Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis,psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis,or ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

Methods:

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

Results:

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n?=?32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n?=?20,582; 30%), infliximab (n?=?11,157; 16%), abatacept (n?=?2633; 4%), rituximab (n?=?1359; 2%), golimumab (n?=?687; <1%), ustekinumab (n?=?388; <1%), and certolizumab (n?=?245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

Limitations:

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

Conclusions:

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.     

Comparative evaluation of treatment patterns and healthcare utilization of newly-diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis patients by anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody status

Background: Anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP) antibody positivity is an established diagnostic factor for severe disease activity and joint damage and a prognostic factor for aggressive disease in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Objective: To compare RA-related treatment, healthcare utilization, and joint erosion between anti-CCP-positive and anti-CCP-negative RA patients.

Methods: Newly-diagnosed RA patients were identified from the Henry Ford Health System database between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2014; the date of the first RA diagnosis within the study period was the index date. Baseline anti-CCP test was used to categorize patients as anti-CCP-positive or anti-CCP-negative, and outcomes were evaluated in the 6 months post-index.

Results: There were 217 anti-CCP-positive and 191 anti-CCP-negative RA patients included in the study. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-positive patients were initiated on RA treatment than anti-CCP-negative patients (70.5% vs 23.0%; p?<?.0001). More anti-CCP-positive patients received methotrexate (73.2% vs 56.8%; p?=?.0374), while more anti-CCP-negative patients received hydroxychloroquine (31.8% vs 13.1%; p?=?.0037) in first-line therapy. A higher proportion of anti-CCP-negative patients were tested for rheumatoid factor (RF) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). Of those tested, there were more positive test results in the anti-CCP-positive cohort compared to the anti-CCP-negative cohort (RF: 84.4% vs 18.2%, p?<?.0001; C-reactive protein [CRP]: 69.7% vs 48.3%, p?=?.0008; and ESR: 89.5% vs 53.9%, p?<?.0001). Outpatient utilization predominated, with more anti-CCP-positive patients having any outpatient physician office visit (96.3% vs 77.5%, p?<?.0001) and a higher mean number of visits (5.3 vs 2.5, p?<?.0001) than anti-CCP-negative patients. Among anti-CCP-positive (n?=?113) and anti-CCP-negative (n?=?58) patients with imaging results, more anti-CCP-positive patients had joint erosion compared to anti-CCP-negative patients (18.6% vs 8.6%; p?=?.0858); however, statistical significance was not reached.

Conclusion: RA patients with positive anti-CCP antibodies had higher degrees of inflammation and disease activity as indicated by laboratory results, which likely contributed to their higher rates of healthcare utilization, joint erosion, and proportions of RA treatment.     

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.     

Medication adherence and persistence in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with adalimumab and etanercept. Six years of analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate medication adherence and persistence of patients treated with Etanercept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis, also giving economic evaluations on therapy costs for Received Daily Dose (RDD).

Materials and methods:

This retrospective study took into account 6 years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was quantified utilizing the ratio between RDD and Prescribed Daily Dose (PDD). Persistence has been reckoned taking into account the actual days of therapy comparing posology with supplied dose. The persistence has been graphed according to Kaplan-Meier method. The cost per RDD was reckoned starting from the expense incurred by Pescara General Hospital.

Results:

Medication adherence gave results in values between 0.88–0.97 for Etanercept and 0.83–0.90 for Adalimumab. The value of persistence was 100% for Etanercept and 90% for Adalimumab for the first year, and 70% for Etanercept and 80% for Adalimumab for the second year. In the 3rd year the persistence for Etanercept was 50% while for Adalimumab it was 60%. In the fourth year the persistence for Etanercept was 21% while for Adalimumab it was 27%. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Log rank test. The average cost per RDD was €32.97 for Etanercept and for Adalimumab it was €32.00 as an average of 6 years.

Conclusion:

The medication adherence was good for both Etanercept and Adalimumab. The rate of persistence decreased strictly in the fourth year of treatment. This data suggests the need for continuous monitoring of patients in treatment with TNF blockers.     

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.     

Psychometric validation of anti-clot treatment scale and treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication version II in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation

Aims: The Anti-Clot Treatment Scale (ACTS) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II (TSQM-II) are validated treatment satisfaction patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. The ACTS includes two domains: Burdens and Benefits; the TSQM-II includes four: Effectiveness, Side Effects, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction. Japanese-language versions of the ACTS and TSQM-II have been developed and linguistically validated. This study aimed to assess their psychometric properties in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Materials and methods: ACTS and TSQM-II data from 534 patients with AF were collected in a Japanese post-marketing surveillance study of a direct oral-anticoagulant, rivaroxaban. Four key psychometric properties, in line with best practice guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration, were examined using traditional psychometric methods: acceptability, scaling assumptions, reliability (i.e. internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability), and construct validity (i.e. convergent validity and known groups).

Results: ACTS Burdens and Benefits and TSQM-II Effectiveness, Convenience, and Global Satisfaction scales were found to be acceptable (e.g. item-level missing data at baseline <4%), with all scales having good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.80). test-retest reproducibility intraclass correlation coefficients for the ACTS Burdens and Benefits were 0.59 and 0.65, respectively, and between 0.54–0.61 for the TSQM-II scales. Known-groups validity for the ACTS and TSQM-II was supported by differences in scale scores by positive and negative impact (p?<?0.05). Correlations between the ACTS and TSQM-II (convergent validity) were lower than expected (range r?=?0.09–0.48), but in line with the original ACTS development study.

Limitations: Evaluation of test-retest reproducibility was limited by assessment period, which was longer (3 months) than recommended guidelines (usually up to 2 weeks).

Conclusions: Overall, Japanese versions of ACTS and TSQM-II scales satisfied internal consistency reliability and traditional validity criteria. Our study supports the ACTS and TSQM-II as appropriate PRO instruments to measure satisfaction with anticoagulant treatment in Japanese patients with AF.

Trial registration: NCT01598051, clinicaltrials.gov; registered April 20, 2012.     

A comparison of treatment patterns,healthcare resource utilization,and costs among young adult Medicaid beneficiaries with schizophrenia treated with paliperidone palmitate or oral atypical antipsychotics in the US

Abstract

Background: Much of the burden associated with schizophrenia is attributed to its early onset and chronic nature. Treatment with once monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M) is associated with lower healthcare utilization and better adherence as compared to oral atypical antipsychotics (OAAs). This study aimed to evaluate real-world effectiveness of PP1M and OAA therapies among US-based adult Medicaid patients with schizophrenia, overall and among young adults aged 18–35 years.

Methods: Adult patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and at least two claims for PP1M or OAA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected from the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid Database. Treatment patterns and healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared between PP1M and OAA treatment groups following inverse probability of treatment (IPT) weighting to adjust for potential differences. Utilization and cost outcomes were estimated using OLS and weighted Poisson regression models.

Results: After IPT weighting, the young adult PP1M and OAA cohorts were comprised of 3,095 and 3,155 patients, respectively. PP1M patients had a higher duration of continuous treatment exposure (168.2 vs 132.5 days, p?=?.004) and better adherence on the index medication (proportion of days covered ≥80%: 19.0% vs 17.1%, p?<?.049). Young adults treated with PP1M were 37% less likely to have an all-cause inpatient admission (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?0.53–0.74) and 33% less likely to have an ER visit (OR?=?0.67, 95% CI?=?0.55–0.81) compared to OAA young adult patients, but 27% more likely to have an all-cause outpatient office visit (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI?=?1.02–1.56). PP1M patients incurred significantly lower medical costs as compared to OAA patients.

Conclusions: Medicaid patients with schizophrenia treated with PP1M have higher medication adherence and have fewer hospitalizations as compared to patients treated with OAAs. PP1M may lead to reduced healthcare utilization and improved clinical outcomes.