Effectiveness and persistence of golimumab as a second biological drug in patients with spondyloarthritis: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: This observational, longitudinal retrospective, noncomparative study was designed to assess the persistence and effectiveness of golimumab as a second anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) drug in patients with spondyloarthritis requiring discontinuation from a first anti-TNF drug.Data were collected retrospectively for all patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis from 20 rheumatology clinics in Spain who started golimumab as a second anti-TNF drug between January 2013 and December 2015. Golimumab persistence was assessed with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and associated factors were assessed with Cox regression analysis.210 patients started golimumab as a second anti-TNF drug: 131 with axial spondyloarthritis and 79 with psoriatic arthritis. In axial spondyloarthritis patients, the mean (standard deviation) Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score at baseline was 5.5 (2.1), decreasing to 3.9 (2.0) at month 3 and 3.5 (2.0) at year 1, and remaining stable thereafter. In psoriatic arthritis patients, mean (standard deviation) baseline Disease Activity Score was 4.0 (1.3), reducing to 2.5 (1.2) at month 3 and to 2.2 (1.3) at year 1. Corresponding improvements were recorded from baseline in C-reactive protein levels and erythrocyte sedimentation rates. The probability of persistence of treatment with golimumab was 80% at year 1, 70% at year 2 and 65% at years 3 and year 4, and was similar in those who had stopped the first anti-TNF due to loss of efficacy or other reasons. Cox regression analysis showed that the probability of survival with golimumab was higher in patients with higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis than with psoriatic arthritis, and in those who had discontinued adalimumab as first anti-TNF. Seventy-two patients (34.3%) discontinued golimumab during follow-up, 50 of them due to lack of efficacy.In patients with spondyloarthritis requiring discontinuation from a first anti-TNF drug, treatment with golimumab was effective and showed a high probability of persistence up to 4 years of treatment.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis by ACPA subgroups in Germany, Italy, Spain, US and Canada.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naïve RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (AMPLE) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept in serum anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)-positive patients, with increasing efficacy across ACPA quartile levels. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost per response accrued using abatacept versus adalimumab in ACPA-positive and ACPA-negative patients with RA from the health care perspective in Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and Canada. A cost-consequence analysis (CCA) was designed to compare the monthly costs per responding patient/patient in remission. Efficacy, safety and resource use inputs were based on the AMPLE trial. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis (OWSA) was also performed to assess the impact of model inputs on the results for total incremental costs. Cost per response in ACPA-positive patients favoured abatacept compared with adalimumab (ACR20, ACR90 and HAQ-DI). Subgroup analysis favoured abatacept with increasing stringency of response criteria and serum ACPA levels. Cost per remission (DAS28-CRP) favoured abatacept in ACPA-negative patients, while cost per CDAI and SDAI favoured abatacept in ACPA-positive patients. Abatacept was consistently favoured in ACPA-Q4 patients across all outcomes and countries. Cost savings were greater with abatacept when more stringent response criteria were applied and also with increasing ACPA levels, which could lead to a lower overall health care budget impact with abatacept compared with adalimumab.