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

Abstract

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.