The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aims: To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

Materials and methods: RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010–2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

Results: Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p?p?p?p?=?.021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p?=?0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p?=?.031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p?=?.093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p?Limitations and conclusions: Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

The economic burden of depression among adults with rheumatoid arthritis in the United States

Aims: Depression is the most frequent comorbidity reported among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Comorbid depression negatively impacts RA patients’ health-related quality-of-life, physical function, mental function, mortality, and experience of pain and symptom severity. The objective of this study was to assess healthcare utilization, expenditures, and work productivity among patients with RA with or without depression.

Materials and methods: Data from adult patients who had at least two visits each related to RA and depression over a 1-year period were extracted from the Truven Health MarketScan research databases. Outcomes comprised healthcare resource utilization, work productivity loss, and direct healthcare costs comparing patients with RA with depression (n?=?3,478) vs patients with RA without depression (n?=?43,222).

Results: Patients with RA and depression had a significantly greater relative risk of hospitalization and number of all-cause and RA-related hospitalizations, utilization of emergency services, days spent in the hospital, physician visits, and RA-related surgeries compared with RA patients without depression. Patients with RA and depression had a higher risk of and experienced more events and days of short-term disability compared with patients without depression. The incremental adjusted annual all-cause and RA-related direct costs were $8,488 (95% CI = $6,793–$10,223) and $578 (95% CI = –$98–$1,243), respectively, when comparing patients with RA and depression vs RA only.

Limitations: The current analysis is subject to the known limitations of retrospective studies based on administrative claims data.

Conclusions: This study suggested increased healthcare utilization, work productivity loss, and economic burden among RA patients due to comorbid depression. These findings emphasize the importance of managing depression and including depression as a factor when devising treatment algorithms for patients with RA.     

Costs associated with non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the cost impact of non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in stable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK.

Materials and methods: A cohort-based decision tree model was developed with a 1-year time horizon. The model population included patients with stable RA (patients who responded to originator etanercept treatment with no treatment changes in the previous 6?months). Patients could undergo a non-medical switch to a biosimilar and then switch treatment again, if medically required, after 3–6?months. Data on the proportion of patients switching therapies, baseline healthcare resource use, and impact of switching on resource use were sourced from a survey of 150 rheumatologists from EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). The average impact of switching was evaluated as mean values for change in resource utilization due to switching. Also, low- and high-impact scenarios (lower and upper values of the 95% confidence intervals for change in resource utilization due to switching) were modelled as sensitivity analyses. Cost data came from published UK sources.

Results: The model assumed that 5,000 patients were treated with originator etanercept, with 1,259 (25.2%) switching to a biosimilar. Of those, 875 (69.5%) and 384 (30.5%) switched to SB4 and GP2015, respectively. After 3?months, 26.3% of patients who switched treatments did so again: 8.3% back to originator, 3.8% to the other biosimilar, and 14.2% to another biologic. Although originator etanercept was more expensive than the biosimilars, switching was more costly than continuous originator treatment across all impact scenarios. Switching treatment chains had higher overall annual per-patient costs than continuous originator treatment. Switching was associated with increased healthcare resource use.

Limitations: Results from this analysis are not transferable to other (non-RA) etanercept indications.

Conclusion: Non-medical switching can result in increased payer costs because of increased healthcare resource use following switching.     

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi (“TNFi cyclers”) or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) (“new MOA switchers”).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were “effectively treated” if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

Results: The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.12–1.74; p?=?.003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR?=?0.64; 95% CI?=?0.51–0.81; p?p?=?.006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio?=?0.84; 95% CI?=?0.79–0.88; p?p?Limitations: Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

Conclusions: These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.     

A case-control study of anaemia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in an adult population in the US: prevalence and impact on healthcare utilisation

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of anaemia and its impact on healthcare utilisation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: Patients with claims for moderate-to-severe RA (ICD-9 code 714.x) treated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs as well as controls without RA matched for age, gender and time in plan were selected from the MarketScan Research Database. Anaemia was identified by ICD-9 codes 280.x, 285.2x, 281.9, 285.9 and 284.8. The prevalence ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) for anaemia among RA patients versus controls were estimated. Overall disease burden was measured using the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI).

Results: The prevalence ratio for anaemia in RA patients was 2.2 (95% CI 2.1–2.4). Mean ECI was higher in RA (2.26) compared with control (1.02) patients (p<0.001), and RA patients with anaemia had a higher ECI compared with those without anaemia (3.95 vs. 2.08; p<0.001). Total healthcare costs in RA patients with anaemia were approximately twice those of RA patients without anaemia.

Conclusions: The prevalence of clinically diagnosed anaemia in RA patients in the claims database was 2.2 times higher than that in the comparable non-RA control group. RA patients with anaemia had significantly higher levels of co-morbidity and healthcare costs than RA patients without anaemia.     

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

Methods: The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

Results: The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

Conclusions: In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.