Tailoring biologic therapy for real-world rheumatoid arthritis patients

Author(s):  
Ciro Romano ◽  
Sergio Esposito ◽  
Roberta Ferrara ◽  
Giovanna Cuomo
2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 193.2-193
Author(s):  
C.E. Lampropoulos ◽  
P. Orfanos ◽  
M. Manoussakis ◽  
A. Tzioufas ◽  
H.M. Moutsopoulos ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. A65
Author(s):  
B Tang ◽  
RS McKenzie ◽  
D Freedman ◽  
S Wagner ◽  
CT Piech

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1706.1-1706
Author(s):  
I. Jawad ◽  
M. K. Nisar

Background:Biologics have led to a sea change in the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) with unprecedented improvement in the signs, symptoms and radiographic damage, resulting in improvement in functionality and quality of life. However longitudinal data for their retention and tolerability is sparse.Objectives:Our objective was to evaluate real-world biologic therapy duration and reasons for discontinuing treatment.Methods:We conducted a retrospective analysis of our PsA electronic register from 1994 up to and including April 2019 at our university teaching hospital. We had access to full patient records including details on co-morbidities, drugs and disease management.Results:335 patients were identified with PsA. 58% of them were female with mean age of 46 yr (13-81). 113 (33.7%) patients had been treated with a biologic with 105 (93%) continuing at the time of analysis. 60 individuals were prescribed combination therapy with DMARDs. Mean age was 43.3 years (13-81) with 56% women. The biologics sample was ethnically diverse including 80% White Caucasian patients, 17% Asian and others (3%). Significant co-morbidities included cardiovascular disease (18.6%) and diabetes (4.4%). Eight different biologics were in use with adalimumab being the most prescribed (67%).35 (30.9%) patients had stopped biologics at some point with 76 episodes of cessation. 6% of our sample had discontinued two or more biologic treatments. The mean duration before biologic therapy was discontinued was 18.2 months (8 days to 9.5 years), which was almost twice as long as the average period before discontinuing a DMARD (9.9 months). Main reasons for stopping treatment included 23% each due to GI symptoms, neurological causes, cutaneous symptoms and other side effects. The remaining 8% reported fatigue as the reason for stopping therapy.Conclusion:To our knowledge this is the first dedicated retrospective review of a large real world PsA cohort comparing drug survival and tolerability of biologics against DMARDs. Biologic therapies are well tolerated in psoriatic arthritis. There is no significant difference amongst various modes of action. Over a quarter of the patients discontinue the drug owing to intolerance with mean drug survival of 18 months. In contrast nearly two-thirds were intolerant of DMARDs and stopped within ten months. Thus both the rate and duration of biologic retention is significantly better than conventional DMARDs. This has significant economic impact as NICE guidelines require an adequate trial of two DMARDs for six months prior to advanced therapy. However, this approach is unlikely to be cost effective as the disease progresses whilst patients struggle with DMARDs prescription and thus delay biologics which are more likely to be tolerated and retained longer. Hence there is an urgent need to review NICE guidelines to allow earlier employment of biologics in the treatment paradigm with significant benefits to both patients and the health economy.Disclosure of Interests:Issrah Jawad: None declared, Muhammad Khurram Nisar Grant/research support from: Muhammad Nisar undertakes clinical trials and received support (including attendance at conferences, speaker fees and honoraria) from Roche, Chugai, MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS, Celgene, Novartis and UCB, Consultant of: Muhammad Nisar undertakes clinical trials and received support (including attendance at conferences, speaker fees and honoraria) from Roche, Chugai, MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS, Celgene, Novartis and UCB, Speakers bureau: Muhammad Nisar undertakes clinical trials and received support (including attendance at conferences, speaker fees and honoraria) from Roche, Chugai, MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS, Celgene, Novartis and UCB


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
B. Fautrel ◽  
R. Caporali ◽  
E. Holdsworth ◽  
B. Donaghy ◽  
M. Khalid ◽  
...  

Background:The principles of treat to target (T2T) include defining an appropriate treatment target, assessed at pre-defined intervals, with a commitment to changing therapeutic approach if the target is not met (1). T2T is recommended as a key strategy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:To explore attitudes towards T2T, its implementation and stated treatment goals among physicians and their patients with RA.Methods:The Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™ was a large, quantitative, point-in-time survey conducted amongst rheumatologists (n=296) and their consulting patients with RA (n=3042) in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) between Q4 2019–Q3 2020. Physicians were recruited via publicly available lists, completing an online survey and medical record extraction for their next 10–12 consecutive patients. The same patients were invited to voluntarily complete a self-report questionnaire (n=1098, 36% response), collecting data on attitudes towards T2T and treatment goals.Results:Physicians reported that 76% of patients were in remission (DAS28: <2.6) or had low disease activity (DAS28: 2.6 – 3.2), and 24% had moderate-high disease activity (DAS28: >3.2). Patient mean age was 53.0 years (SD 14.0), mean time since diagnosis was 7.2 years (SD 7.2). The proportion of patients currently receiving an advanced therapy (AT; defined as biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD) was 68%, of whom 70% were on a first line AT. No difference was observed between disease activity groups.In the physician survey, 86% of physicians stated they followed T2T principals in at least some of their RA patients, and would utilize a T2T approach in RA patients with moderate-high disease activity (61%), the most uncontrolled patients (37%) and those who do not respond well to initial therapy (34%). In this sample of real-world RA patients, 66% were reported by physicians to be on a T2T plan at the time of data collection. The most common physician-reported targets were remission (DAS28: <2.6) (75%), improvement of quality of life (QoL) (41%) and reduction of pain (31%), with 85% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most stated reasons for not implementing T2T was physician preference not to adjust current treatment (34%), patient preference not to adjust current treatment (23%), and there are no achievable goals for this patient (16%).Overall, 29% of patients reported they were involved in setting their T2T goals, while 34% stated their T2T goals were set by their physicians only, and 29% perceived no T2T goal had been set (n=620). The most common overall T2T goals from the patient perspective were remission (61%), controlling symptoms (41%), and reducing impact on QoL (34%). Of those patients who acknowledged a T2T goal had been set (n=407), 77% reported their T2T goal was fully or partially achieved.Of 719 patients who had moderate-high disease activity, 57% were on a T2T plan, with 46% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most common physician-stated reason for not implementing T2T was a lack of achievable targets (29%).Conclusion:Rheumatologists in this study reported a strong belief in T2T. The most common physician-set T2T goals were remission, improvement of QoL and reduction of pain, corresponding with T2T goals as reported by patients. However, a third of patients in this cohort were not aware of a defined T2T objective in their management, which may be a result of a perceived lack of achievable goals by physicians. It may be desirable to promote more patient involvement in defining achievable targets amongst those with moderate-high disease activity who despite best efforts may not reach a clinical state of remission. Further research is needed to identify and understand goals important to RA patients.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R. Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis - are we there yet? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15(3):180-6.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Galapagos NV, Belgium.Medical writing support was provided by Gary Sidgwick, PhD (Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK) and editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), both funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Fautrel Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi, Samsung Bioepis, MSD, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Bethany Donaghy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Mona Khalid Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mark Moore Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Speakers bureau: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Paid instructor for: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Consultant of: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Grant/research support from: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Employee of: Gilead Sciences, and previously Sanofi and AstraZeneca, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Yves Piette Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Grünenthal and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Mylan and UCB, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grunenthal, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Jasper Broen Shareholder of: Pharming Group, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1872.1-1873
Author(s):  
S. H. Park ◽  
X. Han ◽  
F. Lobo ◽  
S. Nanji ◽  
D. Patel

Background:The shared epitope (SE) is a significant genetic risk factor for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and it has been proposed to be associated with T-cell activation and the production of anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA).1-3The results from the Early AMPLE trial, a head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy of abatacept versus adalimumab among early moderate-to-severe RA patients with positive ACPA (ACPA+) and rheumatoid factor (RF), showed that at week 24, patients with SE positivity (SE+) responded better to abatacept compared to adalimumab across all efficacy measures evaluated (ACR20 [American College of Rheumatology], ACR50, ACR70, DAS[disease activity score]28-CRP[C-reactive protein]).4Objectives:To compare the cost per responder (CPR) between abatacept and adalimumab among RA patients with SE+ at week 24 using the Early AMPLE trial data from a United States (US) payer perspective.Methods:A CPR analysis was conducted for RA patients with SE+, ACPA+, and RF. Responders were defined as patients achieving ACR20, ACR50, ACR70, or DAS28-CRP ≤2.6 and efficacy data was sourced from the trial (Figure 1).4Approved product labels were referenced for treatment dosing regimen and wholesale acquisition cost was used to calculate pharmacy cost.5A real-world rebate scenario was considered for adalimumab (30%) to reflect the real-world pricing in the US market. The CPR was calculated as the total pharmacy cost divided by the proportion of responders.Results:The total pharmacy cost at week 24 was $26,273 per patient for abatacept and $21,731 per patient for adalimumab. With achieving ACR70 as the definition of responder, the CPR at 24-week was $46,337 for abatacept and $74,935 for adalimumab, a difference of $28,598 (Table 1). The CPR was consistently lower for abatacept compared to adalimumab across all clinical measures, with difference ranging from $7,099 to $43,609.Table 1.Overall cost per responder resultsAbataceptAdalimumabDifferenceACR20$30,303.74$37,403.06-$7,099.32ACR50$34,254.68$48,077.83-$13,823.15ACR70$46,337.46$74,935.10-$28,597.64DAS28-CRP ≤2.6$52,546.68$96,155.65-$43,608.97Conclusion:While the pharmacy cost was higher for abatacept compared to adalimumab driven by the rebate, due to its higher clinical efficacy, the CPR was consistently lower for SE+ RA patients treated with abatacept. The results may be useful for US healthcare decision makers in understanding how to optimize treatment for SE+ RA patient while minimizing costs in today’s budget constrained environment.References:[1]Gregersen PK, Silver J, Winchester RJ. The shared epitope hypothesis. An approach to understanding the molecular genetics of susceptibility to rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis and rheumatism. 1987;30(11):1205-13.[2]Holoshitz J. The rheumatoid arthritis HLA-DRB1 shared epitope.Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2010;22(3):293-8.[3]Sakkas LI, Bogdanos DP, Katsiari C, et al. Anti-citrullinated peptides as autoantigens in rheumatoid arthritis-relevance to treatment.Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(11):1114-20.[4]Fleischmann R, Weinblatt M, Ahmad H, et al. Efficacy of abatacept and adalimumab in patientsn with early rheumatoid arthritis with multiple poor prognostic factors: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial (AMPLE).Rheumatol Ther. 2019;6(4): 559-571.[5]Truven Health Analytics. Redbook online. Accessed October 11, 2019.Disclosure of Interests:Sang Hee Park Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study, Xue Han Employee of: BMS, Francis Lobo Shareholder of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Employee of: Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Sakina Nanji Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study, Dipen Patel Consultant of: Pharmerit International, which received consultancy fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (US), Inc. for this study


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1249.1-1250
Author(s):  
K. Celkys ◽  
J. Ly ◽  
M. Soden

Background:Biological and targeted synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic agents (bDMARDs) increase the risk of serious infections (SIs), however there is limited ‘real-world’ evidence comparing the relative risk of SI for individual bDMARDs. (1,2)Objectives:This study examines the rates of SIs in a non-select Australian Northern Queensland (NQ) cohort of patients with various rheumatic diseases receiving treatment with a bDMARD, to define predisposing factors and directly compare the bDMARDs.Methods:A retrospective review was performed for all patients who received a bDMARD through the Townsville Hospital Rheumatology Department over the 5-year period between June 2013 and May 2018. Episodes of a SI were defined as infection requiring admission or use of intravenous antibiotics. For each bDMARD the rate of SI per 100 patient years (PYs) was calculated and patient demographics and comorbidities were analysed. Between group differences were assessed using independent samples t-tests or ANOVA. Where assumptions were violated, Mann-Whitney U tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. For categorical variables, chi-square tests were used, except when assumptions were violated when Fisher’s Exact tests were used.Results:296 patients received bDMARDs with an overall SI rate of 11.7/100PYs. There was no significant difference in presence of SI by disease type with 24% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis versus 19% with psoriatic arthritis, 14% with ankylosing spondylitis and 29% with “other” (X2=3.11; df=3; p=0.37). Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection (46%) followed by skin and soft tissue infections (23%). The highest incidence rate of SI occurred with rituximab (29.72 SI/100PYs) followed by certolizumab (22.50 SI/100PYs) and tocilizumab (15.00 SI/100PYs). Duration of time on a bDMARD, disease duration and use of methotrexate or leflunomide were not shown to significantly increase the risk of SI for the entire cohort. The characteristics which were shown to significantly increase SI rates were; prednisone use, increasing age, chronic pulmonary comorbidity and specifically in those with rheumatoid arthritis male gender and total duration of bDMARD use.Conclusion:In this real-world NQ cohort of patients treated with a bDMARD for a rheumatic disease, we have identified a number of factors potentially contributing to the risk of the development of SIs. This study provides valuable data on SI rates in an Australian ‘real-world’ cohort that may assist clinicians’ choice of bDMARD in patients with a high baseline risk of infection and highlights the importance of minimising prednisone use in patients on bDMARDs.References:[1]Ramiro S, Sepriano A, Chatzidionysiou K, et al. Safety of synthetic and biological DMARDs: a systematic literature review informing the 2016 update of the EULAR recommendations for management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1093–1101.[2]Singh J, Wells G, Christensen R, et al. Adverse effects of biologics: a network meta-analysis and Cochrane overview. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;16:CD008794.Disclosure of Interests: :Kate Celkys: None declared, Jason Ly: None declared, Muriel Soden Speakers bureau: Speaker Fees from Pfizer in 2016


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document