The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occasionally increase their doses of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, especially the monoclonal antibody origin drugs such as adalimumab and infliximab, after inadequate response to the initial dose. Previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various sequences of treatment for RA in the United States but have not considered the effect of dose escalation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab by incorporating the effect of dose escalation in moderate to severe RA patients. METHODS: We adapted the open-source Innovation and Value Initiative - Rheumatoid Arthritis model, version 1.0 to separately simulate the magnitude and time to dose escalation among RA patients taking adalimumab plus methotrexate or etanercept plus methotrexate from a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. An important assumption in the model was that dose escalation would increase treatment costs through its effect on the number of doses but would have no effect on effectiveness. We estimated the dose escalation parameters using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. We fit competing parametric survival models to model time to dose escalation and used model diagnostics to compare the fit of the competing models. We measured the magnitude of dose escalation as the percentage increase in the number of doses conditional on dose escalation. Finally, we used the parameterized model to simulate treatment sequences beginning with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, etanercept) followed by nonbiologic treatment. RESULTS: In baseline models without dose escalation, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the etanercept treatment sequence relative to the adalimumab treatment sequence was $85,593. Incorporating dose escalation increased treatment costs for each sequence, but costs increased more with adalimumab, lowering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $9,001. At willingness-to-pay levels of $100,000, the etanercept sequence was more cost-effective compared with the adalimumab sequence, with probability 0.55 and 0.85 in models with and without dose escalation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation has important effects on cost-effectiveness and should be considered when comparing biologic medications for the treatment of RA. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Amgen. When this work was conducted, Incerti and Jansen were employees of Precision Health Economics, which received financial support from Amgen. Maksabedian Hernandez, Collier, Gharaibeh, and Stolshek were employees and stockholders of Amgen, and Tkacz and Moore-Schiltz were employees of IBM Watson Health, which received financial support from Amgen. Some of the results of this work were previously presented as a poster at the 2019 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA.

Effectiveness and Costs Among Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Treated with Targeted Immunomodulators Using Real-World U.S. Data.

BACKGROUND: Targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) are used for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and include biologic and nonbiologic medications with different mechanisms of action. Data describing disease activity levels in RA are not directly available in claims databases but can be determined using a claims-based effectiveness algorithm. Rheumatology has benefited from the recent introduction of new drugs, many with new mechanisms of action. We provide an analysis of this broader range of medications. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe and summarize the effectiveness of available TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe RA and (b) determine the RA-related health care costs per effectively treated patient, using recent data. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using data from the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database from July 1, 2012, through December 31, 2016. Index date was the new prescription claim for a TIM (abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib). A 6-month pre-index baseline period was used to determine demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients without a TIM claim during the baseline period were considered naive; patients with a TIM claim in the baseline period that was different than the index TIM were assessed as receiving second-line therapy. A claims-based algorithm was used to assess 12-month treatment effectiveness and total RA-related costs. Costs included RA-related pharmacy costs and medical costs. RESULTS: Data from 14,775 patients were analyzed, including patients prescribed abatacept (n = 1,250), adalimumab (n = 4,986), certolizumab pegol (n = 387), etanercept (n = 5,266), golimumab (n = 577), infliximab (n = 969), tocilizumab (n = 451), and tofacitinib (n = 889). Of these, 705 were receiving second-line therapy. TIM effectiveness by first-line and second-line therapy, respectively, were abatacept 27.1%, 18.1%; adalimumab 30.9%, 22.1%; certolizumab pegol 20.9%, 14.3%; etanercept 31.4%, 31.5%; golimumab 32.7%, 22.2%; infliximab 21.9%, 21.3%; tocilizumab 30.9%, 30.6%; and tofacitinib 26.0%, 21.6%. The main reason for failing effectiveness was not achieving an 80% medication possession ratio or being nonadherent. The 1-year total RA-related cost per effectively treated patient for first-line and second-line therapies, respectively, were abatacept $121,835, $174,090; adalimumab $112,708, $154,540; certolizumab pegol $149,946, $236,743; etanercept $102,058, $94,821; golimumab $108,802, $140,651; infliximab $155,123, $185,369; tocilizumab $93,333, $109,351; and tofacitinib $100,306, $130,501. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of TIMs from this real-world experience showed that the range of patients who were effectively treated with first-line therapy was higher for certain tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and tocilizumab. The percentages of effectively treated patients were generally lower in second-line treatment compared with first-line except for etanercept, which had the same percentage between lines of therapy. Etanercept had the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient among tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in first-line use and the lowest RA-related cost per effectively treated patient compared with all second-line treatments. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Amgen. Amgen employees contributed to study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Maksabedian Hernandez and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen; Gharaibeh was employed by Amgen at the time of this study. Bonafede was employed by IBM Watson Health, at the time of this study, and McMorrow is employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Data from this study were presented at AMCP Nexus, October 22-25, 2018, in Orlando, FL.

Effects of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) for Opioid Use Disorder on Functional Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review addresses the question: What are the effects of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) that use buprenorphine, buprenorphine combined with naloxone, methadone, or naltrexone for opioid use disorder (OUD) on functional outcomes compared with wait-list, placebo, treatment without medication, any other comparator, or each other (e.g., buprenorphine versus naltrexone)? Functional outcomes investigated included cognitive (e.g., memory), physical (e.g., fatigue), occupational (e.g., employment status), social/behavioral (e.g., criminal activity), and neurological (e.g., balance) function. The authors searched five scientific research databases from inception to 2017 and reference mined existing reviews. Two independent literature reviewers screened 6,292 citations; 1,327 full-text publications were reviewed in detail and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. Critical appraisals assessed studies in detail, and quality of evidence was rated using established criteria. Results were synthesized in meta-analyses and presented in comprehensive evidence tables. Although MAT patients performed significantly better on some functional outcomes than persons with OUD who did not receive MAT, MAT patients performed worse on several cognitive measures than did matched "healthy" controls with no history of substance use disorder (SUD) or OUD. Because of the moderate-to-high risk of bias of most studies, quality of evidence is low or very low for all findings. The small number of studies reporting on outcomes of interest and the weaknesses in the body of evidence prevent making strong conclusions about MAT effects on functional outcomes. The literature shows that more research is needed that targets functional outcomes specifically, and there is, in particular, a lack of research evaluating potential differences in functional effects among medication types, the route of administration, treatment modality, and length of treatment.