Modelling Treatment Sequences in Immunology: Optimizing Patient Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: For some immune-mediated disorders, despite the range of therapies available there is limited evidence on which treatment sequences are best for patients and healthcare systems. We investigated how their selection can impact outcomes in an Italian setting. METHODS: A 3-year state-transition treatment-sequencing model calculated potential effectiveness improvements and budget reallocation considerations associated with implementing optimal sequences in ankylosing spondylitis (AS), Crohn's disease (CD), non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (NR-AxSpA), plaque psoriasis (PsO), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and ulcerative colitis (UC). Sequences included three biological or disease-modifying treatments, followed by best supportive care. Disease-specific response measures were selected on the basis of clinical relevance, data availability, and data quality. Efficacy was differentiated between biologic-naïve and experienced populations, where possible, using published network meta-analyses and real-world data. All possible treatment sequences, based on reimbursement as of December 2022 in Italy (analyses' base country), were simulated. RESULTS: Sequences with the best outcomes consistently employed the most efficacious therapies earlier in the treatment pathway. Improvements to prescribing practice are possible in all diseases; however, most notable was UC, where the per-patient 3-year average treatment failure was 37.3% higher than optimal. The results focused on the three most crowded and prevalent immunological sub-condition diseases in dermatology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology: PsO, RA, and UC, respectively. By prescribing from within the top 20% of the most efficacious sequences, the model found a 15.1% reduction in treatment failures, with a 1.59% increase in drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing more efficacious treatments earlier provides a greater opportunity to improve patient outcomes and minimizes treatment failures.

Burden of disease among patients with prevalent Crohn's disease: results from a large German sickness fund.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the burden of disease among a real-world cohort of patients with prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) in Germany. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using administrative claims data from the German AOK PLUS health insurance fund. Continuously insured patients with a CD diagnosis between 01 October 2014 and 31 December 2018 were selected and followed for at least 12 months or longer until death or end of data availability on 31 December 2019. Medication use (biologics, immunosuppressants (IMS), steroids, 5-aminosalicylic acid) was assessed sequentially in the follow-up period. Among patients with no IMS or biologics (advanced therapy), we investigated indicators of active disease and corticosteroid use. RESULTS: Overall, 9284 prevalent CD patients were identified. Within the study period, 14.7% of CD patients were treated with biologics and 11.6% received IMS. Approximately 47% of all prevalent CD patients had mild disease, defined as no advanced therapy and signs of disease activity. Of 6836 (73.6%) patients who did not receive advanced therapy in the follow-up period, 36.3% showed signs of active disease; 40.1% used corticosteroids (including oral budesonide), with 9.9% exhibiting steroid dependency (≥ 1 prescription every 3 months for at least 12 months) in the available follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there remains a large burden of disease among patients who do not receive IMS or biologics in the real world in Germany. A revision of treatment algorithms of patients in this setting according to the latest guidelines may improve patient outcomes.

Real-world outcomes associated with switching to anti-TNFs versus other biologics in Crohn's Disease patients: A retrospective analysis using German claims data.

Background: The positioning of new biologic agents for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) following failure of initial anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy remains a challenge in the real world. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the real-world outcomes associated with the sequential use of biologics in CD patients that newly initiate anti-TNFs, specifically comparing those that switch to another anti-TNF versus biologics with other modes of action. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: We identified CD patients who newly began anti-TNF therapy between 1 October 2014 and 31 December 2018 using two German claims databases. Patients were classified as within-class switchers (WCS) if they switched to another anti-TNF or outside-class switchers (OCS) if they switched to vedolizumab (VDZ) or ustekinumab (UST). To compare WCS and OCS, baseline covariates were adjusted through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and time-to-event analyses were performed using Cox Proportional Hazard regressions. Results from both databases were meta-analyzed using an inverse variance model. Results: Overall, 376 prevalent adult CD patients who initiated anti-TNFs and switched to another biologic were identified. After IPTW, there were 152 and 177 patients in the WCS and OCS group, respectively. WCS were more likely to receive prolonged corticosteroid therapy [hazard ratio (HR): 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-2.27, p = 0.004], switch a second time to a different biologic (HR: 2.44, 95% CI: 1.63-3.66, p < 0.001), and discontinue treatment (HR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25-2.34, p = 0.001) than OCS. Conclusion: This study suggests that CD patients exhibit more favorable outcomes when switching outside the anti-TNF class to VDZ or UST after initial anti-TNF failure than switching to a second anti-TNF. With loss of response to anti-TNFs as a concern in the real world, comparative evidence from claims data assessing sequential use of biologics can help optimize treatment algorithms of patients after anti-TNF failure.