THU0044 Efficacy of Treat-To-Target Biologic Therapy in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Compared To Delayed Initiation of Biologics: A Real World Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 193.2-193
Author(s):  
C.E. Lampropoulos ◽  
P. Orfanos ◽  
M. Manoussakis ◽  
A. Tzioufas ◽  
H.M. Moutsopoulos ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 990.3-991
Author(s):  
C.E. Lampropoulos ◽  
P. Orfanos ◽  
M. Manoussakis ◽  
A. Tzioufas ◽  
H.M. Moutsopoulos ◽  
...  

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


2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (10) ◽  
pp. 2727-2736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. ten Klooster ◽  
Martijn A. H. Oude Voshaar ◽  
Walid Fakhouri ◽  
Inmaculada de la Torre ◽  
Claudia Nicolay ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Ciro Romano ◽  
Sergio Esposito ◽  
Roberta Ferrara ◽  
Giovanna Cuomo

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoe Rutter-locher ◽  
Yik Long Man ◽  
Lydia Marsh ◽  
Scott Mercer ◽  
Bina Menon ◽  
...  

Abstract Background/Aims  Biologic therapy and treat to target have significantly improved patient outcomes and we now have a proportion of patients on biologic therapy who remain in clinical remission. NICE guidance suggests “cautiously reducing drug doses or stopping drugs in those who have maintained the treatment target”. Despite this guidance, little is known about current clinical practice of biologic tapering in UK rheumatology centres. We aimed to illustrate current practice and success rates in biologic tapering in a real-world setting in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PSA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods  We identified patients who were potentially suitable for biologic tapering 1 week prior to their follow up appointment using the following criteria - any anti-TNFα biologic ≥ 1 year, RA patients (DAS28 CRP&lt;3.2, CRP normal), PSA patients (no swollen joints, CRP normal, no extra-articular manifestations), AS patients (BASDAI&lt;4, CRP normal). We then analysed how many patients were successfully tapered at one year. Tapering schedule was decided by the supervising rheumatologist. Results  From December 2018 to February 2019, 66 patients were identified as being suitable for biologic tapering. 3 patients did not attend and were excluded from further analysis. Tapered group: 20 (32%) patients were tapered. Based on the retrospective review of clinic letters, the “tapering schedule” was inconsistent and the information provided to patients if they flared was also inconsistent - 9 (45%) patients were advised to return to their normal dose and only 1 (5%) patient was advised to contact the helpline. After 12 months of follow up, 11 (55%) patients remained on the tapered dose, 7 (35%) patients returned to their prior dose and 2 (10%) patients were lost to follow up. Non-tapered group: 43 (68%) patients were not tapered. The reasons for not tapering were divided into 6 broad categories: active disease (n = 15, 35%), patient choice (n = 5, 12%), DMARD was tapered instead (n = 5, 12%), discuss at next visit (n = 3, 7%), reason not mentioned (n = 12, 28%), other (n = 3, 7%) Conclusion  This Quality Improvement Project has highlighted the inconsistencies in biologic tapering in a UK real-world setting. In response to this inconsistency, we have developed a departmental guideline which provides stringent criteria to identify patients at lowest risk of flaring and standardises a tapering schedule and clinical pathway. We also created a patient information leaflet that could be distributed. Only half of the patients remained on the tapered dose after 1 year, suggesting a significant proportion of patients flare following dose reduction. However, our findings may be limited by small sample size. National guidance and a thorough audit based on this guidance is welcomed. Disclosure  Z. Rutter-locher: None. Y. Long Man: None. L. Marsh: None. S. Mercer: None. B. Menon: None. A. Cope: None.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 518-519
Author(s):  
R. K. Dore ◽  
J. Antonova ◽  
L. Chang ◽  
M. Gorritz ◽  
X. Wang ◽  
...  

Background:EULAR and ACR guidelines recommend a treat-to-target approach for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). For patients failing their first conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD), EULAR recommends switching to or adding another DMARD. Understanding treatment patterns, durability, and healthcare costs associated with treatments initiated after first csDMARD can help optimize treatment for these patients.Objectives:To describe real-world healthcare costs among patients with RA who failed their first csDMARD.Methods:The study included adults with ≥2 RA claims ≥30 days apart in a large US health claims database, who started a csDMARD regimen as the first DMARD then switched to or added another DMARD (index date [ID], 1/1/2012–3/31/2017). All patients had continuous enrollment 1-year before and ≥1 year after ID. Treatment duration was defined as number of days from initial treatment fill until loss of treatment persistence. Unadjusted mean total annualized per-patient-per-year (PPPY) healthcare costs while on treatment were compared via analysis of variance. A generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link was used to compare total costs adjusted for pre-index costs, patient characteristics, and type of initiated treatment.Results:The study involved 7,816 patients (median age of 54 yrs, 74% female). Mean (standard deviation) duration of index therapy was 14.0 (12.6) months for patients overall (9.2 [10.1] for monotherapy vs 16.9 [13.1] for combination therapy,P< .0001).Prior to switching, the unadjusted mean PPPY healthcare costs totaled $12,923: $13,923 for monotherapy vs $12,317 (P= .0009) for combination therapy. Once switched, patients accrued unadjusted mean PPPY on-treatment healthcare costs of $30,742: $28,757 on monotherapy vs $31,943 (P= .0003) on combination therapy. Figure 1 details pre- and post-ID unadjusted costs by index therapy.Patients on non-TNFi bDMARD monotherapy had higher adjusted total healthcare cost (cost ratio [CR] = 1.58,P= .0052) than the total cost on JAKi monotherapy, whereas csDMARD monotherapy (CR = 0.28,P< .0001) and csDMARD + csDMARD(s) (CR = 0.26,P< .0001) had lower total cost than the cost on JAKi monotherapy. Other factors impacting costs included baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) = 2 or ≥3 vs CCI = 1 (CR = 1.14 and 1.25, respectively; bothP< .0001), baseline total (medical + pharmacy) healthcare costs (CR = 1.24,P< .0001), and baseline opioid use (CR = 1.11,P< .0001, Figure 2).Conclusion:Real-world data demonstrate short durability of available treatments initiated after first csDMARD. Among the initiated treatments, lowest total healthcare costs were associated with csDMARD, followed by JAKi, then TNFi, and finally non-TNFi bDMARD.Disclosure of Interests:Robin K Dore Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Co., Gilead Sciences, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Radius, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB., Jenya Antonova Employee of: Gilead Sciences. Inc., Lawrence Chang Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Magdaliz Gorritz Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Xin Wang Consultant of: Gilead Sciences, Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document