Dataset Information

The comparative risk of serious infections among rheumatoid arthritis patients starting or switching biological agents.

ABSTRACT: It is unclear whether anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha and biological agents with different mechanisms of action have similar safety. This study evaluated the incidence of hospitalised infections among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients starting or switching various biological agents.Using a database from a large US healthcare organisation from January 2005 to August 2009, the authors identified enrollees with RA and their treatment episodes entailing the new use of a biological agent, stratified by no biological use in the previous year ('biological-free') or switching from a different biological agent ('switchers'). Outcomes were hospitalised infections identified using previously validated algorithms. Proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratio of hospitalised infections, comparing each biological agent with infliximab.Among 7847 biological treatment episodes, 63% were for biological-free patients and 37% for switchers. There were 364 hospitalised infections. Rates of hospitalised infection among biological-free patients and switchers were 4.6 and 7.0 per 100 person-years, respectively (p<0.0001). After multivariable adjustment controlling for biological-free/switcher status and other infection-related factors and compared with infliximab, users of abatacept (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96), adalimumab (HR 0.52, 0.39 to 0.71), etanercept (HR 0.64, 0.49 to 0.84) and rituximab (HR 0.81, 0.55 to 1.20) had lower rates of hospitalised infection. Patient risk factors contributed more to the risk of infection than did the risk associated with specific biological therapies.The rate of hospitalised infections among RA patients was highest for infliximab. Most of the variability in patients' risk of infection was driven by factors other than biological agent exposure.

SUBMITTER: Curtis JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3128235 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The comparative risk of serious infections among rheumatoid arthritis patients starting or switching biological agents.

Curtis Jeffrey R JR Xie Fenglong F Chen Lang L Baddley John W JW Beukelman Timothy T Saag Kenneth G KG Spettell Claire C McMahan Raechele M RM Fernandes Joaquim J Winthrop Kevin K Delzell Elizabeth E

Annals of the rheumatic diseases 20110517 8

<h4>Background</h4>It is unclear whether anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha and biological agents with different mechanisms of action have similar safety. This study evaluated the incidence of hospitalised infections among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients starting or switching various biological agents.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a database from a large US healthcare organisation from January 2005 to August 2009, the authors identified enrollees with RA and their treatment episodes entailing the new ...[more]

PMID: 21586439

Similar Datasets

Project description:Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs.We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods.The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1.31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.09-1.58) and high-dose biological drugs (1.90, 1.50-2.39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0.93, 0.65-1.33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs.Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Project description:Biological products for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis usually are cost effective for healthcare systems in Europe, but they are huge financial burden due to the high number of patients and the significant budget impact. The expected saving from introduction on the market of biosimilars are significant and are linked to better access and affordability. The aim of this study was to conduct comparative price analysis of biological products for rheumatoid arthritis therapy among seventeen EU countries. The point of view is that of the Bulgarian pricing and reimbursement system and the chosen countries are those from external reference basket for prices comparison at manufacturing level. All authorized biological products by EMA with therapeutic indication rheumatoid arthritis were selected. The access for treatment is evaluated as the availability of the product on the market and the prices level. We assessed the availability of all trade names in the price lists of the observed countries. The prices data was obtained from the official web pages of the responsible institutions up to date December 2017. The results show that four out of all six INNs have authorized biosimilars in EMA. Despite its earlier authorization biosimilar adalimumab is not present in any of the price lists of countries. From all eighteen countries only in Lithuania and Estonia there were no published prices of any of the selected medicinal products. Countries with higher number of biosimilar prices are Spain and France. Differences in manufacturers' prices of reference biological products in selected countries in comparison with the lowest manufacturer price are higher with 22 to 69% while the retail prices between 62 and 95%. Differences are mostly notable for rituximab, and less notable for tocilizumab. Manufacturers' and retail prices of biosimilar products were established only for three INNs (etanercept, rituximab, and infliximab). Manufacturers' prices differ between 26 and 75%, while retail prices differ between 40 and 92% for biosimilars. Comparison of the differences between manufacturer prices of reference biological product and biosimilars shows 36% difference for etanercept, 39% for rituximab, and 31% for infliximab, while at retail level the differences are 11, 86, and 143%, respectively. The limitation of the study is that the prices are the official ones without discounts due to confidentiality and the real prices may be lower. The second limitation is that the methodology for pricing differs in the countries and this could also influence the prices on both levels (manufacturer and retail). Introduction of biosimilars on the national markets led to significant decrease in reimbursed prices paid by public funds and thus might benefit the patients' access to biological therapy. The decrease of prices after biosimilars entrance on the market is not as notable as for commodity generics.

Dataset Information

The comparative risk of serious infections among rheumatoid arthritis patients starting or switching biological agents.

Publications

The comparative risk of serious infections among rheumatoid arthritis patients starting or switching biological agents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets