scholarly journals Persistence of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug monotherapy or combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis in a real-world setting

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
pp. 1547-1558
Author(s):  
Philip J. Mease ◽  
Neil A. Accortt ◽  
Sabrina Rebello ◽  
Carol J. Etzel ◽  
Ryan W. Harrison ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-57
Author(s):  
Matthew L. Thomas ◽  
Gavin Shaddick ◽  
Rachel Charlton ◽  
Charlotte Cavill ◽  
Richard Holland ◽  
...  

Objective.To investigate whether tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) is more effective for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and/or improves TNFi drug survival compared to TNFi monotherapy.Methods.Five PsA biologics cohorts were investigated between 2000 and 2015: the ATTRA registry (Czech Republic); the Swiss Clinical Quality Management PsA registry; the Hellenic Registry of Biologics Therapies (Greece); the University of Bari PsA biologics database (Italy); and the Bath PsA cohort (UK). Drug persistence was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and equality of survival using log-rank tests. Comparative effectiveness was investigated using logistic regression with propensity scores. Separate analyses were performed on (1) the combined Italian/Swiss cohorts for change in rate of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28); and (2) the combined Italian, Swiss, and Bath cohorts for change in rate of Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ).Results.In total, 2294 patients were eligible for the drug survival analysis. In the Swiss (P = 0.002), Greek (P = 0.021), and Bath (P = 0.014) databases, patients starting TNFi in combination with methotrexate had longer drug survival compared to monotherapy, while in Italy the monotherapy group persisted longer (P = 0.030). In eligible patients from the combined Italian/Swiss dataset (n = 1056), there was no significant difference between treatment arms in rate of change of DAS28. Similarly, when also including the Bath cohort (n = 1205), there was no significant difference in rate of change of HAQ.Conclusion.Combination therapy of a TNFi with a csDMARD does not appear to affect improvement of disease activity or HAQ versus TNFi monotherapy, but it may improve TNFi drug survival.


Author(s):  
David L Kaplan ◽  
Brian L Ung ◽  
Corey Pelletier ◽  
Chuka Udeze ◽  
Ibrahim Khilfeh ◽  
...  

Aim: Real-world treatment data for psoriatic arthritis are limited. We evaluated switch rates, adherence, and costs for patients initiating apremilast versus tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and interleukin inhibitor (ILi) among biologic-naive psoriatic arthritis patients. Materials & methods: This retrospective analysis used IBM MarketScan claims data to assess treatment switches, adherence and costs. Results: Twelve-month switch rates were significantly lower for apremilast versus TNFi (15.5% vs 26.6%; p < 0.0001) and similar to ILi (15.5% vs 14.0%; p = 0.71). Apremilast initiators had lower total costs versus TNFi and ILi (US$39,854 vs US$57,243 and US$65,687; p < 0.05) and adherence was slightly lower versus TNFi and higher versus ILi. Conclusion: Biologic-naive apremilast initiators had lower switch rates versus TNFi initiators and lower total costs versus TNFi or ILi initiators.


2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201467
Author(s):  
Katerina Chatzidionysiou ◽  
Merete Lund Hetland ◽  
Thomas Frisell ◽  
Daniela Di Giuseppe ◽  
Karin Hellgren ◽  
...  

Objective In Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), evidence regarding the effectiveness of a second biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) in patients whose first ever bDMARD was a non-tumor-necrosis-factor-inhibitor (TNFi) bDMARD is limited. The objective of this study was therefore to assess the outcome of the second bDMARD (non-TNFi [rituximab, abatacept or tocilizumab, separately] and TNFi) after failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD. Methods We identified RA patients from the five Nordic biologics registers started treatment with a non-TNFi as first ever bDMARD but switched to a second bDMARD. For the second bDMARD, we assessed survival-on-drug (at 6 and 12 months), and primary response (at 6 months). Results We included 620 patients starting a second bDMARD (ABA 86, RTX 40, TCZ 67 and TNFi 427) following failure of a first non-TNFI bDMARD. At 6 and 12 months after start of their second bDMARD, around 70% and 50%, respectively, remained on treatment, and at 6 months less than one third of patients were still on their second bDMARD and had reached low disease activity or remission according to DAS28. For those patients whose second bMDARD was a TNFI, the corresponding proportion was slightly higher (40%). Conclusion The survival-on-drug and primary response of a second bDMARD in RA patients switching due to failure of a non-TNFi bDMARD as first bDMARD is modest. Some patients may benefit from TNFi when used after failure of a non-TNFi as first bDMARD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document