Predicting Life Expectancy for Pirfenidone in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Conducting an adequately powered survival study in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is challenging due to the rare nature of the disease and the need for extended follow-up. Consequently, registration trials of IPF treatments have not been designed to estimate long-term survival. OBJECTIVE: To predict life expectancy for patients with IPF receiving pirfenidone versus best supportive care (BSC) in a population that met the inclusion criteria of patients enrolled in the ASCEND and CAPACITY trials. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier survival data for pirfenidone and BSC were obtained from randomized controlled clinical studies (CAPACITY, ASCEND), an open-label extension study (RECAP), and the Inova Fairfax Hospital database. Data from the Inova registry were matched to the inclusion criteria of the CAPACITY and ASCEND trials. Life expectancy was estimated by the area under the curve of parametric survival distributions fit to the Kaplan-Meier data. RESULTS: Mean (95% confidence interval) life expectancy was calculated as 8.72 (7.65-10.15) years with pirfenidone and 6.24 (5.38-7.18) years with BSC. Therefore, pirfenidone improved life expectancy by 2.47 (1.26-4.17) years compared with BSC. In addition, treatment with pirfenidone recuperated 25% of the expected years of life lost due to IPF. Sensitivity analyses found that results were sensitive to the choice of parametric survival distribution, and alternative piecewise and parametric approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that this population of patients with IPF has an improved life expectancy if treated with pirfenidone compared with BSC. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by InterMune International AG, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary since 2014. Fisher was previously employed by InterMune UK, a wholly owned Roche subsidiary, until July 2015. He is currently employed by FIECON, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. Nathan has received consulting fees from Roche-Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim. He is also on the speakers' bureau for Roche-Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funding from both companies. Hill was previously employed by InterMune UK until October 2014. Hill and Marshall are employees of MAP BioPharma, which has received funding from F. Hoffmann-La Roche for consulting services. Dejonckheere and Thuresson are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Maher has received grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline and UCB, and grants from Novartis. He has also received consulting fees and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, Lanthio, InterMune International AG, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda. Maher is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Fellowship (NIHR Ref: CS: -2013-13-017). Study concept and design were contributed by Fisher, Hill, Marshall, and Dejonckheere. Fisher, Nathan, and Thuresson collected the data, along with Hill and Marshall. Data interpretation was performed by Fisher, Maher, Nathan, and Dejonckheere. The manuscript was written primarily by Fisher, along with Maher and Dejonckheere, and revised by Fisher and Maher, along with the other authors.

Survival in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis: Perspectives from Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension.

DISCLOSURES: Maher has received grants, consulting fees, and speaker fees from GlaxoSmithKline and UCB and grants from Novartis. He has also received consulting fees and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biogen Idec, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cipla, Lanthio, InterMune International AG (a wholly owned Roche subsidiary since 2014), F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda. Maher is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Clinician Scientist Fellowship (NIHR Ref: CS:-2013-13-017). Dejonckheere is an employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. Nathan has received consulting fees from Roche-Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim. He is also on the speakers bureau for Roche-Genentech and Boehringer Ingelheim and has received research funding from both companies. All authors contributed equally to study concept and design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation.

Comparative Efficacy of Novel DMARDs as Monotherapy and in Combination with Methotrexate in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Conventional DMARDs: A Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the availability of a number of alternative biologic treatment options and other novel disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), clinicians are faced with an increasingly challenging choice regarding optimal treatment. Biologics are usually combined with traditional DMARDs, primarily methotrexate (MTX), but some biologics and tofacitinib (together referred to in this article as novel DMARDs) have been shown to be efficacious as monotherapy as well. In real-world practice, approximately one-third of RA patients receiving biologics are on monotherapy, primarily because of intolerance of, or noncompliance with, MTX. Limited data, however, are available analyzing the effectiveness of monotherapy compared with combination therapy across novel DMARDs. OBJECTIVE: To compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses to approved novel DMARDs used as monotherapy or as combination therapy with methotrexate (MTX) at 24 weeks in RA patients who have shown inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (DMARD-IR).  METHODS: Through a systematic review of the literature, we identified randomized controlled trials that assessed approved novel DMARDs used as monotherapy or as combination therapy with MTX in DMARD-IR RA patients. Twenty-eight RCTs were identified that evaluated abatacept, anakinra, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib. ACR responses at 24 weeks were extracted and combined by means of Bayesian network meta-analyses.  RESULTS: With the exception of anakinra plus MTX, which was less efficacious, most novel DMARDs, when used in combination with MTX, demonstrated comparable ACR responses. When novel DMARDs were used as monotherapies, greater ACR20/50/70 responses were observed with tocilizumab than with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (aTNF) or tofacitinib. Furthermore, ACR20/50/70 responses with tocilizumab plus MTX were similar to those with tocilizumab monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] for the indirect comparison = 1.08, 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.40-2.84; OR = 1.24, CrI = 0.44-3.61; OR = 0.95, CrI = 0.33-2.72, respectively), whereas greater responses were observed with aTNF plus MTX than with aTNF monotherapy (OR = 2.41, CrI = 0.51-11.61; OR = 2.85, CrI = 0.51-17.67; OR = 1.28, CrI = 0.21-8.42, respectively). Relative efficacy estimates for the indirect comparison of tofacitinib plus MTX with tofacitinib monotherapy were very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that in combination with MTX most of the available novel DMARDs have similar levels of efficacy in DMARD-IR patients. As monotherapy, however, tocilizumab displayed higher ACR responses than aTNF or tofacitinib. ACR responses with tocilizumab plus MTX were similar to those with tocilizumab as monotherapy, whereas aTNF in combination with MTX demonstrated greater ACR responses than aTNF as monotherapy.

Economic evaluation of tocilizumab monotherapy compared to adalimumab monotherapy in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of tocilizumab (TCZ) monotherapy (Mono) versus adalimumab (ADA) Mono from the US payer perspective in patients with rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is inappropriate. METHODS: We compared TCZ Mono (8 mg/kg monthly) with ADA Mono (40 mg every other week), using efficacy results from a head-to-head study, ADalimumab ACTemrA (ADACTA). We calculated the incremental cost per responder (achievement of American College of Rheumatology [ACR] 20% improvement criteria, ACR 50% improvement criteria, ACR 70% improvement criteria, or low disease activity score) for TCZ versus ADA at 6 months. A patient-level simulation was used to estimate the lifetime incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of initiating treatment with TCZ Mono versus ADA Mono. Both drugs are followed by an etanercept-certolizumab-palliative care sequence. Nonresponders discontinue at 6 months; responders experience a constant probability of discontinuation. Discontinuers move to the next treatment. ACR responses produce changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score. We mapped the HAQ score to utility to estimate QALYs. Costs include those related to hospitalization and those related to treatment (drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring). Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted, along with several scenario analyses. RESULTS: Compared with ADA, TCZ was more effective, with an estimated 6-month incremental cost ranging from $6,570 per additional low disease activity score achiever to $14,265 per additional ACR 70% improvement criteria responder. The lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,944/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: TCZ Mono is projected to be cost-effective compared with ADA Mono in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis for whom methotrexate is not appropriate, from a US payer perspective.

Comparative efficacy of biologics as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate on patient reported outcomes (PROs) in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs--a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare biologics as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in terms of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in RA patients with an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs (DMARD-IR). METHODS: With a systematic literature review 17 RCTs were identified that evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, abatacept, anakinra or tocilizumab. Treatment effects in terms of pain (0-100 mm), patient's global assessment of disease activity (PGA; 0-100 mm), Health Assessment-Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI; 0-3), and the physical component summary (PCS) of the SF36 Health Survey (0-100) at 24 weeks were combined by means of Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS: With tocilizumab monotherapy, greater improvements in pain (difference = -11.1; (95% Credible Interval -21.3, -0.1)) and PGA (-10.3 (-20.4, 0.8)) were observed than with aTNF monotherapy. Tocilizumab was at least as efficacious as aTNF in HAQ-DI improvements (-0.16; (-0.37, 0.05)). aTNF + MTX (-17.9 (-23.1, -13.0) & -19.1 (-24.2, -14.4)), abatacept + MTX (-23.0 (-47.3, 1. 5) & -13.6 (-28.4, 2.0)) and tocilizumab + MTX (-16.0 (-26.3, -6.3) & -15.1 (-25.1, -5.7)) showed comparable reductions in pain and PGA relative to MTX. Efficacy of anakinra + MTX was much smaller as compared to other biologics. The greatest improvements in HAQ-DI relative to MTX were observed with aTNF + MTX (-0.30 (-0.37, -0.22)) and tocilizumab + MTX (-0.27 (-0.42, -0.12)), followed by abatacept + MTX (-0.21 (-0.37, -0.05)) and anakinra + MTX (-0.11 (-0.26, 0.05)). The improvements in SF36-PCS with abatacept + MTX, aTNF + MTX and tocilizumab + MTX were comparable. There is a >90% probability that aTNF + MTX results in a greater improvement in pain (-12.4), PGA (-16.1) and HAQ-DI (-0.21) than aTNF as monotherapy. Efficacy of tocilizumab + MTX showed comparable improvements in PROs as tocilizumab monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a network meta-analysis involving indirect comparison of trial findings, the following observations were made for DMARD-IR patients. In monotherapy, tocilizumab was associated with a greater improvement in pain and self-reported disease activity than aTNF, and was at least as efficacious regarding functional ability. The improvements in PROs with aTNF, abatacept and tocilizumab in combination with MTX were comparable. Improvements in PROs with tocilizumab as monotherapy were similar to that of tocilizumab + MTX, whereas aTNF as monotherapy was likely to be less efficacious than aTNF + MTX.