Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Treatment persistence among patients with rheumatoid disease (RA, AS, PsA) treated with subcutaneous biologics in Germany

  • Original Article - Observational Research
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) are frequently treated with subcutaneous biologic therapies when disease progresses or when response to synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) is inadequate. This study analyzed treatment persistence and treatment patterns for RA, AS, and PsA patients in Germany initiating subcutaneous biologic therapies with and without prior DMARDs use. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Electronic Medical Record database of IMS Disease Analyzer, Germany. Patients who were ≥18 years old; had at least one ICD-10 diagnosis code of RA, AS, or PsA during the study period; and had exposure to a subcutaneous biologic agent between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2012 were selected. Patients were required to have continuous observation ≥12 months prior to and after index medication date. Persistence was defined as consecutive days from treatment initiation until treatment discontinuation (≥60-day lapse in medication coverage). Patients were stratified by pre-index use of DMARDs. Kaplan–Meier analysis was conducted to assess time to discontinuation, and logistic regression was conducted to identify characteristics associated with persistence. A total of 576 RA, 108 AS, and 197 PsA patients without biologic experience during the pre-index period were selected. The percentages of RA, AS, and PsA patients persistent ≥12 months were 51.9, 48.1, and 57.9 %, respectively. Median persistent time over 12 months was 365.0 days for RA (mean 245.9 days), 281.0 for AS (mean 228.5), and 365.0 for PsA (mean 264.1). In the RA cohort, a significantly higher proportion of those with pre-index DMARD use were persistent compared to those without pre-index DMARD (56.1 vs. 33.3 %, p = 0.0001). No significant differences were observed for the AS and PsA cohorts. Multivariate analyses confirmed that DMARD-experienced patients were 2.45 times more likely to be persistent with subcutaneous biologic therapy in the RA cohort. Switching between subcutaneous biologics occurred in <10 % of patients in all three cohorts. In the subpopulations with at least two prescriptions for the index subcutaneous biologic and who remained persistent on the index subcutaneous biologic, dose escalation of ≥50 % occurred in 50, 60, and 49 % in the RA, AS, and PsA cohorts, respectively. Among RA, AS, and PsA patients newly initiating subcutaneous biologic agents in Germany, persistence at 12 months is relatively low (48–58 %). For the RA cohort, patients with pre-index DMARD use are more persistent than patients without. The majority of patients do not switch between subcutaneous biologics. A notable proportion of patients who remained persistent on their index subcutaneous biologic had a dose escalation. There are opportunities to improve outcomes of patient with rheumatoid disease through improved medication persistence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lee DM, Weinblatt ME (2001) Rheumatoid arthritis. Lancet 358(9285):903–911

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Salaffi F, Carotti M, Gasparini S et al (2009) The health-related quality of life in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriatic arthritis: a comparison with a selected sample of health people. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:25

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Berdal G, Halvorsen S, Heijde D et al (2012) Restrictive pulmonary function is more prevalent in patients with ankylosing spondylitis than in matched population controls and is associated with impaired spinal mobility: a comparative study. Arthritis Res Therapy 14:R19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 143. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for ankylosing spondylitis. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/TA143Guidance.pdf. Accessed on 4 June 2013

  5. NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance 199. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/13110/50422/50422.pdf. Accessed on 4 June 2013

  6. Smolen JS, Landewe R, Breedveld FC et al (2010) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Ann Rheum Dis 69(6):964–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Braun J, Berg R, Boehm H et al (2011) 2010 update of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 70:896–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gossec L, Smolen JS, Gaujoux-Viala C et al (2012) European league against rheumatism recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies. Ann Rheum Dis 71:4–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Breedveld FC, Weisman MH, Kavanaugh AF et al (2006) The PREMIER study: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment. Arthritis Rheum 54(1):26–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mease PJ, Gladman DD, Ritchlin CT et al (2005) Adalimumab for the treatment of patients with moderately to severely active psoriatic arthritis: results of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 52(10):3279–3289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kavanaugh A, van der Heijde D, McInnes IB et al (2012) Golimumab in psoriatic arthritis: one-year clinical efficacy, radiographic, and safety results from a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 64(8):2504–2517

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mease PJ, Fleischmann R, Deodhar AA et al (2014) Effect of certolizumab pegol on signs and symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a Phase 3 double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study (RAPID-PsA). Ann Rheum Dis 73(1):48–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Mease PJ, Goffe BS, Metz J et al (2000) Etanercept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: a randomised trial. Lancet 356(9227):385–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Wolfe F (1995) The epidemiology of drug treatment failure in rheumatoid arthritis. Baillieres Clin Rheumatol 9:619–632

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Becher H, Kostev K, Schröder-Bernhardi D (2009) Validity and representativeness of the “Disease Analyzer” patient database for use in pharmacoepidemiological andpharmacoeconomic studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 47(10):617–626

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ogdie A, Langan SM, Parkinson J, Dattani H, Kostev K, Gelfand JM (2012) Medical Record Databases. In: Strom BL, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S (eds) Pharmacoepidemiology, 5th edn. Wiley, Oxford, pp 224–243

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Buckley F, Finckh A, Huizinga TW et al (2015) Comparative efficacy of novel DMARDs as monotherapy and in combination with methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response to conventional DMARDs: a network meta-analysis. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 21(5):409–423

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rajzbaum G, Grados F, Evans D et al (2014) Treatment persistence and changes in fracture risk, back pain, and quality of life amongst patients treated with teriparatide in routine clinical care in France: results from the European forsteo observational study. Joint Bone Spine. 81(1):69–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Colivicchi F, Bassi A, Santini M et al (2007) Discontinuation of statin therapy and clinical outcome after ischemic stroke. Stroke 38(10):2652–2657

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Penning-van Beest FJ, Termorshuizen F, Goettsch WG et al (2007) Adherence to evidence-based statin guidelines reduces the risk of hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction by 40 %: a cohort study. Eur Heart J 28(2):154–159

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nam JL, Ramiro S, Gaujoux-Viala C, Takase K, Leon-Garcia M, Emery P, Gossec L, Landewe R, Smolen JS, Buch MH (2014) Efficacy of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review informing the 2013 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 73(3):516–528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Degli Esposti L, Sangiorgi D, Perrone V, Radice S, Clementi E, Perone F, Buda S (2014) Adherence and resource use among patients treated with biologic drugs: findings from BEETLE study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 18(6):401–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Verstappen SM, Bijlsma JW, Verkleij H et al (2004) Overview of work disability in rheumatoid arthritis patients as observed in cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys. Arthritis Rheum 51:488–497

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cooper NJ (2000) Economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford) 39:28–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mulottki K, Barton P, Tsourapas A et al. (2011) Adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, and abatacept for the tratement of rheumatoid arthritis aftterfailure of a tumor necrosiss factor inhibitor: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 15(14):1–278

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sofia De Achaval S, Suarez-Almazor ME (2010) Treatment adherence to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Int J Clin Rheumtol. 5(3):313–326

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bartelds GM, Krieckaert CL, Nurmohamed MT et al (2011) Development of antidrug antibodies against adalimumab and association with disease activity and treatment failure during long-term follow-up. JAMA 305(14):1460–1468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. The sponsor was involved with the writing, study design, analysis, and interpretation of data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sumesh Kachroo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Jerrold Hill, Augstina Ogbonnaya, Prina Donga, and Charles Makin are employees of IMS Health, which was funded by Merck & Co. Inc. to conduct the design, management, and statistical analyses of the data as well as to prepare the study report. Dr. Sumesh Kachroo and Christopher M. Black are employees of Merck. Dr. Tao Fan, Dr. Qian Ding, and Ramon Lyu were employees of Merck at the time of this study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lyu, R., Govoni, M., Ding, Q. et al. Treatment persistence among patients with rheumatoid disease (RA, AS, PsA) treated with subcutaneous biologics in Germany. Rheumatol Int 36, 143–153 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3348-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3348-4

Keywords

Navigation