RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to compare real-world outcomes of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving adalimumab (ADA) bio-originator (non-switchers) to those who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers) on the basis of the hypothesis that these outcomes would differ. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) in 2020. Physicians completed a questionnaire for their next ten adult patients with RA, followed by four additional patients who had switched from ADA bio-originator to an ADA biosimilar (switchers). Physician- and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for switchers and non-switchers were compared by propensity score matching. RESULTS: Three hundred and three rheumatologists provided data for 160 non-switchers and 225 switchers, 140 patients provided data; 51 non-switchers, 89 switchers. According to physician-reported disease activity, non-switchers were more likely to improve on their current ADA treatment than switchers (68%, n = 108 vs. 26%, n = 59 p < 0.001) and less likely to worsen (1%, n = 2 vs. 9%, n = 20; p < 0.01). Physician-reported patient adherence was significantly lower amongst switchers versus non-switchers (0.66 vs. 0.78, respectively; p = 0.04). More non-switchers than switchers were reported by their physicians to be consistent in taking their RA medicine (p < 0.001). Compared with non-switchers, PRO measures indicated quality of life was worse (EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale: 62.9 vs. 71.9; p < 0.001) and activity impairment was greater (Work Productivity Activity Index: 31.0 vs. 24.4; p = 0.02) for switchers, with trends for poorer health status and greater pain. CONCLUSIONS: Non-medical switching in RA treatment may lead to unforeseen outcomes that should be considered by health decision-makers.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While treat-to-target (T2T) is endorsed for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), data on the degree of implementation in clinical practice are limited. This study investigated the use of T2T for RA in a real-world setting across Europe. METHODS: The Adelphi RA Disease-Specific Programme was a point-in-time survey of rheumatologists and their consulting patients with RA conducted between January and October 2020 in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Rheumatologists completed an attitudinal survey, and a record form for their next 10-12 consulting patients, who were invited to voluntarily complete a patient-reported questionnaire. Data collected included clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and attitudes towards T2T. RESULTS: Overall, 316 rheumatologists provided data for 3120 patients, of whom 1108 completed the questionnaire. While 86.1% of rheumatologists estimated using T2T principles in clinical practice, only 66.6% of patients were reported by their physician to be managed using a T2T approach. Achieving disease remission was the most commonly reported treatment goal identified by rheumatologists (79.7%), followed by symptom control (47.8%) and reducing impact on quality of life (44.5%). 40.8% of rheumatologists and their patients were in agreement that a treatment goal had been set. When there was agreement on treatment goals, we observed better patient satisfaction, engagement and treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations, the T2T approach in RA appears to be suboptimally implemented in clinical practice. This highlights the importance of patient-centricity in the decision-making process to define meaningful targets and select appropriate treatments to improve disease outcomes.