Dataset Information

Medicare expenditures for conventional and biologic disease modifying agents commonly used for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Biologic disease modifying agents (bDMARDs) are an integral part of rheumatoid arthritis treatment guidelines but are associated with significant cost in the US. We present the trends in total spending and unit cost of conventional DMARDs (cDMARDs) as compared to bDMARDs in Medicare program.

Methods

We used the Medicare drug spending data for the year 2012-2017 covering all part B (fee-for-service) and part D drugs. Total spending was calculated by summing spending across various drug formulations and unit drug cost by dividing total spending by number of doses dispensed. We present the 6-year trends in total spending, total beneficiary count and unit costs of each of the commonly used cDMARDs and bDMARDs.

Results

Between 2012 and 2017, the total spending on the cDMARDs increased 5-folds from $98 million to $579 million; this was fraction of total spending on bDMARDs which increased from $4.3 to $10.0 billion. This increase was driven largely by unit costs of drug rather than number of beneficiaries. There was a 6-fold increase in the unit cost of generic hydroxychloroquine followed by methotrexate and leflunomide. Amongst bDMARDs, adalimumab and etanercept unit cost increased by 2-folds. The increase was less pronounced for office-administered products.

Conclusions

Despite the availability of several generic cDMARDs over decades, there were steep increases in the unit cost of these agents to "keep pace" with the increases in bDMARDs. As the number of elderly rheumatoid arthritis patients increases, policy interventions might be required to reduce the spending on both biologics and conventional DMARDs.

SUBMITTER: Dalal DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7453205 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSome 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsOverall, 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%).ConclusionsMost 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.

Project description:ImportanceCytokine signaling, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and interleukin (IL)-6, through the Janus-kinase (JAK)-signal transducer and activator of transcription pathway, was hypothesized to attenuate the risk of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) in the Drug Repurposing for Effective Alzheimer Medicines (DREAM) initiative based on multiomics phenotyping.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between treatment with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept and risk of incident ADRD.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted among US Medicare fee-for-service patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65 years and older from 2007 to 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 cohorts based on initiation of tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors compared with a common comparator abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). Analyses were conducted from August 2020 to August 2021.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was onset of ADRD based on diagnosis codes evaluated in 4 alternative analysis schemes: (1) an as-treated follow-up approach, (2) an as-started follow-up approach incorporating a 6-month induction period, (3) incorporating a 6-month symptom to diagnosis period to account for misclassification of ADRD onset, and (4) identifying ADRD through symptomatic prescriptions and diagnosis codes. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression after adjustment for 79 preexposure characteristics through propensity score matching.ResultsAfter 1:1 propensity score matching to patients using abatacept, a total of 22 569 propensity score-matched patient pairs, including 4224 tofacitinib pairs (mean [SD] age 72.19 [5.65] years; 6945 [82.2%] women), 6369 tocilizumab pairs (mean [SD] age 72.01 [5.46] years; 10 105 [79.4%] women), and 11 976 TNF inhibitor pairs (mean [SD] age 72.67 [5.91] years; 19 710 [82.3%] women), were assessed. Incidence rates of ADRD varied from 2 to 18 per 1000 person-years across analyses schemes. There were no statistically significant associations of ADRD with tofacitinib (analysis 1: HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.55-1.51]; analysis 2: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.53-1.13]; analysis 3: HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.72-2.33]; analysis 4: HR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.21-1.20]), tocilizumab (analysis 1: HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.55-1.21]; analysis 2: HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.81-1.35]; analysis 3: HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.75-1.96]; analysis 4: HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.44-1.39]), or TNF inhibitors (analysis 1: HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.72-1.20]; analysis 2: HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]; analysis 3: HR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.86-1.48]; analysis 4: 0.90 [95% CI, 0.60-1.37]) compared with abatacept. Results from prespecified subgroup analysis by age, sex, and baseline cardiovascular disease were consistent except in patients with cardiovascular disease, for whom there was a potentially lower risk of ADRD with TNF inhibitors vs abatacept, but only in analyses 2 and 4 (analysis 1: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.50-1.16]; analysis 2: HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56-0.99]; analysis 3: HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.65-1.61]; analysis 4: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.98]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study did not find any association of risk of ADRD in patients treated with tofacitinib, tocilizumab, or TNF inhibitors compared with abatacept.

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:BACKGROUND:To assess the risks of malignancies, infections and autoimmune diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept compared with other biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, in a US-wide observational RA cohort METHODS: Data were reviewed from patients (??18?years) with RA who were registered with FORWARD, the National Databank for Rheumatic Diseases, and who initiated abatacept, other bDMARDs or csDMARDs between 2005 and 2015. Patients who switched treatment during the study could be allocated to more than one group. The incidence rates (IRs) by treatment were calculated for malignancies, hospitalized infections and autoimmune diseases identified by six monthly questionnaires and medical records. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) for all outcomes with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs were determined using marginal structural models adjusted for clinical confounders. RESULTS:In the study sample, 1496 initiated abatacept, 3490 initiated another bDMARD and 1520 initiated a csDMARD. The risk of malignancies with abatacept was not statistically significant versus other bDMARDs (HR [95% CI)] 1.89 [0.93, 3.84]) or versus csDMARDs (HR [95% CI] 0.93 [0.20, 4.27]). Patients receiving abatacept versus other bDMARDs were at a lower risk of hospitalized infections (HR [95% CI] 0.37 [0.18, 0.75]); the risk versus csDMARDs was lower with wide CIs (HR [95% CI] 0.31 [0.09, 1.05]). The relative risks for psoriasis were similar between treatment groups (HR [95% CI] 1.46 [0.76, 2.81] and HR [95% CI] 2.05 [0.59, 7.16] for abatacept versus other bDMARDs and versus csDMARDS, respectively). The IR (95% CI) of severe infusion/injection reactions was lower with abatacept compared with other bDMARDs (1.57 [1.11, 2.17] vs 2.31 [1.87, 2.82] per 100 patient-years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:In this analysis, abatacept was well tolerated and did not result in an overall increased risk of malignancies, infections or autoimmune diseases compared with other bDMARDs or csDMARDs.