Changes in Market Share of Biologic and Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from the Ontario Best-Practice Research Initiative Database

Author(s): Elliot Hepworth, Mohammad Movahedi, Emmanouil Rampakakis*, Reza Mirza, Arthur Lau, Angela Cesta, Janet Pope, John S. Sampalis, Claire Bombardier

Journal Name: Current Rheumatology Reviews

Volume 17 , Issue 3 , 2021


Become EABM
Become Reviewer
Call for Editor

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Objective: For patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) who do not achieve adequate clinical response with combined conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (cs- DMARDs), initiation of advanced therapies such as biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs) is recommended. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are the oldest and most commonly used subgroup of advanced therapies. In the last decade, new non-TNFi advanced therapy options have become available. We described the relative use of TNFi vs. non-TNFi in Ontario-based practices from 2008-2017.

Methods: Adult patients with RA enrolled in the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative (OBRI) database who started bDMARDs or tsDMARDs anytime during or within 30 days prior to enrollment were included. The proportion of patients treated with TNFi vs. non-TNFi agents between 2008 and 2017 was described for all patients and those initiating their first bDMARD/tsDMARD. All TNFi therapies were included. Non-TNFi included Abatacept, Rituximab, Tocilizumab, and Tofacitinib.

Results: A total of 1,057 patients were included, of whom 72.0% were bDMARD/tsDMARD naïve. In 2008, the relative non-TNFi use was 5.4% in all patients while it was 0% in bDMARD/ts- DMARD-naïve patients. In 2017, the proportion of patients using non-TNFi increased to 33.8% among all patients and 33.3% in bDMARD/tsDMARD-naïve patients.

Conclusion: This descriptive analysis of data from the OBRI cohort reveals that TNFi are still used in the majority of cases; however, there has been an increase in the use of non-TNFi therapies both overall and as first-line advanced therapy. This trend towards non-TNFi therapies as first-line advanced therapy may be partially explained by the shift in guideline recommendations from TNFi as first-line to any of the advanced therapeutics.

Keywords: Biologic, targeted synthetic disease, anti-rheumatic drugs, treatment, rheumatoid arthritis, bDMARDs, tsDMARDs.

[1]
Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL Jr, et al. American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68(1): 1-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.22783] [PMID: 26545825]
[2]
Smolen JS, Landewé R, Bijlsma J, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2017; 76(6): 960-77.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715] [PMID: 28264816]
[3]
Lis K, Kuzawińska O, Bałkowiec-Iskra E. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors - state of knowledge. Arch Med Sci 2014; 10(6): 1175-85.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2014.47827] [PMID: 25624856]
[4]
Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, et al. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59(6): 762-84.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.23721] [PMID: 18512708]
[5]
Burmester GR, Pope JE. Novel treatment strategies in rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 2017; 389(10086): 2338-48.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31491-5] [PMID: 28612748]
[6]
Scott DL. Biologics-based therapy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2012; 91(1): 30-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2011.278] [PMID: 22166850]
[7]
Eli Lilly Canada. Baricitinib Drug Monograph. Toronto 2018; pp. 1-46.
[8]
Gabay C, Emery P, van Vollenhoven R, et al. Tocilizumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (ADACTA): A randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 4 trial. Lancet 2013; 381(9877): 1541-50.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60250-0] [PMID: 23515142]
[9]
Schiff M, Keiserman M, Codding C, et al. Efficacy and safety of abatacept or infliximab vs placebo in ATTEST: A phase III, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67(8): 1096-103.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.080002] [PMID: 18055472]
[10]
Blair HA, Deeks ED. Abatacept: A review in rheumatoid arthritis. Drugs 2017; 77(11): 1221-33.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0775-4] [PMID: 28608166]
[11]
Cohen MD, Keystone E. Rituximab for Rheumatoid Arthritis. Rheumatol Ther 2015; 2(2): 99-111.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40744-015-0016-9] [PMID: 27747531]
[12]
Dhillon S. Tofacitinib: A Review in Rheumatoid Arthritis. Drugs 2017; 77(18): 1987-2001.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40265-017-0835-9] [PMID: 29139090]
[13]
van Vollenhoven RF, Fleischmann R, Cohen S, et al. Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo in rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 2012; 367(6): 508-19.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1112072] [PMID: 22873531]
[14]
Fakhouri W, Lopez-Romero P, Antonelli S, Losi S, Rogai V, Buda S. Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization and costs of rheumatoid arthritis patients in Italy: Findings from a retrospective administrative database analysis. Open access Rheumatol Res Rev 2018; 10: 103-1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OARRR.S164738]
[15]
Sugiyama N, Kawahito Y, Fujii T, et al. Treatment Patterns, Direct Cost of Biologics, and Direct Medical Costs for Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Real-world Analysis of Nationwide Japanese Claims Data. Clin Ther 2016; 38(6): 1359-1375.e1.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.03.022] [PMID: 27101816]
[16]
Atzinger CB, Guo JJ. Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in a national, privately insured population: Utilization, expenditures, and price trends. Am Heal drug benefits 2017; 10(1): 27-36.
[17]
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ 2001; 79(4): 373-4.
[PMID: 11357217]
[18]
Ramiro S, Landewé R, van der Heijde D, Harrison D, Collier D, Michaud K. Discontinuation rates of biologics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Are TNF inhibitors different from non-TNF inhibitors? RMD Open 2015; 1(1): e000155.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2015-000155] [PMID: 26629366]
[19]
Frisell T, Baecklund E, Bengtsson K, Di Giuseppe D, Forsblad-d’Elia H, Askling J. Patient characteristics influence the choice of biological drug in RA, and will make non-TNFi biologics appear more harmful than TNFi biologics. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77(5): 650-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212395] [PMID: 29237621]
[20]
Singh JA, Furst DE, Bharat A, et al. 2012 update of the 2008 American College of Rheumatology recommendations for the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and biologic agents in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64(5): 625-39.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.21641] [PMID: 22473917]
[21]
Smolen JS, Landewé R, Breedveld FC, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73(3): 492-509.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204573] [PMID: 24161836]
[22]
Movahedi M, Hepworth E, Mirza R, Cesta A, Larche M, Bombardier C. Discontinuation of biologic therapy due to lack/loss of response and adverse events is similar between TNFi and non-TNFi class: Results from a real-world rheumatoid arthritis cohort. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2020; 50(5): 915-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.06.020] [PMID: 32911288]
[23]
Sinagra E, Perricone G, Romano C, Cottone M. Heart failure and anti tumor necrosis factor-alpha in systemic chronic inflammatory diseases. Eur J Intern Med 2013; 24(5): 385-92.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2012.12.015] [PMID: 23333028]


Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 17
ISSUE: 3
Year: 2021
Published on: 11 December, 2020
Page: [349 - 359]
Pages: 11
DOI: 10.2174/1573397116666201211130337
Price: $65

Article Metrics

PDF: 440
HTML: 2