Dataset Information

Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drug Prescription Patterns for Rheumatoid Arthritis Among United States Physicians.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Some patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) experience inefficacy or lack of tolerability and hence switch to another TNFi (cycling) or to a therapy with another mode of action (switching). This study examined patient characteristics, prescribing patterns and treatment practice for RA in the United States.

Methods

Data were from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme (Q2-Q3 2016). Rheumatologists completed a survey and patient record forms for adult patients with RA who had received ≥ 1 targeted therapy. Patients were grouped by class of first-used targeted therapy, and monotherapy vs. combination therapy. TNFi patients who received ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as cyclers or switchers. Univariate analyses compared patient characteristics and physician factors across the analysis groups.

Results

Overall, 631 patients received ≥ 1 targeted therapy; 535 were prescribed a TNFi as first targeted therapy, 53 a nonTNFi biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), and 43 tofacitinib. Of 577 patients with known conventional synthetic (cs) DMARD status, 18.7% were prescribed monotherapy and 81.3% combination therapy. Combination therapy patients received significantly more concomitant medications prior to initiation of first targeted therapy than monotherapy patients (P < 0.05). The top reason for physicians to prescribe first use targeted therapy was strong overall efficacy (79.9%). Of 163 patients who progressed to second targeted therapy, 60.7% were cyclers. A lower proportion of cyclers persisted on their first use targeted therapy versus switchers (P = 0.03). The main reason physicians gave for switching patients at this stage was worsening condition (46.6%).

Conclusions

Most patients were prescribed a TNFi as their first targeted therapy; over half then cycled to another TNFi. This suggests other factors may influence second use targeted treatment choice and highlights the need for greater understanding of outcomes associated with subsequent treatment choices and potential benefits of switching.

SUBMITTER: Sullivan E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7211222 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are commonly used as first-line therapy (biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug [bDMARD] and targeted synthetic DMARD [tsDMARD]: defined as targeted therapy) for patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA), usually combined with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) but sometimes as monotherapy. If treatment fails, patients cycle to another TNFi (cycling) or switch to a targeted therapy with a different mode of action (MOA; switching). The study aimed to examine prescribing patterns and reasons for current RA treatment practice in Europe (EU5: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and Japan. METHODS:Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP; Q1-Q2 2017). Rheumatologists seeing ≥ 10 (EU5) and ≥ 5 (Japan) patients with RA a month completed Patient Record Forms. Patients ≥ 18 years old, with RA diagnosis and complete RA-targeted therapy history were included. Patients were grouped based on first-line targeted therapy class, and on whether first-line targeted therapy was monotherapy (targeted therapy alone) or combination therapy (targeted therapy and csDMARD). Those patients receiving TNFi at first-line and with ≥ 1 targeted therapy were classified as TNFi cyclers or MOA switchers. Univariate analysis compared factors across groups. Patient demographics and characteristics compared across groups; physician reasoning for targeted therapy change; and time to discontinuation of targeted therapy. RESULTS:In EU5 and Japan, respectively, 1741 and 147 patients were included; at first-line, 80.8% and 64.6% received TNFi and 76.0% and 77.6% received combination therapy. Overall in EU5, more combination therapy than monotherapy patients reached maximum csDMARD dose before first-line targeted therapy (P < 0.05); disease severity was higher in patients initiating TNFi versus non-TNFi (P < 0.05). In Japan, trends were similar but not significant. The most common reason physicians gave for changing therapy following first-line targeted therapy was 'secondary lack of efficacy' (EU5: 46.2%; Japan: 53.8%). In EU5 and Japan, respectively, of 365 and 22 patients who received second-line targeted therapy, 52.1% and 54.5% were MOA switchers. In EU5, TNFi cyclers had longer time from diagnosis to second-line targeted therapy initiation than MOA switchers (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:TNFis were the most commonly prescribed targeted therapy at first-line. Between 10 and 20% of patients prescribed a TNFi as first-line targeted therapy did so without concomitant csDMARD. Almost half of patients cycled to another TNFi at second-line.

Project description:IntroductionTo compare biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy persistence between biologics among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who previously used ?1 other biologic.MethodsUsing a large United States administrative claims dataset, we identified adult patients with RA initiating abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, or tocilizumab between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2012 (initiation date = index). Patients were required to have used ?1 other biologic before index. Outcomes were biologic persistence, defined in two alternative ways: (1) time from initiation until switching to a different biologic (time to switch) and (2) time from initiation until switching or the first occurrence of a 90-day gap in treatment with the initiated biologic (time to switch/discontinuation). Rituximab was excluded from analyses due to retreatment based on clinical evaluation, which complicates the measurement of persistence. Multivariable survival analyses compared persistence outcomes between tocilizumab and the other biologics, adjusting for patient characteristics.ResultsThe sample comprised 9,782 biologic initiations; mean age 54 years and 82% female. Compared with tocilizumab, the hazards of switching biologic therapy were significantly higher for abatacept [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.19, P = 0.041], adalimumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), certolizumab (HR = 1.39, P < 0.001), golimumab (HR = 1.20, P = 0.047), and infliximab (HR = 1.33, P < 0.001), but not significantly different for etanercept (HR = 1.19, P = 0.095); the hazards of switching/discontinuing biologic therapy were significantly higher for adalimumab (HR = 1.16, P = 0.014) and certolizumab (HR = 1.15, P < 0.012), but not significantly different for abatacept (HR = 1.08, P = 0.229), etanercept (HR = 0.97, P = 0.644), golimumab (HR = 0.99, P = 0.829), and infliximab (HR = 0.97, P = 0.721).ConclusionsThis is one of the first studies of biologic persistence to focus specifically on patients with RA who are not naïve to biologic treatment. Among patients with RA who previously used ?1 other biologic, tocilizumab-treated patients had similar or significantly better biologic persistence compared with other biologics.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe effects of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and cancer are largely unknown. We examined overall survival (OS) in patients with RA and solid malignancies receiving bDMARDs.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with RA and solid malignancies seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2002 and 2014. Cox proportional hazard regression models, stratified by tumor type and stage, were fit evaluating use of bDMARDs as a time fixed and time varying covariate.ResultsWe identified 431 RA patients with solid malignancies: 111 (26%) received bDMARDs after their cancer diagnosis. Median OS from cancer diagnosis was 16.1 years. Of the patients receiving bDMARDs, most had localized disease, and only 14 (13%) had advanced cancer. In the stratified Cox models no statistically significant differences were observed between patients who received tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or patients who received nonTNFi, compared with those who did not receive bDMARDs (hazard ratio (HR), 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31, 1.44; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.26, 4.60 respectively). In breast cancer patients, those receiving TNFi or nonTNFi had a numerically higher but statistically nonsignificant HR compared with those who did not receive bDMARD: HR, 1.40 (95% CI, 0.42, 4.73), and HR, 1.37 (95% CI, 0.22, 8.42) respectively.ConclusionNo significant differences in OS were observed between patients who received bDMARDs and those who did not. Additional data is needed to evaluate other cancer outcomes such as recurrence and progression, and patients with advanced cancer. Key Points •We found no statistically significant differences in OS between patients with RA and concomitant solid malignancies who received bDMARDs and those who did not. •Most patients who received bDMARDs had been diagnosed with early stage cancer •As few patients with advanced cancer received bDMARDs safety for this group cannot be established •No significant differences were observed between TNFi and nonTNFi, but the sample size was small.

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the incidence rate of nonvertebral osteoporotic fractures (NVFs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating one of the nine biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs).MethodsWe analyzed claims data from Optum (2008 to March 2019), Medicare, and MarketScan (2008-2017) to identify adults with RA who newly initiated b/tsDMARDs. Adalimumab was the most frequently used and was thus selected as a reference. The primary outcome was a composite of incident NVFs, including hip, humerus, pelvis, and wrist fractures, based on validated algorithms. We adjusted for greater than 70 potential confounders in each database through propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. Follow-up time started the day after cohort entry until the first occurrence of one of the following: outcome, treatment discontinuation, switching, nursing home admission, death, disenrollment, or end of study period. For each drug comparison, weighted Cox proportional hazards models estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary analyses were conducted in patients switching from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor to a different b/tsDMARD.ResultsA total of 134,693 b/tsDMARD initiators were identified across three databases. The adjusted HRs showed similar risk of composite NVFs in all b/tsDMARD exposures compared with adalimumab: abatacept, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.82-1.30); certolizumab, HR 1.08 (95% CI 0.79-1.49); etanercept, HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.89-1.40); golimumab, HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.59-1.39); infliximab, HR 1.03 (95% CI 0.84-1.28); rituximab, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.74-1.55); tocilizumab, HR 1.24 (95% CI 0.71-2.17); and tofacitinib, HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.69-1.64). Secondary analyses showed similar results.ConclusionThis multidatabase cohort study found no differences in the risk of NVFs across individual b/tsDMARDs for RA, which provides reassurance to physicians prescribing b/tsDMARDs, especially to patients at high risk of developing NVFs.