Acthar Gel in African Americans versus Non-African Americans with Symptomatic Sarcoidosis: Physician Assessment of Patient Medical Records.

Introduction: Sarcoidosis is common among African Americans in the United States. Acthar® Gel is a viable option for the treatment of advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. This study examined patient characteristics, Acthar Gel utilization, co-medication use, and treatment response based on physicians' assessments among African Americans versus non-African Americans with advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. Methods: Data from the medical charts of patients were used. During data collection, patients had either completed ≥1 course or received treatment with Acthar Gel for ≥6 months. Results: This study comprised 168 African Americans and 104 non-African Americans. On average, the time since the first diagnosis of sarcoidosis was slightly longer among African Americans than non-African Americans (5.2 versus 4.3 years). Skin, heart, eyes, and joints were the most common extrapulmonary sites involved among both race groups. Shortness of breath, fatigue, bone and joint pain, and wheezing/coughing were the most frequent symptoms among both race groups. A higher proportion of African Americans versus non-African Americans were first-time Acthar Gel users and had not completed treatment during data collection. Patients in both race groups with higher starting doses of Acthar Gel therapy had a shorter treatment duration and vice-versa. A significantly lower proportion of patients among both race groups were on any co-medication after Acthar Gel initiation (p<0.0001). Further, a higher proportion of African Americans versus non-African Americans had a reduction in any co-medication use after Acthar Gel initiation. The mean daily dose of prednisone decreased among African Americans (18.5 to 10.1 mg) and non-African Americans (17.6 to 10.0 mg) after Acthar Gel initiation. Improvement in patient health status and overall symptoms was similar for both race groups. Conclusion: Findings suggest that Acthar Gel improves health outcomes for patients with sarcoidosis, which could help to alleviate health disparities among African Americans, who are disproportionately affected by this disease.

Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Advanced Symptomatic Sarcoidosis.

Introduction: Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, inflammatory, systemic granulomatous disease with unknown etiology. Despite the current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC in patients with advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis from the United States (US) payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years. Methods: A probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach was used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients were monitored at the end of a 3-month cycle for the attainment of partial or complete response. Patients in the partial, complete, or no-response state were allowed to transition in each of these states at each 3-month cycle. Following the attainment of response, patients could have a durable response or relapse to a no-response state. Patients in a no-response state received treatment and could transition into a response or no-response state based on the probability of treatment success with the respective treatment. Clinical parameters and health utility data were sourced from the Acthar Gel in Participants with Pulmonary Sarcoidosis (PULSAR) trial (NCT03320070) and healthcare utilization, costs, and disutilities were sourced from the published literature. Base case analysis considered a payer perspective over 2 years. Results: From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $134,796 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $39,179 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $117,622 per QALY and $21,967 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the base case. Conclusion: The results from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis compared to the SoC from the US payer and societal perspectives.

Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel Versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Exacerbations in Moderate-to-Severe Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

INTRODUCTION: Despite current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC treatment in patients with active, moderate-to-severe SLE from the US payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness model was developed using a probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach. Patients received Acthar Gel in an exacerbation state, and the outcomes were assessed at the end of a 3-month cycle for response achievement based on the probability of treatment success with Acthar Gel. Patients may sustain the response or experience an exacerbation. For the base case scenario, moderate-to-severe SLE was defined as British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG)-2004 ≥ 20 or SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) ≥ 10 and clinical response was based on SLE responder index (SRI)-4. Clinical response, productivity loss, and utility were derived from a phase 4 SLE trial; cost and disutility estimates were sourced from the literature. RESULTS: From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $133,110 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $94,818 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $70,827 per QALY and $32,525 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Results from the sensitivity and scenario analyses are consistent with those of the base case model. CONCLUSIONS: Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for appropriate patients with moderate-to-severe SLE at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 over 2-3 years from the US payer and societal perspectives. Acthar Gel results in the reduction of direct medical and indirect costs.

Pain and Fatigue Improvements in Patients Treated with Repository Corticotropin Injection Across Five Indications: A Narrative Review.

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in 19 indications, including for the treatment of selected patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), symptomatic sarcoidosis, uveitis, and keratitis. Despite treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, many patients with RA, SLE, and other chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases continue to be affected by severe pain and fatigue, indicating a need for other therapies. To examine the clinical data regarding the impact of RCI treatment on pain and fatigue in selected populations, this review included English-language peer-reviewed publications of clinical trials of any size and cohort studies with more than 10 patients that included pain and/or fatigue based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and/or physician-assessed measures in adults following treatment with RCI for RA, SLE, symptomatic sarcoidosis, uveitis, or keratitis. Literature searches identified eight studies that met these criteria. Four studies (reported in five publications) were in patients with RA or SLE, two in patients with sarcoidosis, one in patients with uveitis, and one in patients with noninfectious keratitis. Across the different types of studies assessed (clinical trials, chart reviews, real-world evidence), the results were consistent with respect to the impact of RCI treatment on improving pain and fatigue. As summarized in this review, data from patient- and physician-reported outcome measures in eight studies demonstrate that, in addition to improving more traditional efficacy measures, RCI may also improve pain and fatigue in patients with RA, SLE, symptomatic sarcoidosis, uveitis, and noninfectious keratitis.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are chronic autoimmune diseases. Clinical studies of drugs for these diseases do not often ask patients how they feel after treatment. Despite treatment, many people with these diseases have pain and feel tired. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is a prescription drug for patients with RA, SLE, and other chronic immune diseases. We reviewed the results of published studies with data on pain and fatigue from patients treated with RCI. Four studies were in patients with RA or SLE. Two studies were in patients with symptomatic sarcoidosis. One study was in patients with uveitis. One study was in patients with noninfectious keratitis. These eight studies show that adding RCI to standard treatment lowers pain and fatigue in some patients. It would be helpful to measure pain and fatigue in future clinical studies of drugs for patients with chronic immune diseases.

Understanding Predictors of Response to Repository Corticotropin Injection Treatment Among Patients With Advanced Symptomatic Sarcoidosis.

Background: Sarcoidosis, an inflammatory systemic granulomatous disease, affects multiple organs and has a diverse clinical course. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is an effective treatment for advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. Since sarcoidosis affects patients differently, treatment response may vary by patient demographic, clinical, and treatment-related characteristics and physician specialty. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding predictors of sarcoidosis treatment response. Objectives: This study investigated predictors of response to RCI treatment. Methods: Post-hoc analysis was conducted using data from a previously published retrospective cross-sectional chart review study among symptomatic sarcoidosis patients ≥18 years of age previously treated with RCI. Outcome improvement 3 months post-RCI treatment was based on the clinician's subjective evaluation and analyzed using adjusted logistic regression. The most influential predictors for each outcome were based on statistical significance (P<.05) and the strength of the relationship assessed by the standardized ß coefficients. Results: The top predictors of outcome improvements were as follows. Global health assessment: (1) improvement in current health status influenced by complete RCI compliance, moderate overall symptom severity, and presence of extrapulmonary sites; and (2) improvement in overall symptoms influenced by age, shorter duration since sarcoidosis diagnosis, and complete RCI compliance. Clinical outcomes: (1) lung function improvement influenced by mild weight loss, mild wheezing/coughing, and non-African American race; (2) reduction in pulmonary fibrosis influenced by moderate overall symptom severity, mild wheezing/coughing, and mild weight loss; and (3) reduction in inflammation influenced by physician specialty, completing a course of RCI treatment, and moderate-to-severe night sweats. Patient-related outcomes: (1) reduction in fatigue influenced by physician specialty and moderate-to-severe fatigue; and (2) improvement in quality-of-life influenced by shorter duration since sarcoidosis diagnosis, moderate-to-severe wheezing/coughing, and complete RCI compliance. Corticosteroid discontinuation/reduction was influenced by physician specialty, moderate-to-severe shortness of breath, and comedication use before RCI. Conclusions: RCI may be a better treatment option for patients with more severe disease, primarily those presenting with symptoms. Complete compliance with RCI treatment may improve patients' health and quality of life. Understanding factors that influence RCI effectiveness across different treatment outcomes in real-world clinical practice is important for designing optimal sarcoidosis treatment strategies.

Real-world treatment patterns for repository corticotropin injection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Introduction: Repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) is a naturally sourced mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogues and other pituitary peptides with anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. In a recent clinical trial, RCI was safe and effective for the treatment of refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This study aims to describe real-world use and outcomes of patients with RA who were prescribed RCI in clinical practice through retrospective analysis of an electronic medical record database. Methods: Patients with RA who were prescribed RCI were identified through the ColumbusTM electronic medical record repository, representing approximately 100 rheumatology practices. Demographics, medications, comorbidities, disease histories, laboratory evaluations, clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated from 12 months pre-RCI to 12 months post-RCI initiation. Results: The RCI cohort (n=63) comprised predominantly white women, aged 54 years on average, at 6 years from RA diagnosis, with high disease activity at baseline according to Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3) scores. Within the 12 months pre-RCI initiation, 87% of patients were prescribed disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and 67% were prescribed glucocorticoids. Twelve months post-RCI initiation, glucocorticoid, opioid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug prescriptions decreased; disease-modifying antirheumatic drug prescriptions remained stable. Reductions in CDAI, RAPID3, physician global assessment, tender joint count, swollen joint count, and pain visual analogue scale scores were observed 12 months post-RCI initiation. Few discontinuations were due to side effects. Study limitations included small sample size and incomplete electronic medical record data. Conclusion: These findings support the safety and effectiveness of RCI for short-term adjunctive treatment of refractory RA and provide patient-management insights from routine clinical practice.

Post Hoc Analysis of Predictors of Clinical Response to Repository Corticotropin Injection in Persistently Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: A phase IV clinical trial confirmed the safety and efficacy of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) in patients with refractory rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that was nonresponsive to standard-of-care therapies. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to identify baseline demographics and clinical characteristics that may be predictors of response to RCI. METHODS: The phase IV trial was a two-part, randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal study. Post hoc analysis was conducted with the open-label portion of the trial data, in which all 258 subjects received RCI (80 U) twice weekly for 12 weeks. Responders were subjects who achieved low disease activity (LDA) by a Disease Activity Score with 28-joint count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) of < 3.2 at week 12. Responders were compared with nonresponders by assessing the proportion of subjects in each group for demographics and clinical characteristics, including weight, disease duration, medical history including osteoarthritis and unrelated joint conditions, hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein, ESR, DAS28-ESR, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), depression, anxiety, tender joint count (TJC), and swollen joint count (SJC). Bivariate analysis followed by multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted to identify significant baseline predictors for the outcome of achieving LDA by week 12. RESULTS: Bivariate analysis showed that RCI responders had significantly lower baseline TJC (p = 0.0310), SJC (p = 0.0018), ESR (p = 0.0487), and CDAI (p = 0.0112) and shorter RA disease duration (p = 0.0446). Subjects were less likely to achieve LDA if they had osteoarthritis (p < 0.0001), other joint-related conditions unrelated to RA (p < 0.0001), anemia (p = 0.0132), depression (p = 0.0006), or prior or concomitant use of targeted-synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (p < 0.0001). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that, of the above, only ongoing osteoarthritis (p = 0.0272) or other joint-related conditions (p = 0.0193) were significant negative predictors of RCI response. CONCLUSIONS: These results identify specific patient characteristics that may be considered predictors of positive or negative clinical response to RCI.

Post Hoc Analysis of the Correlation Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinical Response to Repository Corticotropin Injection for Persistently Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

PURPOSE: Approximately 6% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the USA have refractory disease that is resistant to standard-of-care therapies. A recent phase IV clinical trial affirmed the safety and efficacy of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) for refractory RA. This post hoc analysis of the clinical trial data assessed whether changes in clinical measures correlated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) improvements. METHODS: Data were assessed from the trial's open-label period when patients received RCI (80 U) twice weekly for 12 weeks. Clinical assessments included hemoglobin A1c, C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), total joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), Disease Activity Score with 28 joint count and ESR (DAS28-ESR), and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI). PROs included pain (Visual Analog Scale), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-F]), disability (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index [HAQ-DI]), and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment [WPAI] questionnaire). Patients grouped by minimal clinically important difference (MCID) improvement vs no improvement in PROs were compared with clinical measures at week 12. Correlations were determined by multivariable linear regression analysis and standardized coefficient estimates. RESULTS: RCI responders, defined as patients with DAS28-ESR < 3.2 at week 12, reported significantly greater PRO improvements for pain, disability, fatigue, activity impairment, current work impairment, and overall work impairment than nonresponders. Patients with MCID improvements in all PROs showed significantly greater decreases in mean values for TJC, DAS28-ESR, and CDAI, whereas those with pain, fatigue, and disability improvements had significantly greater SJC and ESR reductions. Multivariable linear regression analysis determined that improvement from baseline in all PROs correlated with significant decreases in TJC, DAS28-ESR, and CDAI. ESR reduction significantly correlated with improvements in pain and disability, but not fatigue or WPAI. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that clinical responses to RCI were directly correlated with patient perception of improvement.

Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making.

INTRODUCTION: High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable evidence on the comparative efficacy of new medicines. However, non-randomised studies (NRS) are increasingly recognised as a source of insights into the real-world performance of novel therapeutic products, particularly when traditional RCTs are impractical or lack generalisability. This means there is a growing need for synthesising evidence from RCTs and NRS in healthcare decision making, particularly given recent developments such as innovative study designs, digital technologies and linked databases across countries. Crucially, however, no formal framework exists to guide the integration of these data types. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: To address this gap, we used a mixed methods approach (review of existing guidance, methodological papers, Delphi survey) to develop guidance for researchers and healthcare decision-makers on when and how to best combine evidence from NRS and RCTs to improve transparency and build confidence in the resulting summary effect estimates. RESULTS: Our framework comprises seven steps on guiding the integration and interpretation of evidence from NRS and RCTs and we offer recommendations on the most appropriate statistical approaches based on three main analytical scenarios in healthcare decision making (specifically, 'high-bar evidence' when RCTs are the preferred source of evidence, 'medium,' and 'low' when NRS is the main source of inference). CONCLUSION: Our framework augments existing guidance on assessing the quality of NRS and their compatibility with RCTs for evidence synthesis, while also highlighting potential challenges in implementing it. This manuscript received endorsement from the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes from an Electronic Medical Records Database for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Repository Corticotropin Injection.

PURPOSE: Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) is a naturally sourced mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides that exerts anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties via melanocortin receptors. RCI is approved as a short-term adjunctive therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is typically used in patients with refractory RA. The objective of this study was to describe real-world outcomes of RA patients treated with RCI by retrospective analysis of an electronic medical records (EMR) database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EMR data were obtained from the United Rheumatology-Normal Integrated Community Evidence (UR-NICETM) data repository for patients who used RCI for the treatment of RA. Demographics, comorbidities, disease history, medications, and laboratory evaluations 365 days prior to and 365 days after initiation of RCI were examined. RESULTS: The patient cohort was predominantly White females with a mean age of 60 years and high RA activity prior to RCI therapy. Clinical measures of disease severity indicated that patients had high RA activity before starting RCI therapy. Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) scores were significantly reduced 365 days post-initiation of RCI. Swollen and tender joint counts and patient-reported outcomes, including Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3 (RAPID3), Physician Global Assessment, and patient assessment of pain severity were also significantly lower. The number of patients taking conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic (b) DMARDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), and opioids decreased, as did the number of drugs tried within each class for csDMARDs, bDMARDs, NSAIDs, and glucocorticoids. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that RCI significantly improves clinical outcomes of RA and decreases the need for concomitant medications for up to 1 year following initiation of therapy. The study provides valuable insights into the use of RCI and management of these difficult-to-treat RA patients during routine clinical practice.

Cost-Effectiveness of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations in Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Relapses are common among patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) despite treatment with disease-modifying therapies. Repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel), plasmapheresis (PMP), and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) are alternative therapies for MS relapse. There is a dearth of economic assessments of these therapies for the acute exacerbations of MS. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of RCI compared to PMP or IVIg. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model compared outcomes (costs, relapses, remission, and utilities) with RCI versus PMP or IVIg for the acute exacerbations in MS. The model was developed from the United States (US) payer and societal perspectives over one to three years. Patients initiated on alternative therapies were evaluated in one-day increments for the first 30 days during treatment. The model assumes the natural history of MS after treatment in the first month, adjusting for the effect of treatment. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base case, RCI has an ICER of USD 42,078 per QALY compared to PMP over one year from the payer perspective and is dominant over two and three years; RCI is dominant compared to PMP from the societal perspective over all three years. Compared to IVIg, RCI is a dominant strategy from both payer and societal perspectives over all three years. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis supports the base case findings, suggesting that RCI may be cost-effective versus PMP and IVIg for acute exacerbations in MS. CONCLUSION: RCI is a cost-effective alternative treatment for MS relapses compared to PMP and IVIg from the US payer and societal perspectives.

Cost-Effectiveness of Repository Corticotropin Injection versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) often have inadequately controlled symptoms and are unable to achieve remission or low disease activity despite aggressive treatment. This results in irreversible joint damage, adversely affecting patients' physical and social functioning. The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of repository corticotropin injection (RCI) versus standard of care (SoC) in patients with active RA from the United States (US) payer and societal perspectives over two to three years. METHODS: An individual-level microsimulation was developed to generate individual trajectories for patients with RA, using data from a published Phase 4 trial of RCI. These trajectories report a patient's disease pathway and associated cost and quality-of-life outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of RCI versus SoC was assessed using the literature-derived direct medical and indirect costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) derived from a Phase 4 trial of RCI. The uncertainty in base case estimates of the parameters was evaluated in the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Over two years, RCI has an incremental QALY gain of 1.591 and incremental cost of $183,965 and $117,443 from payer and societal perspective, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $115,629/QALY and $73,817/QALY compared to SoC. Over three years, RCI has an incremental QALY gain of 2.336 and incremental cost of $202,315 and $104,506 from payer and societal perspective, respectively, resulting in an ICER of $86,607/QALY and $44,737/QALY compared to SoC. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis are consistent with those of the base case model. CONCLUSION: RCI is a cost-effective strategy for patients with persistently active RA who are previously treated with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs and corticosteroids compared to SoC over two to three years from the payer and societal perspectives at a US willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Further, the economic benefit of RCI is realized with improvement in a patient's clinical and health outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes from a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Repository Corticotropin Injection (Acthar® Gel) for Persistently Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed patient-reported outcomes from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) in patients with persistently active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) despite treatment with moderate-dose glucocorticoids. METHODS: The trial enrolled adults with active SLE and moderate-to-severe rash and/or arthritis despite use of stable glucocorticoids (7.5 mg/day to 30 mg/day prednisone equivalent), antimalarials, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for ≥ 4 weeks and/or immunosuppressants for ≥ 8 weeks before screening. Patients were randomly assigned to 80 U of RCI or placebo subcutaneously every other day through week 4, then twice weekly through week 24. Primary analyses evaluated the change from baseline to week 24 in the Lupus Quality of Life (QoL) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI)-Lupus questionnaires. Post hoc analyses stratified results by baseline disease activity (SLE Disease Activity Index-2000 [SLEDAI-2K] < 10 or ≥ 10; Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus Disease Area and Severity Index [CLASI]-Activity < 11 or ≥ 11; and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG]-2004 < 20 or ≥ 20) and by BILAG-based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) response at weeks 20 and 24. RESULTS: RCI treatment resulted in greater improvement in the LupusQoL pain domain at week 16 and planning domain at week 24 compared with placebo. Post hoc analyses demonstrated greater improvements with RCI in the pain, planning, and fatigue domains than with placebo at multiple time points in patients with higher disease activity by baseline SLEDAI-2K ≥ 10, CLASI-Activity ≥ 11, and BILAG-2004 ≥ 20 and/or in BICLA responders. Compared with placebo, RCI also resulted in greater improvements in percentage work time missed at week 24 in patients with baseline CLASI-Activity < 11 and in percentage impairment while working at week 16 in BICLA responders. CONCLUSIONS: RCI may improve QoL and work productivity in patients who have persistently active SLE despite treatment with standard SLE therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02953821.

Consequences of insurance denials among U.S. patients prescribed repository corticotropin injection (Acthar Gel) for nephrotic syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar Gel) is indicated to induce a diuresis or a remission of proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS) without uremia of the idiopathic type or that due to lupus erythematosus. This study compares patient characteristics and measurable healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) between NS patients who received a prescription for RCI and then were either approved or denied treatment by their insurers. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adults with NS from January 2015 to December 2018 was conducted using a de-identified open-source claims database. Patients were included in the study if they had ≥1diagnosis associated with NS, were age 18+, and had medical claims activity at some point in the year preceding ("baseline") and year following ("follow up") their first approved or denied RCI prescription. Baseline characteristics were reported with p-values indicating the significance of characteristics between cohorts. To assess outcomes, approved and denied patients were matched (1:1) using propensity-matching to account for underlying differences. RESULTS: Overall, 1,232 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. At baseline, approved patients were older than denied patients (mean age 53.9 vs. 48.4) and had higher rates of comorbidities. A greater proportion of approved patients required inpatient admissions (34.1 vs. 28.0%) and "high" doses of corticosteroids (CS) (26.2 vs. 20.7%) at baseline. Matched outcomes showed directionally more denied patients with inpatient admissions compared to approved (64 vs. 52) and a greater utilization of deep vein thrombosis ultrasound (12.2 vs. 6.6%) and dialysis (10.5 vs. 6.1%). Matched, denied patients had directionally greater CS use during follow-up both in the number of patients receiving CS (104 vs. 95) and the average annualized daily dose (4.1 vs. 3.4 mg). CONCLUSION: Patients denied access to RCI treatment had directionally higher HCRU compared to matched, approved counterparts. Thus, the results of this study may aid providers and payers in evaluating scenarios where RCI may be beneficial and improve quality of care for NS patients.

Patient Characteristics and Indicators of Treatment Initiation with Repository Corticotropin Injection in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Claims Database Analysis.

Repository corticotropin injection (RCI) is indicated as adjunctive, short-term therapy in selected patients with RA. To characterize RCI users and identify predictors of RCI initiation in RA, we compared preindex characteristics, treatment patterns, comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs for patients who had initiated RCI treatment (RCI cohort) versus patients with no RCI claims and ≥ 1 targeted synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (ts/bDMARD) claim (non-RCI ts/bDMARD cohort). We analyzed pharmacy and medical claims data from a large commercial and Medicare supplemental administrative database. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, ≥ 1 inpatient or ≥ 2 outpatient claims with RA diagnosis (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2018), and 12-month continuous medical and pharmacy coverage preindex. Results from baseline cohort comparisons informed multiple logistic regression analysis. Compared with the non-RCI ts/bDMARD cohort (n = 162,065), the RCI cohort (n = 350) had a greater proportion of patients with higher Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) scores; higher mean claims-based index of RA severity and CCI scores; greater frequency of almost all comorbidities; higher use of nontraditional DMARDs, glucocorticoids, and opioids; higher all-cause HCRU; and higher medical and total costs. By multivariable analysis, the most significant predictors of RCI initiation were intermittent glucocorticoid use at any dose (odds ratio [OR] 1.67), extended-use glucocorticoids at medium (OR 2.03) and high doses (OR 2.99), nontraditional DMARD use (OR 2.09), anemia (OR 1.39), and renal disease (OR 2.45). Before RCI initiation, patients had more severe RA, higher comorbidity burden, greater use of glucocorticoids and opioids, and higher HCRU compared with non-RCI initiators. The most significant predictors for starting RCI in patients with RA were intermittent use of glucocorticoids at any dose, extended-use high-dose glucocorticoids, use of nontraditional DMARDs, and comorbid anemia and renal disease.

Consequences of Insurance Denials Among U.S. Patients Prescribed Repository Corticotropin Injection for Acute Exacerbations of Multiple Sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Repository corticotropin injection (RCI; Acthar® Gel) is indicated for the treatment of acute exacerbations of multiple sclerosis (MS) in adults. Despite the well-documented clinical and economic benefits of RCI, many patients are denied use of the therapy by third-party payers. This study aims to understand the demographic and clinical characteristics of MS relapse patients who received a prescription for RCI from their physicians and then were either approved or denied treatment by their insurers. The study compares measurable clinical outcomes and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) between approved and denied cohorts. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adults experiencing MS relapse from January 2015 to December 2018 was conducted using a de-identified open-source claims database [Symphony Health Integrated Dataverse® (IDV)]. Patients were identified using ICD codes for MS and considered to have relapsing/remitting type according to established claims-based methodology. Clinical characteristics and HCRU were analyzed during the year preceding ("baseline") and the year following ("follow-up") each patient's index date, defined as the date of a patient's first approved RCI claim (for patients with ≥ 1 approved claim) or first denied RCI claim (for patients with only denied claims). Baseline characteristics were reported with unadjusted differences and p values indicating the significance of characteristics between the two cohorts. For outcomes, match-adjusted results were reported using propensity matching to account for underlying differences between cohorts. RESULTS: The study sample included 1902 MS relapse patients with at least one claim for RCI. At baseline, approved patients were slightly older compared to denied patients (mean age 48.0 vs. 47.2), had higher rates of hemiplegia/paraplegia (6.7% vs. 3.3%), greater mobility impairment (17% vs. 11.5%), more exacerbation episodes (66.2% vs. 59.9%), and a higher number of physical therapy/rehab claims (23.5 vs. 14.0), respectively. Outcomes among the matched sample show an increased use of corticosteroids for patients denied access to RCI compared to approved patients (51.1% vs. 42.4%), more exacerbation episodes (36.6% vs. 28.2%), and an increased number of physical therapy/rehab claims (11.5% vs. 9.9%), respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may aid providers and payers in evaluating scenarios where RCI may be beneficial and improve quality of care for patients experiencing MS relapse.

Clinical and economic consequences of statin intolerance in the United States: Results from an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Although statins are considered safe and effective, they have been associated with statin intolerance (SI) in clinical and observational studies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the clinical and economic consequences of SI through comparison of an SI cohort of patients with matched controls. METHODS: This study used data extracted from an integrated health system's electronic health records from 2008 to 2014. Adults with SI were matched to controls using a propensity score. Patients were hierarchically classified into 6 mutually exclusive cardiovascular (CV)-risk categories: recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS; ≤12 months preindex), coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral artery disease, diabetes, or primary prevention. The study endpoints, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment, medical costs, and time to first CV event were compared using conditional logistic regression, generalized linear, and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. RESULTS: Patients with SI (n = 5190) were matched with controls (n = 15,570). Patients with SI incurred higher medical costs and were less likely to reach LDL-C goals than controls. Patients with SI were at higher risk for revascularization procedures in all CV risk categories except ACS, and those in the diabetes risk category were at higher risk for any CV event. There was a lower risk of all-cause death among patients with SI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SI were less likely to reach LDL-C goals, incurred higher health care costs, and experienced a higher risk for nonfatal CV events than patients without SI. Alternative management strategies are needed to better treat high CV risk patients.

Patterns of Statin Use in a Real-World Population of Patients at High Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: Widespread use of statins has improved hypercholesterolemia management, yet a significant proportion of patients remain at risk for cardiovascular (CV) events. Analyses of treatment patterns reveal inadequate intensity and duration of statin therapy among patients with hypercholesterolemia, and little is known about real-world statin use, specifically in subgroups of patients at high risk for CV events. OBJECTIVE: To examine patterns of statin use and outcomes among patients with high-risk features who newly initiated statin monotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients (aged > 18 years) at high CV risk who received > 1 prescription for statin monotherapy and who had not received lipid-modifying therapy during the previous 12 months were identified from the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases (from January 2007 to June 2013). Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or diabetes were hierarchically classified into 5 mutually exclusive CV risk categories (listed here in order from highest to lowest risk): (1) recent CV event (subcategorized by hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome [ACS] or other non-ACS CV event within 90 days of index); (2) coronary heart disease (CHD); (3) history of ischemic stroke; (4) peripheral artery disease (PAD); and (5) diabetes. Outcomes of interest included changes in therapy, proportion of days covered (PDC), time to discontinuation, and proportion of patients with ASCVD-related inpatient visit during the follow-up period. Statin therapy was subdivided into high-intensity treatment (atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg, or simvastatin 80 mg) or moderate- to low-intensity treatment (all other statins and statin dosing regimens). Follow-up data were obtained from the index date (statin initiation) until the end of continuous enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 541,221 patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients were stratified in the diabetes cohort (61.1%), followed in frequency by recent ACS event (15.8%), recent non-ACS CV event (9.9%), PAD (4.7%), CHD (4.4%), and history of ischemic stroke (4.1%). Only 15.0% of the population initiated therapy with a high-intensity statin, and 22.5% of these high-intensity statin initiators switched to a moderate- to low-intensity regimen during the follow-up period. Median time to statin discontinuation was approximately 15 months. Duration of treatment was longer among those who were treated with a high-intensity versus a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (21 and 15 months, respectively). The PDC was highest in the recent ACS hospitalization cohort (66.4%) and lowest in the diabetes cohort (55.5%). The PDC was significantly greater among patients who initiated treatment with a high-intensity statin regimen than with a moderate- to low-intensity statin regimen (62.1% vs. 57.5%, respectively; P< 0.001). At 1 year, Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative rates for ASCVD-related hospitalizations ranged from 3.5% (diabetes) to 21.8% (recent ACS hospitalization). CONCLUSIONS: Patients at high risk for CV events are suboptimally dosed with statins, have high rates of discontinuation, and have low rates of adherence. Despite the use of statin therapy, ASCVD-related inpatient visit rates were high, particularly among those patients at highest risk because of a recent ACS hospitalization. Future interventions are required to ensure that high-risk patients are effectively managed to reduce subsequent morbidity and mortality. DISCLOSURES: Support for this research was provided by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Tarrytown, New York, and Sanofi US, Bridgewater, New Jersey. Menzin and Lin are employees of Boston Health Economics, which received consulting fees from Sanofi. Friedman is a consultant to Boston Health Economics. Lin, Friedman, and Menzin have received research support from Sanofi US. Sung, Mallya, Panaccio, and Koren are employees of Sanofi US and also have ownership interest in Sanofi US. Sanchez is an employee of and has ownership interest in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Neumann has served on advisory boards for Merck & Co, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Genentech, Novartis, Bayer AG, UCB, Sanofi US, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Cubist and serves as consultant for Boston Health Economics, Forrest, P urdue, and Smith and Nephew. This research has been presented in part at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 20th Annual International Meeting, May 16-20, 2015, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. All authors contributed to the study design, protocol development, and results interpretation. Lin and Menzin were responsible for conducting the study analyses. All authors were involved in manuscript development and approved the submitted version.

A common data model to assess cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality in atrial fibrillation patients using administrative claims and medical records.

PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation/flutter (AF) is frequently associated with cardiovascular comorbidities. Observational health care databases are commonly used for research purposes in studies of quality of care, health economics, outcomes research, drug safety, and epidemiology. This retrospective cohort study applied a common data model to administrative claims data (Truven Health Analytics MarketScan(®) claims databases [MS-Claims]) and electronic medical records data (Geisinger Health System's MedMining electronic medical record database [MG-EMR]) to examine the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality in relation to clinical risk factors in recent-onset AF and to assess the consistency of analyses for each data source. METHODS: Cohorts of patients with newly diagnosed AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,919 [MG-EMR]) and demographically similar patients without AF (n=105,262 [MS-Claims] and n=3,872 [MG-EMR]) were followed from the qualifying AF diagnosis until cardiovascular hospitalization, death, database disenrollment, or study completion. A common data model standardized the data in structure, format, content, and nomenclature to allow for systematic assessment and comparison of outcomes from two disparate data sets. RESULTS: In both databases, AF patients had greater overall baseline comorbidity and higher incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization (threefold higher) and all-cause mortality (46% higher) than non-AF patients. For AF patients, incidence rates of cardiovascular hospitalization and all-cause mortality were increased by the concomitant presence of coronary disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke at baseline. Overall, the pattern of cardiovascular hospitalization in the MS-Claims database was similar to that in the MG-EMR database. Compared with the MS-Claims database, the use of cardiovascular medications and the capture of certain comorbidities among AF patients appeared to be higher in the MG-EMR data set. CONCLUSION: Similar standardized analyses across EMR and Claims databases were consistent in the association of AF with acute morbidity and an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Areas of inconsistency were due to differences in underlying population demographics and cardiovascular risks and completeness of certain data fields.

Noise exposure reconstruction and evaluation of exposure trends in two large automotive plants.

This study used a task-based approach to reconstruct employee noise exposures at two large automotive manufacturing plants for the period 1970-1989, utilizing historic noise measurement data, work history records, documented changes in plant operations, focus group discussions, structured interviews with long-tenure employees, and task-based job profiles. Task-based job noise exposure profiles were developed in the 1990s when the plants conducted task-based noise monitoring. Under the assumption that tasks and time-at-task profile within jobs did not change over time, these profiles were applied to historic jobs. By linking historic noise exposure measurements to job tasks, this approach allowed task-based reconstructed noise exposure profiles to capture variability of daily noise exposures. Reconstructed noise exposures, along with task-based noise exposure measurements collected at each plant during the 1990s, were analyzed to examine time trends in workplace noise levels and worker noise exposure. Our analysis of noise exposure trends revealed that noise levels for many jobs declined by ≥3 dBA from 1970 to 1998 as operational and equipment changes occurred in the plants and some noise control measures were implemented, but for some jobs, noise levels increased in the mid- to late 1990s, most likely because of an increase in production at that time. Overall, the percentage of workers exposed to noise levels >90 dBA decreased from 95% in 1970 to 54% in 1998 at one of the plants and decreased from 36% in 1970 to ~5% in 1999 at the other plant. These reductions indicate a degree of success for the hearing conservation program. However, the actual number of employees with noise exposure >90 dBA increased because of a substantial increase in the number of production employees, particularly in jobs with high noise levels, which shows a hearing conservation program challenge that companies face during periods of increased production. Future analysis of hearing levels in these plant populations will help determine whether noise level reduction translates into decreased hearing loss at these plants.