A real-world economic analysis of biologic therapies for psoriatic arthritis in Italy: results of the CHRONOS observational longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, immune-mediated, spondyloarthropathy characterised by musculoskeletal signs and symptoms with associated joint pain and tenderness. The average worldwide PsA prevalence is 133/100,000, while in the Italian population is 90-420/100,000. Traditionally, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been used in the treatment of PsA. However, for those patients who are not adequately controlled with conventional therapies, the new biologics compounds represent a valid option. Biologic therapies have been shown to be more effective but also more expensive than conventional systemic treatments. Based on the CHRONOS study, the economic analyses presented in this paper aim to assess the annualised direct costs and the cost-per-responder of biologics in a real-world context assuming the Italian National Health System perspective. METHODS: The economic assessments were carried out on the overall cohort of patients, and on the tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) and the secukinumab subgroup, the most prescribed biologic therapies within the CHRONOS study. RESULTS: The annual economic impact of PsA in the overall group was €12,622, €11,725 in the secukinumab subgroup, and €12,791 in the TNFi subgroup. Biologics absorbed the main expenditure costs in the treatment of PsA accounting for about the 93% of total costs. At 6 months, secukinumab performed better in all the considered outcomes: cost-per-responder according to EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria were €12,661- €28,975, respectively, while they were €13,356 - €33,368 in the overall cohort and €13,138 - €35,166 in the TNFi subgroup. At 12 months secukinumab remained the subgroup with the lowest cost-per-responder ratio in EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria, while TNFi subgroup was the lowest one considered the ACR20. CONCLUSION: Despite some potential methodological limitations, our cost-per-response analysis provides physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions.

Factors influencing the choice of first- and second-line biologic therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: real-life data from the Italian LORHEN Registry.

According to international recommendations, the selection of the biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is mainly left to the clinician's preference. We analyzed the real-life factors influencing the first-line choice or the switching strategy, focusing on the prescription of abatacept (ABA) or tocilizumab (TCZ) compared to TNFα inhibitors (TNFi). Patients enrolled in the Lombardy Rheumatology Network (LORHEN) Registry after January 1, 2010, when all considered bDMARD agents were available, were included. The population was divided into "first-" and "second-line" bDMARD. We included 1910 patients (first line n = 1264, second line n = 646). Age was higher in ABA or TCZ vs TNFi treated patients (p < 0.0001). Positive latent tuberculosis screening was associated with first-line ABA (p = 0.002). Methotrexate (MTX) combination therapy was lower in the TCZ group (p = 0.02). The type (dyslipidemia, hypertension, pulmonary disease) and the number of comorbidities influenced the choice towards ABA (p = 0.01). Multinomial logistic regression demonstrated that a second-line treatment, higher age, dyslipidemia, pulmonary disease, other comorbidities, and extra-articular RA manifestations were associated with ABA compared to TNFi. TCZ was associated with a second-line treatment, higher age, and more severe disease activity. Stopping the first bDMARD due to adverse events (AE) influenced the choice towards ABA. In real life, higher age and comorbidities influence the choice towards ABA and TCZ compared to TNFi. ABA was preferred in case of suspension of previous treatments due to AE. After failing a first-line TNFi, swapping to a different mechanism of action is more common.

Survival on treatment with second-line biologic therapy: a cohort study comparing cycling and swap strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival on treatment with second-line biologic therapy in RA patient non-responders to TNF inhibitors (TNFis) by comparing treatments with a second anti-TNF (cycling strategy) or with agents with a different mechanism of action (MoA; swap strategy). METHODS: RA patients treated with biologics since 1999 who stopped a first-line TNFi and started a second-line biotherapy were included in this cohort study. After adjusting for propensity scores, drug retention rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves and the Cox regression model was used to compare risk for discontinuation between the two groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients discontinued the first TNFi, switching to a second anti-TNF [n = 119 (59.2%)] or to abatacept [n = 26 (31.7%)], rituximab [n = 40 (48.8%)] or tocilizumab [n = 15 (18.3%)]. Drug survival was significantly higher in the swap group than in the cycling group (P < 0.0001). After adjustment for propensity scores, probability of treatment retention in the swap group was significantly higher (hazard ratio = 2.258, 95% CI 1.507, 3.385), even after stratification according to the reason for the first TNFi discontinuation (P = 0.005). No significant differences emerged when comparing the retention rates of different MoAs (P = 0.51) in the swap group. CONCLUSION: In the clinical practice setting, the best option for managing TNFi non-responders seems to be swapping to a different MoA, with no differences between abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab, irrespective of the reason for first TNFi discontinuation.

Recommendations for the use of biologic therapy in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: update from the Italian Society for Rheumatology.

OBJECTIVES: To update the 2006 Italian Society for Rheumatology recommendations for the use of biologic (TNF-α blocking) agents in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A panel of experts performed a literature search and identified the items that required updating on the basis of new published data. A draft of the updated recommendations was circulated to a group of Italian Rheumatologists with a specific expertise in PsA and in therapy with biologic agents, and their suggestions were incorporated in the final version. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation and the monitoring of anti-TNF-α agents in PsA. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and specific recommendations were made for patients with psoriatic peripheral synovitis, spondylitis, enthesitis, and dactylitis, respectively. We also specified criteria for assessment of response to treatment and for withholding and withdrawal of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with PsA should receive biologic therapy. Further updates of these recommendations may be published on the basis of the results of new clinical studies and of data from post-marketing surveillance.