visit, rheumatoid factor testing, NSAID use, and corticosteroid use. Age ≥85 years and the presence of comorbidities were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of DMARD initiation. CONCLUSIONS: Among managed care enrollees in the present analysis, 37% of patients newly diagnosed with RA were not being treated with DMARDs in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Time to DMARD initiation plateaued after 90 days, suggesting that if a patient was not prescribed a DMARD soon after RA diagnosis, he or she was not likely to receive one.

A retrospective database analysis of insulin use patterns in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes initiating basal insulin or mixtures.

OBJECTIVE: To describe insulin persistence among patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin therapy with basal insulin or insulin mixtures and determine factors associated with nonpersistence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Thomson Reuters MarketScan((R)) databases were used to retrospectively analyze insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes by initiating insulin therapy. Insulin use was described using a variety of measures. The persistence to insulin was described using both a gap-based measure and the number of claims measure. RESULTS: Patients in the basal insulin cohort (N = 15,255) primarily used insulin analogs (88.1%) and vial and syringe (97%). Patients in the mixture cohort (N = 2,732) were more likely to initiate on human insulin mixtures (62.5%) and vial and syringe (68.1%). Average time between insulin refills was 80 and 71 days for basal and mixture initiators, respectively. Nearly, 75% of basal insulin initiators and 65% of insulin mixture initiators had a 90-day gap in insulin prescriptions. More than half of all the patients had at least one insulin prescription per quarter. Patients initiating with insulin analogs were more likely to be persistent compared with those initiating with human insulin across both cohorts and measures of persistence (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Persistence to insulin therapy is poorer than one would anticipate, but appears to be higher in users of insulin analogs and insulin mixtures.