Patient-reported outcomes in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer from the randomized Phase II PERLA trial comparing first-line chemotherapy plus dostarlimab or pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: PERLA (NCT04581824) compared efficacy and safety of dostarlimab (DCT) or pembrolizumab (PCT) plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs; exploratory analysis) from PERLA. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive DCT or PCT every 3 weeks (Q3W) for ≤ 35 cycles [C]. PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13, PRO-CTCAE, FACT-GP5) were collected at baseline, Q3W until C4, Q9W until C16, Q12W until end of treatment and at 30-day safety follow-up. Change from baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) in QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 were analyzed using longitudinal mixed models and Kaplan-Meier estimators, respectively. RESULTS: The PRO (DCT/PCT) datasets included 102/99 patients for QLQ-C30, 96/90 for QLQ-LC13, 96/88 for PRO-CTCAE, and 95/87 for FACT-GP5. Completion rates were > 80 % to C4, then decreased in both arms. For QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13, most patients reported stable/improved responses at C13 (∼ 9 months on treatment), with similar responses between arms except more patients reported improvements in dyspnea (QLQ-C30: 36.4 % vs 13.0 %; QLQ-LC13: 40.6 % vs 25.0 %) and chest pain (QLQ-LC13: 34.4 % vs 10.0 %) with DCT vs PCT. TTD per QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 were similar between arms, although TTD in dyspnea was longer with DCT vs PCT (QLQ-LC13: 4.24 vs 1.54 months; p = 0.0168). Most patients in both arms reported that adverse events occurred occasionally/rarely/never with moderate/mild severity. Overall, patients reported little/no bother from treatment side effects. CONCLUSIONS: DCT maintained health-related quality of life similarly to PCT and was well tolerated, supporting the PERLA primary results and dostarlimab use in future regimens.

An Indirect Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Dostarlimab and Doxorubicin for the Treatment of Advanced and Recurrent Endometrial Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear standard of care for advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) following platinum-based therapy. Dostarlimab is approved for patients with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) advanced/recurrent EC. This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) assessed dostarlimab efficacy and safety from the single-arm GARNET (NCT02715284) trial compared with doxorubicin from ZoptEC (NCT01767155). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level data and study variables from GARNET Cohort A1 (dMMR/MSI-H EC) and the ZoptEC doxorubicin control arm were merged. Patients were matched based on eligibility criteria (main analysis population). Safety population included all patients who received treatment. The primary efficacy comparison outcome, overall survival (OS), was calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model, with adjusted stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. Modified assessment-scheduled matching Kaplan--Meier analysis was used for progression-free survival (PFS) and time to deterioration (TTD) in quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: In the main analysis population, median (95% CI) OS was not reached (NR; 18.0 months--NR) for dostarlimab (n = 92) and was 11.2 (10.0-13.1) months for doxorubicin (n = 233; HR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.28-0.61]); median PFS was 12.2 (3.3-NR) and 4.9 (4.1-6.6) months, respectively. Median TTD in QoL was NR (2.5-NR; n = 61) and 4.5 (4.1-5.4; n = 188) months, respectively. Similar rates of adverse events (AEs, 11.6% vs 15.3%) and serious AEs (34.1% vs 30.1%) were observed with dostarlimab (n = 129) and doxorubicin (n = 249). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 48.1% vs 78.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This ITC suggests a favorable benefit:risk profile for dostarlimab in patients with dMMR/MSI-H advanced/recurrent EC.

Patient-reported outcomes in the GARNET trial in patients with advanced or recurrent mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab.

OBJECTIVE: There is an increase in patient-reported outcome assessments to gain information on new drug candidates from the patient's perspective. A data gap remains in patient-reported outcome measurements for anti-programmed death 1 (anti-PD-1) therapies in endometrial cancer. We present patient-reported outcome measures collected from patients with mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer treated with dostarlimab, an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in an expansion cohort of the GARNET trial. METHODS: GARNET (NCT02715284) is a phase I single-arm study of dostarlimab monotherapy in multiple tumor types. Patients with advanced or recurrent mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high endometrial cancer were treated with 500 mg of intravenous dostarlimab once every 3 weeks for four cycles, then 1000 mg of intravenous dostarlimab every 6 weeks. Patient-reported outcome assessments were an exploratory endpoint, measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). RESULTS: At data cut-off, 88 patients with mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer were included in the analysis. Patient-reported outcome assessment completion was >95.5% throughout cycle 7 of the trial, with no individual domain completion <90.9%. Quality of life, emotional functioning, and social functioning showed improvement compared with baseline. All symptom scores showed either improvement or stability from baseline through cycle 7. Categorical change in response across all symptom scales and single-item response scores showed stability or improvement for most patients. For patients who saw a worsening of their categorical change in response, ≤7.4% experienced a 2-category worsening and ≤2.5% experienced a 3-category worsening. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients remained stable or had improved quality of life while receiving dostarlimab for the treatment of recurrent or advanced mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02715284.

Prevalence of type 2 inflammatory diseases in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis: Real-world evidence.

BACKGROUND: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are considered at increased risk of developing other type 2 inflammatory diseases. However, real-world evidence based on large commercially insured pediatric populations in the United States is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To use a large claims database (IBM MarketScan 2013-2017) in the United States to assess prevalence and incidence of type 2 inflammatory diseases in pediatric patients with AD. METHODS: Pediatric patients with AD were matched 1:1 to patients without AD. Prevalence was assessed for conjunctivitis, rhinitis, urticaria, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and chronic rhinosinusitis/nasal polyps at the 12 months' post-index date (the first AD diagnosis date for patients with AD; a randomly selected outpatient visit for control patients). The incidence of other type 2 inflammatory diseases post-index was assessed among patients 0-2 years of age. RESULTS: A total of 244,776 AD and matched non-AD patients were selected. The prevalence and incidence of type 2 inflammatory diseases were higher among patients with AD. Overall, the prevalence more than doubled for asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, urticaria, and rhinitis, and increased with AD severity. LIMITATIONS: AD identification was based on billing diagnoses; the observation period was only 12 months; and the study was limited to commercially insured patients. CONCLUSION: The burden of type 2 inflammatory diseases in pediatric patients with AD is substantial, highlighting the need to optimize management of AD and its numerous associated morbidities.

Patient-reported barriers to statin adherence: Excerpts from a motivational interviewing intervention in older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Despite a known benefit in the reduction of cardiovascular risk, adherence to statins remains suboptimal. A qualitative analysis was conducted within an intervention that identified trajectories of statin adherence in patients and used motivational interviewing (MoI) to improve adherence. The objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate transcripts of an MoI telephonic intervention to identify potential, past, and current barriers to statin adherence and barriers specific to distinct adherence trajectories. METHODS: The MoI intervention was customized by past 1-year adherence trajectories (rapid discontinuation, gradual decline, and gaps in adherence). Two authors independently extracted and documented barriers from phone transcripts. Themes were derived from literature a priori and by cataloging recurring themes from the transcripts. RESULTS: The transcripts of calls made to 157 patients were reviewed of which 25.2% did not communicate a specific adherence barrier despite falling into a low-adherence trajectory when examining refill data. The most commonly reported barriers to statin adherence included adverse effects (40.1%), forgetfulness (30.0%), and lack of skills or knowledge pertaining to statins (25%). More patients in the rapid discontinuation group perceived medication as unnecessary, whereas more patients in the gaps in adherence group reported a communication barrier with their health care provider. Several barriers among patients who fell into low-adherence trajectories were reported. Some patients did not report any barriers, which may have indicated denial. MoI phone calls were useful in providing knowledge, clarifying medication regimens, and reinforcing the need to take statins. CONCLUSION: This study identified patient-reported barriers to statin adherence elicited during an MoI telephonic intervention conducted by student pharmacists. There were differences in barriers reported by patients from each trajectory, which emphasize the need for additional tailored interventions to improve patient adherence.

Comparative effectiveness of first-line tumour necrosis factor inhibitor versus non-tumour necrosis factor inhibitor biologics and targeted synthetic agents in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a large US registry study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) versus a non-TNFi (biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs)) as the first-line treatment following conventional synthetic DMARDs, as well as potential modifiers of response, observed in US clinical practice. METHODS: Data were from a large US healthcare registry (Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America Rheumatoid Arthritis Registry). The analysis included patients (aged ≥18 years) with a documented diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a valid baseline Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of >2.8 and no prior bDMARD or tsDMARD use. Outcomes were captured at 1-year postinitiation of a TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, golimumab or infliximab) or a non-TNFi (abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, anakinra or tofacitinib) and included CDAI, 28-Joint Modified Disease Activity Score, patient-reported outcomes (including the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, EuroQol-5 Dimension score, sleep, anxiety, morning stiffness and fatigue) and rates of anaemia. Groups were propensity score-matched at baseline to account for potential confounding. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences observed between the TNFi and non-TNFi treatment groups for outcomes assessed, except the incidence rate ratio for anaemia, which slightly favoured the TNFi group (19.04 per 100 person-years) versus the non-TNFi group (24.01 per 100 person-years, p=0.03). No potential effect modifiers were found to be statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of no significant differences in outcomes between first-line TNF versus first-line non-TNF groups support RA guidelines, which recommend individualised care based on clinical judgement and consideration of patient preferences.

High levels of interleukin-6 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis are associated with greater improvements in health-related quality of life for sarilumab compared with adalimumab.

BACKGROUND: Increased levels of cytokines, including interleukin-6 (IL-6), reflect inflammation and have been shown to be predictive of therapeutic responses, fatigue, pain, and depression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but limited data exist on associations between IL-6 levels and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This post hoc analysis of MONARCH phase III randomized controlled trial data evaluated the potential of baseline IL-6 levels to differentially predict HRQoL improvements with sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against both soluble and membrane-bound IL-6 receptor α (anti-IL-6Rα) versus adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor, both approved for treatment of active RA. METHODS: Baseline serum IL-6 levels in 300/369 randomized patients were categorized into low (1.6-7.1 pg/mL), medium (7.2-39.5 pg/mL), and high (39.6-692.3 pg/mL) tertiles. HRQoL was measured at baseline and week (W)24 and W52 by Short Form 36 (SF-36) physical/mental component summary (PCS/MCS) and domain scores, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -fatigue, and duration of morning stiffness visual analog scale (AM-stiffness VAS). Linear regression of changes from baseline in HRQoL (IL-6 tertile, treatment, region as a stratification factor, and IL-6 tertile-by-treatment interaction as fixed effects) assessed predictivity of baseline IL-6 levels, with low tertile as reference. Pairwise comparisons of improvements between treatment groups were performed by tertile; least squares mean differences and 95% CIs were calculated. Similar analyses evaluated W24 patient-level response on minimum clinically important differences (MCID). RESULTS: At baseline, patients with high versus medium or low IL-6 levels (n = 100, respectively) reported worse (nominal p < 0.05) SF-36 MCS and role-physical, bodily pain, social functioning, role-emotional domain, and AM-stiffness VAS scores. There was a greater treatment effect with sarilumab versus adalimumab in high tertile versus low tertile groups in SF-36 PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness VAS (nominal interaction p < 0.05). PCS improvements ≥MCID were higher in high (odds ratio [OR] 6.31 [2.37, 16.81]) versus low (OR 0.97 [0.43, 2.16]) tertiles with sarilumab versus adalimumab (nominal interaction p < 0.05). Adverse events between IL-6 tertiles were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with high baseline IL-6 levels reported better improvements in PCS, physical functioning domain, and AM-stiffness scores with sarilumab versus adalimumab and safety consistent with IL-6R blockade. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns Among Rheumatologists in Europe and Japan.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy. RESULTS: In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Sarilumab and adalimumab differential effects on bone remodelling and cardiovascular risk biomarkers, and predictions of treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a pleiotropic cytokine that plays a key role in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that binds membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptor-α to inhibit IL-6 signalling. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sarilumab and adalimumab (a tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) monotherapy on levels of circulating biomarkers associated with the acute-phase response, bone remodelling, atherothrombosis, anaemia of chronic disease and markers purported to reflect synovial lymphoid and myeloid cell infiltrates, as well as the potential of these biomarkers to differentially predict clinical and patient-reported outcomes with sarilumab vs. adalimumab. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis, serum samples were analysed at baseline and prespecified post-treatment timepoints up to week 24 in adults with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis intolerant of or inadequate responders to methotrexate from the MONARCH trial (NCT02332590). RESULTS: Greater reductions in C-reactive protein (CRP; - 94.0% vs. -24.0%), serum amyloid A (SAA; - 83.2% vs. -17.4%), total receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand (RANKL; - 18.3% vs. 10.5%) and lipoprotein (a) (- 41.0% vs. -2.8%) were observed at week 24 with sarilumab vs. adalimumab, respectively (adjusted p < 0.0001). Greater increases in procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) were observed with sarilumab vs. adalimumab at week 24 (22.8% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.027). Patients with high baseline SAA, CRP and matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3) were more likely to achieve clinical efficacy, including American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria and Disease Activity Score (28 joints)-CRP < 3.2, and report improvements in patient-reported outcomes, including Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and pain visual analogue scale, with sarilumab than adalimumab. CONCLUSION: Sarilumab was associated with greater positive effects on bone remodelling and decreases in biomarkers of the acute-phase response, synovial inflammation and cardiovascular risk vs. adalimumab. High baseline concentrations of SAA, CRP and MMP-3 are predictive of clinical and patient-reported outcome responses to sarilumab treatment and prospective validation is warranted to confirm these results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590. Registered on 5 January 2015.

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns for Rheumatoid Arthritis Among United States Physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experience inefficacy or lack of tolerability and hence switch to another TNFi (cycling) or to a therapy with another mode of action (switching). This study examined patient characteristics, prescribing patterns and treatment practice for RA in the United States. METHODS: Data were from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (Q2-Q3 2016). Rheumatologists completed a survey and patient record forms for adult patients with RA who had received ≥ 1 targeted therapy. Patients were grouped by class of first-used targeted therapy, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy. TNFi patients who received ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as cyclers or switchers. Univariate analyses compared patient characteristics and physician factors across the analysis groups. RESULTS: Overall, 631 patients received ≥ 1 targeted therapy; 535 were prescribed a TNFi as first targeted therapy, 53 a nonTNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and 43 tofacitinib. Of 577 patients with known conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD status, 18.7% were prescribed monotherapy and 81.3% combination therapy. Combination therapy patients received significantly more concomitant medications prior to initiation of first targeted therapy than monotherapy patients (P < 0.05). The top reason for physicians to prescribe first use targeted therapy was strong overall efficacy (79.9%). Of 163 patients who progressed to second targeted therapy, 60.7% were cyclers. A lower proportion of cyclers persisted on their first use targeted therapy versus switchers (P = 0.03). The main reason physicians gave for switching patients at this stage was worsening condition (46.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were prescribed a TNFi as their first targeted therapy; over half then cycled to another TNFi. This suggests other factors may influence second use targeted treatment choice and highlights the need for greater understanding of outcomes associated with subsequent treatment choices and potential benefits of switching.

Safety and efficacy of switching from adalimumab to sarilumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the ongoing MONARCH open-label extension.

Objective: Evaluate open-label sarilumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis switching from adalimumab monotherapy in MONARCH (NCT02332590); assess long-term safety and efficacy in patients continuing sarilumab during open-label extension (OLE). Methods: During the 48-week OLE, patients received sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously once every 2 weeks. Safety (March 2017 cut-off) and efficacy, including patient-reported outcomes, were evaluated. Results: In the double-blind phase, patients receiving sarilumab or adalimumab monotherapy showed meaningful improvements in disease activity; sarilumab was superior to adalimumab for improving signs, symptoms and physical function. Overall, 320/369 patients completing the 24-week double-blind phase entered OLE (155 switched from adalimumab; 165 continued sarilumab). Sarilumab safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups; no unexpected safety signals emerged in the first 10 weeks postswitch. Among switch patients, improvement in disease activity was evident at OLE week 12: 47.1%/34.8% had changes ≥1.2 in Disease Activity Score (28 joints) (DAS28)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate/DAS28-C-reactive protein. In switch patients achieving low disease activity (LDA: Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤10; Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤11) by OLE week 24, 70.7%/69.5% sustained CDAI/SDAI LDA at both OLE weeks 36 and 48. Proportions of switch patients achieving CDAI ≤2.8 and SDAI ≤3.3 by OLE week 24 increased through OLE week 48. Improvements postswitch approached continuation-group values, including scores ≥normative values. Conclusions: During this OLE, there were no unexpected safety issues in patients switching from adalimumab to sarilumab monotherapy, and disease activity improved in many patients. Patients continuing sarilumab reported safety consistent with prolonged use and had sustained benefit.

Enhancing Statin Adherence Using a Motivational Interviewing Intervention and Past Adherence Trajectories in Patients with Suboptimal Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Statins have been shown to be effective in reducing the occurrence of cardiovascular (CV) events and are widely prescribed for the risk reduction of CV diseases and recurrent CV events. However, poor adherence prevents some patients from receiving the maximum benefit of the therapy. Motivational interviewing (MoI) is a patient-centered collaborative approach that can be used to improve medication adherence. Group-based trajectory modeling depicts patterns of adherence over time and may help tailor the MoI intervention to further enhance adherence. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a phone-based MoI intervention tailored by patients' past adherence trajectory in improving adherence to statins among patients in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan (MAPD). METHODS: Patients continuously enrolled in an MAPD from 2013 to 2017 with a statin prescription between January and June 2015 to allow 2 years of pre-index period and 1 year of follow-up were included in the study. Adherence to statins was measured monthly during the 1-year follow-up as proportion of days covered (PDC) and incorporated into a group-based trajectory model to provide 4 distinct patterns of adherence: adherent, rapid decline, gradual decline, and gaps in adherence. Patients in the 3 nonadherent groups were randomized to either control or intervention. The intervention was an initial counseling call and up to 2 monthly follow-up calls by pharmacy students trained in MoI, providing education consistent with a previously identified pattern of use. Refill data at 6 months post-intervention were evaluated to examine the intervention's effect on PDC, as continuous and dichotomized as PDC ≥ 0.8, as well as discontinuation. Multivariable regression adjusted for baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and past adherence trajectory. RESULTS: There were 152 patients included in the analysis who received MoI phone calls and 304 randomly selected controls. Mean PDC for the intervention group (0.67 ± 0.3) was significantly higher than the control (0.55 ± 0.4; P < 0.001). The intervention group was also less likely to discontinue (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.19-0.76) and more likely to be adherent in the linear regression model (ß = 12.4; P < 0.001) as well as in the logistic regression model (OR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.18-2.95). Previous adherence trajectories were significantly associated with adherence in the follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received the MoI intervention were more likely to be adherent and less likely to discontinue the statin in the 6 months follow-up compared with controls. Future research can identify other approaches to tailor interventions and expand the intervention to other languages. This intervention may also prove valuable to improve adherence to other medications for chronic and asymptomatic diseases. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, which provided critical input during study design, implementation, and manuscript preparation. Abughosh reports grants from Sanofi, BMS/Pfizer, and Valeant Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Vadhariya reports a past internship at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, unrelated to this study. Esse, Serna, and Gallardo are employees of CareAllies, a Cigna subsidiary. Boklage is an employee of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Choi was an employee of Sanofi during this study. Johnson, Essien, Fleming, and Holstad have nothing to disclose. A poster based on this study was presented at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 22-25, 2018; Orlando, FL.

Group-Based Trajectory Models to Identify Sociodemographic and Clinical Predictors of Adherence Patterns to Statin Therapy Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of statins in the prevention of primary and secondary atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease events have been well documented. Suboptimal adherence is a persistent problem associated with increased CV events and increased healthcare utilization. Proportion of days covered (PDC) is widely used to measure medication adherence, and provides a single value that does not adequately depict different adherence behavior patterns. Group-based trajectory modeling has been used to identify adherence patterns (or trajectories) over time. The identification of characteristics unique to each pattern can help in the early identification of patients who are likely to be poor adherents and can inform the development of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To identify distinct trajectories of statin adherence in patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan and the sociodemographic and clinical predictors associated with each trajectory. METHODS: Patients were included in the study if they were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan between 2013 and 2016 and had a statin prescription between January 2015 and June 2015. We observed each patient for 360 days and computed the monthly PDC. The monthly PDC was incorporated into a group-based trajectory model to provide distinct patterns of adherence. Using group-based trajectory modeling, the patients were categorized into groups based on their adherence patterns. Multinomial logistic regression was performed to identify the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with each group. RESULTS: A total of 7850 patients were included in the analysis and were categorized into 4 distinct groups based on statin adherence-rapid discontinuation (7.8%), gradual decline (16.8%), gaps in adherence (17.2%), and high or nearly perfect adherence (58.2%). Significant predictors of being placed into one or more of the low-adherence trajectories compared with the high-adherence trajectory included sex, age, low-income subsidy, language, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, statin intensity, and 90-day refills. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors identified in this study provide valuable insight into patient characteristics that increase the risk for statin nonadherence, which has the potential to inform targeted interventions. Identifying patient trajectories can inform the future development of protocols to individualize appropriate interventions for these patients.

Real-World Dose Modification Patterns of Subcutaneous Tocilizumab Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is based on the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Tocilizumab can be used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs for the treatment of moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis. Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous forms of the drug are available, but the SC form is more widely used. OBJECTIVE: To understand the real-world dose modification patterns of SC tocilizumab in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Truven (now IBM) MarketScan and Optum Clinformatics databases. Patients were included if they had ≥1 pharmacy claims for SC tocilizumab and met other inclusion criteria. The mean, standard deviation, and median values were reported for the continuous variables, and frequency was reported for the categorical variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to analyze the time to first dose modification. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify predictors of the likelihood of dose modification. RESULTS: The study included 1266 patients in the Truven database and 512 patients in the Optum database who had commercial or Medicare Advantage or supplemental insurance. Of the patients who started treatment with biweekly SC tocilizumab (48% each in the Truven and Optum databases), 37% in Truven and 40% in Optum had dose escalation to a weekly dose. Of those who started weekly SC tocilizumab (43% in the Truven and 49% in the Optum databases), 3% (Truven) and 4% (Optum) had dose reduction. The remaining patients started alternative SC tocilizumab doses. Overall, 60% and 68% of patients in the Truven and Optum cohorts, respectively, initiated or escalated to the higher weekly dose of tocilizumab; the mean time to dose escalation was 126 days and 112 days, respectively. In the Truven cohort, corticosteroid use, age, and anemia were the main predictors for dose escalation. In the Optum cohort, female patients had increased odds of dose escalation compared with male patients. CONCLUSION: The dosing trends observed in this study show that physicians have taken advantage of the option to increase SC tocilizumab dosing, but only a few providers chose to reduce the dose. This trend in dose modification may increase the costs related to SC tocilizumab therapy.

Budget impact analysis of sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARD or TNF inhibitor therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab - a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody - as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included. RESULTS: For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (-0.14%) to $194,646 (-0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (-0.11%) to $120,893 (-0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (-0.13%) to $98,040 (-0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence. CONCLUSION: Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules.

Trends in Statin Use 2009-2015 in a Large Integrated Health System: Pre- and Post-2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on Treatment of Blood Cholesterol.

PURPOSE: Implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guideline is likely to vary by statin benefit group. The aim of this study was to document trends in statin use before and after introduction of the ACC/AHA guideline. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study with annual cohorts from 2009 to 2015 among members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged ≥ 21 years. Members were categorized into four mutually exclusive statin benefit groups: atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL in the last year, diabetes (aged 40-75 years), and 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5% (aged 40-75 years). RESULTS: The cohorts ranged from 1,993,755 members in 2009 to 2,440,429 in 2015. Approximately 5% of patients had ASCVD, 1% had LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL, 6% had diabetes, and 10% had a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5% each year. Trends in statin use were stable for adults with ASCVD (2009 78%; 2015 80%), recent LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL (2009 45%; 2015 44%), and diabetes (2009 74%; 2015 73%), but increased for patients with 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5% (2009 36%; 2015 47%). High-intensity statin use also increased 142% and 54% among patients with LDL-C ≥ 190 mg/dL and those with ASCVD ≤ 75 years of age, respectively. Moderate-to-high intensity statin utilization increased over 50% among those with a 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Statin use increased substantially among patients with 10-year ASCVD risk ≥ 7.5% and use of appropriate statin dosage increased in each of the four statin benefit groups between 2009 and 2015; however, there is room for improvement.

Trends in Lipid Screening Among Adults in an Integrated Health Care Delivery System, 2009-2015.

BACKGROUND: Lipid screening determines eligibility for statins and other cardiovascular risk reduction interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in lipid screening among adults aged ≥20 years in a large, multiethnic, integrated health care delivery system in southern California. METHODS: Temporal trends in lipid screening were examined from 2009 to 2015 with an index date of September 30 of each year. Lipid screening was defined as the proportion of eligible members each year who (a) had ever been screened among those aged 20-39 years and (b) had been screened in the previous 6 years for those aged ≥ 40 years. Trends were analyzed by age, gender, and the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or diabetes without ASCVD status. RESULTS: More than 2 million individuals were included each year: 5%-6% had ASCVD (includes those with diabetes), 7%-8% had diabetes without ASCVD, and 87% had neither condition. Among the entire population, lipid screening increased from 79.8% in 2009 to 82.6% in 2015 (P < 0.0001). Among those with ASCVD or diabetes, lipid screening was 99% across all years. Among those without ASCVD or DM, screening increased from 76.9% in 2009 to 80.0% in 2015 (P < 0.0001), with higher screening among women compared with men and lower screening among individuals younger than 55 years. CONCLUSIONS: Consistently high rates of lipid screening were observed among individuals with ASCVD or diabetes. In individuals without these conditions, screening increased over time. However, there is room to further increase screening rates in adults younger than 55 years. DISCLOSURES: This manuscript and research work was supported by a contractual agreement between the Southern California Permanente Medical Group and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi U.S. Researchers from Regeneron and Sanofi collaborated on the study design, interpretation of data, and writing of the manuscript. Ling Grant, Harrison, Chang, Hsu, Cheetham, Wei, and Reynolds are employed by Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Scott is employed by Southern California Permanente Medical Group. Boklage is employed by Regeneron, and Romo-LeTourneau is employed by Sanofi. Preliminary results from this study were presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions; November 12-16, 2016; New Orleans, LA.

Risk of Incident Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular DiseaseEvents by Achieved Atherogenic Lipid Levels Among62,428 Statin-Treated Individuals With Diabetes Mellitus.

The relevance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) goals for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) among patients with diabetes was assessed. This retrospective cohort study included patients with type 2 diabetes, age 21 to 90years, taking statins, with no history of ASCVD as of January 1, 2006, in Kaiser Permanente Northern California, an integrated healthcare delivery system. Multivariate cox models were utilized to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for incident ASCVD events by achieved LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels with adjustment for potential confounders. Incident ASCVD events were defined as a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or coronary heart disease death. A cohort of 62,428 patients, with mean age of 64.1years, 46.9% women, and mean follow-up of 6.0 years, was identified. After adjustment, the risk of incident ASCVD for these statin-treated patients was monotonically lower with decreasing achieved LDL-C levels (p<0.0001 for trend) and non-HDL-C levels (p <0.0001 for trend). Relative to achieved LDL-C ≥130 mg/dl, LDL-C <50 mg/dl had HR = 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.69). Relative to achieved non-HDL-C ≥160mg/dl, non-HDL-C <80 mg/dl had HR = 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.68). In a large cohort of statin-treated diabetic patients without ASCVD, a monotonically lower risk of incident ASCVD events was associated with lower achieved lipid levels. These findings support the use of LDL-C ornon-HDL-C treatment goals for ASCVD primary prevention in diabetic patients.

Statin Utilization Patterns and Outcomes for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome During and Following Inpatient Admissions.

PURPOSE: High-intensity statins (HIS) are recommended by current treatment guidelines for patients with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and should be administered soon after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event and maintained thereafter. However, adherence to guidelines remains adequate. Statin utilization patterns during index hospitalization and the first year after ACS event, and the association between statin utilization and post-discharge clinical and economic outcomes, are described. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of US adults from the MarketScan Research Databases (2002-2014) with ≥ 1 inpatient admission for ACS and no evidence of previous ACS event < 12 months prior to index. RESULTS: In total, 7802 patients met inclusion criteria. The most common index hospitalization primary diagnosis was myocardial infarction (94.6%). In the 3-month period before ACS admission, 3.4 and 14.9% of patients received HIS or low-to-moderate intensity statin, versus 13.2 and 30.7% during index hospitalization, and 16.4 and 45.1% in the year of follow-up. Of 1336 patients with a statin prescription filled on/after discharge, 53.2% filled prescriptions within 15 days of discharge and 14.9% delayed for > 91 days. The most common post-index hospital admissions for cardiovascular events were due to recurrent ACS (incidence rate = 115.2), heart failure (110.0), and revascularization (76.4). During follow-up, 2355 patients (30.2%) had all-cause inpatient admissions and 1136 (14.6%) had cardiovascular-specific admissions; mean all-cause medical and healthcare costs were $2456 and $2870, respectively, per patient per month. CONCLUSIONS: Statin dosing and utilization of HIS remains lower than recommended in current treatment guidelines, leaving patients at considerable risk of subsequent cardiovascular events.