Comparison of a second TNFi vs other biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD following an initial TNFi.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis may require treatment with a biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD). Often, a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is the initial b/tsDMARD. The TNFi may not be effective or may not be well tolerated, so patients will opt for a different TNFi or switch to a non-TNFi b/tsDMARD. No preference for a TNFi or non-TNFi has been established and guidelines are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effectiveness by comparing patients using a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi after initial use of TNFi based on treatment patterns and health care utilization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plan, Medicaid, and commercial plan claims data from Humana's Research Database (Louisville, KY). The first claim for TNFi or non-TNFi (July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2018) following earlier TNFi was the index date. Patients were required to have pre-index enrollment of 6 months and 12 months post-index along with diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or psoriasis. During the 12-month follow-up, persistence to the index TNFi or non-TNFi was measured as continued therapy without a gap exceeding 45 days (81 days for intravenous infusions). Adherence was proportion of days covered at least 0.8. Addition of a nonbiologic DMARD or corticosteroid was also identified. Inpatient admissions and emergency department visits were observed. Inverse probability of treatment weights was used to balance cohorts. Logistic regression models were fit to TNFi vs non-TNFI on treatment and utilization measures. RESULTS: Of identified patients, 1,022 were indexed to a second TNFi and 1,024 were indexed to non-TNFi. Weighted cohorts were balanced, with mean age 56.5 vs 56.4 years, 70.5% vs 70.7% female sex, and 68.0% vs 67.9% MAPD plan. No differences were observed on persistence or adherence, with adjusted odds ratios (OR) of 1.05 (95% CI = 0.91-1.20) and 1.04 (0.91-1.20), respectively. No differences were observed for changes in therapy via switching to another TNFi/non-TNFi (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.54-1.62), via nonbiologic DMARD addition (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.83-1.11), or corticosteroid addition (OR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.92-1.88). No differences were observed for hospitalization (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.99-1.37) or emergency department visits (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.89-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found between a second TNFi vs a non-TNFi. As a result, choice of TNFi or non-TNFi following an initial TNFi may be driven by relevant patient-specific considerations. At the population level, policies that prefer either TNFi or non-TNFi appear reasonable. DISCLOSURES: The study was funded by Humana Inc. Mr Racsa is an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc. Drs Asante and Bloomfield are employees of Humana Inc. Dr Schwab was an employee of Humana Healthcare Research, Inc., a subsidiary of Humana Inc., and is now an employee of RTI Health Solutions. Dr Cornett was an employee of Humana Inc. and is now an employee of ImmunoGen Inc.

Comparing Medical Utilization and Cost Outcomes in Oral Versus Injectable Immunotherapy Users with Chronic Inflammatory Joint and Skin Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and psoriasis (PSO) are immune-mediated systemic, chronic inflammatory conditions. Moderate to severe disease is treated with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate, sulfasalazine, or leflunomide. If a patient does not respond to these firstline treatments, then tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or non-TNFi immunotherapy agents are administered via infusion, injection, or taken orally. Although the effectiveness of established infusion, injection, and newer oral therapies are known, the relative effectiveness among the routes of administration is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare drug use, health care resource utilization, and costs among patients who are treatment-naive to oral immunotherapy and injectable biologic immunotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used claims data from a large U.S. health plan to identify new users of oral and injectable immunotherapy, diagnosed with a joint (RA or PsA), skin (PSO), or joint and skin condition from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2017. The index date was the first claim for an oral or injectable medication. Medicaid, Medicare Advantage, and commercial plan patients aged 19-89 years with continuous enrollment 6 months before and 12 months after the index date were included in the study. Outcomes were adjusted using propensity score by inverse probability of treatment weighting. Treatment discontinuation, switching, health care resource utilization, and costs were measured during the post-index period. RESULTS: Oral versus injectable users with joint (n = 458 vs. 3,875), skin (n = 265 vs. 951), or joint and skin (n = 171 vs. 805) conditions were identified. For drug utilization outcomes, no differences in discontinuation rates were observed between oral and injectable groups for any of the cohorts. However, those in skin and joint and skin cohorts had higher rates of switching to other immunotherapies in patients initiated on orals compared with injectables. Health care resource utilization outcomes were mixed. While mean outpatient and physician office visits were significantly higher in oral compared with injectable groups across all 3 cohorts, no differences were observed for inpatient stays. Total costs (medical plus pharmacy) were lower for oral groups across all 3 cohorts. Pharmacy costs were lower for oral groups, but medical costs were higher for oral groups across all 3 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first population-level study at a route-of-administration level, which compared switching, health care resource utilization, and costs across several conditions. Switching drugs was more likely in the oral group, which may indicate lower effectiveness or tolerability of oral immunotherapies relative to injectables. Health care resource utilization was higher in the oral group, but total costs were lower, which was likely driven by the lower costs of oral drugs. DISCLOSURES: This study was a Humana internal study, and all authors were at the time employees of Humana and used Humana resources. The authors have no conflicts of interest or financial interests to disclose that relate to the research described in this study. This study was presented as a podium and poster presentation at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.