Dataset Information

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:We compared treatment switch patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated apremilast or biologics. METHODS:A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust administrative claims data for adults initiating apremilast or biologics from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016, for possible selection bias. Patients had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment in the Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart database. Outcomes included switch frequency, days to switch, adherence on index treatment, and healthcare costs (total and per patient per month). Switch rate was defined as the proportion of patients who switched to a new treatment after initiation of the index treatment, and days to switch was calculated as the days between initiation of the index treatment and initiation of the new treatment. Adherence was calculated using the proportion of days covered and the medication possession ratio. The t test and chi-square, Kaplan-Meier, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to evaluate differences between the cohorts. RESULTS:Patient characteristics and switch rates were similar between the matched apremilast (n?=?170) and biologic (n?=?327) cohorts. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between the matched cohorts. The 12-month switch rates were similar for patients initiating apremilast versus those on biologics (17.7% vs. 25.1%, P?=?0.06). This trend was similar at 6 months (7.7% vs. 13.2%, P?=?0.07) and 18 months (24.4% vs. 29.3%, P?=?0.33). Regardless of treatment switching, 12-month total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (all: $28,423 vs. $41,178, P?

SUBMITTER: Wu JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467475 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

Wu Jashin J JJ Pelletier Corey C Ung Brian B Tian Marc M Khilfeh Ibrahim I Curtis Jeffrey R JR

Advances in therapy 20200305 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>We compared treatment switch patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who initiated apremilast or biologics.<h4>Methods</h4>A 1:2 propensity score match was used to adjust administrative claims data for adults initiating apremilast or biologics from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2016, for possible selection bias. Patients had at least 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment in the Optum Clinformatics™ Data ...[more]

PMID: 32141018

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveMatching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of two treatments indirectly using data from randomized placebo-controlled trials. This MAIC assessed the comparative effectiveness of secukinumab (an anti-interleukin-17A) and etanercept (a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor) in a target population of biologic-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsIndividual patient data pooled from FUTURE 2 (NCT01752634), FUTURE 3 (NCT01989468), and FUTURE 5 (NCT02404350) (secukinumab: 150 mg, n=458 and 300 mg, n=461) were matched to data from the population in the NCT00317499 trial (etanercept 25 mg, n=101) using MAIC methodology, by adjusting for clinical and demographic baseline characteristics. Recalculated outcomes from FUTURE 2, 3, and 5 (150 mg, effective sample size (ESS) post-matching=104; 300 mg, ESS=75; and placebo, ESS=159) were compared with the NCT00317499 trial. Pairwise comparisons using odds ratios (ORs) were performed for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, 50, and 70 response criteria at week 12 (placebo-adjusted) and week 24 (non-placebo-adjusted).ResultsAt week 12, there were no significant differences in ACR responses between secukinumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between secukinumab 150 mg and etanercept at week 24 with respect to ACR 20 and 50 response rates; however, ACR 70 response rates were higher for secukinumab 150 mg (OR (95% confidence interval (CI)): 4.48 (2.01-9.99), p<0.001). ACR 20, 50, and 70 response rates were higher with secukinumab 300 mg than with etanercept at this time point (OR (95% CI): ACR 20, 3.28 (1.69-6.38), p<0.001; ACR 50, 1.90 (1.04-3.50), p=0.038; and ACR 70, 3.56 (1.51-8.40), p=0.004).ConclusionIn this MAIC, secukinumab was associated with higher ACR 20 and 50 (secukinumab 300 mg) and 70 (secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg) response rates at week 24 than etanercept in biologic-naïve patients with active PsA, whereas no significant difference was observed in the short-term at week 12.

Project description:ObjectiveGuselkumab, a human monoclonal antibody specific to interleukin-23p19, demonstrated efficacy and safety versus placebo through week 24 of the phase III DISCOVER-2 trial in biologic-naive patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Here we report 1-year DISCOVER-2 findings.MethodsAdults with active PsA (≥5 swollen and ≥5 tender joints; C-reactive protein level ≥0.6 mg/dl) despite standard nonbiologic treatment were randomized to receive subcutaneous injections of guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks, guselkumab 100 mg at week 0, week 4 and every 8 weeks thereafter, or placebo with crossover to guselkumab 100 mg every 4 weeks at week 24. We primarily evaluated clinical efficacy through week 52 by imputing missing data (nonresponse for categorical end points; no change/using multiple imputation for continuous end points). Observed radiographic scores and adverse events (AEs) were summarized.ResultsOf 739 randomized, treated patients, 93% completed week 52. The proportions of patients in whom a ≥20% improvement from baseline in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) was achieved were maintained after week 24, reaching 71% (173 of 245) and 75% (185 of 248) for patients randomized to receive treatment every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks, respectively, by week 52. The proportions of patients in whom ACR50/ACR70 and skin responses, minimal or very low disease activity, and dactylitis or enthesitis resolution were achieved at week 24 were also maintained through week 52. Further, low levels of radiographic progression, along with improvements in physical function and health-related quality of life, were sustained through week 52 with continued guselkumab treatment. Few patients experienced serious infections through week 52, with no evidence of a dosing regimen response or increase from weeks 0-24 (4 of 493 [0.8%]) to weeks 24-52 (3 of 493 [0.6%]) among guselkumab-randomized patients. No patient developed an opportunistic infection or died.ConclusionIn biologic-naive PsA patients, guselkumab provided sustained improvements across diverse manifestations and maintained a favorable risk-benefit profile through week 52.

Project description:IntroductionIn the SPIRIT-H2H (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03151551) trial in biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), ixekizumab (IXE) was superior to adalimumab (ADA) at week 24 in terms of achieving a combined endpoint of ≥ 50% improved response in the American College of Rheumatology scale score (ACR50) and 100% improvement in the Psoriasis Areas and Severity Index (PASI100), and was non-inferior in terms of achieving ACR50. IXE resulted in similar improvements of PsA manifestations irrespective of the use of concomitant conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), while ADA response was higher with concomitant csDMARD use. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with IXE and ADA with or without methotrexate (MTX), the most commonly use csDMARD, through week 52 in patients with PsA.MethodsIn the open-label, rater-blinded, head-to-head SPIRIT-H2H trial, randomization of patients was stratified by concomitant use of csDMARD and moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis involvement. In the post-hoc subgroup analysis presented here, subgroups were defined as with/without concomitant MTX use at baseline. Treatment group effects within subgroups were tested using Fisher's exact test. Missing data were imputed using non-responder imputation.ResultsBy week 52, IXE provided similar improvements in the combined ACR50 and PASI100 endpoint, ACR50, and other PsA-related domains regardless of whether IXE was used with or without MTX, while ADA efficacy appeared to be improved with concomitant MTX use. When used without concomitant MTX, IXE resulted in significantly higher response versus ADA in terms of the combined ACR50 and PASI100 (p = 0.002) endpoint, minimal disease activity (p = 0.016), and very low disease activity (p = 0.037). The safety of both agents was consistent with their known safety profiles regardless of concomitant MTX use.ConclusionIn PsA patients with inadequate control of the disease, IXE delivers consistent efficacy in several clinical domains of the disease regardless of concomitant MTX use. The efficacy of ADA is increased by the concomitant use of MTX. These findings can inform treatment decisions when considering the need for concomitant MTX use with IXE or ADA at initiation or for long-term maintenance.

Dataset Information

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

Publications

Treatment Switch Patterns and Healthcare Costs in Biologic-Naive Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets