Advertisement

Rheumatology International

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 525–531 | Cite as

Persistence with biological drugs in patients treated in rheumatology practices in Germany

  • Louis Jacob
  • Thomas Chevalier
  • Karel KostevEmail author
Pharmacovigilance
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

The goal of this study was to investigate the persistence with biological drugs in patients treated in rheumatology practices in Germany. This study included patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PA), or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who received a first prescription of biological drugs between 2008 and 2016 (index date) in 21 rheumatology practices in Germany (n = 4925; Disease Analyzer database). The main outcome measure was the rate of persistence within 5 years of the index date. Kaplan–Meier analyses were performed to study treatment persistence as a function of diagnosis, gender and age. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to estimate the relationship between non-persistence and diagnosis, gender, age, and comorbidities. After 5 years of follow-up, the rate of persistence was 31.8% in patients with RA, 35.2% in those with AS, and 33.2% in those with PA (log-rank p value = 0.028). Furthermore, 33.8% of men and 31.9% of women were persistent (log-rank p value = 0.035). The rate of persistence was 20.8%, 27.9%, 33.0%, 36.6%, 35.2%, and 32.0% in people aged ≤ 30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, and > 70 years, respectively (log-rank p value = 0.002). The risk of discontinuation was lower in participants diagnosed with AS than in those diagnosed with RA [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–0.96]. In addition, patients aged ≤ 30 years were more likely to discontinue their biological therapy than those aged > 70 years (HR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.10–1.52). Persistence with biological drugs was low after 5 years of follow-up in rheumatology practices.

Keywords

Persistence Biological drugs Rheumatology practices Germany Retrospective study 

Notes

Author contributions

LJ and TC contributed to the interpretation of the data, drafted the manuscript and gave the final approval of the version to be published. KK contributed to the conception and the design of the study, revised the manuscript critically for important content, and gave the final approval of the version to be published.

Funding

The authors have received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Karel Kostev is an employee of IQVIA. IQVIA (https://www.iqvia.com/) is a commercial research institute providing information, services and technology for the healthcare industry. The other authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

German law allows the use of anonymous electronic medical records for research purposes under certain conditions. According to this legislation, it is not necessary to obtain informed consent from patients or approval from a medical ethics committee for this type of observational study that contains no directly identifiable data. Because patients were only queried as aggregates and no protected health information was available for queries, no IRB approval was required for the use of this database or the completion of this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Silman AJ, Pearson JE (2002) Epidemiology and genetics of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Res 4(Suppl 3):S265–S272.  https://doi.org/10.1186/ar578 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stolwijk C, van Onna M, Boonen A, van Tubergen A (2016) Global prevalence of spondyloarthritis: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Arthritis Care Res 68:1320–1331.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22831 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scotti L, Franchi M, Marchesoni A, Corrao G (2018) Prevalence and incidence of psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 48:28–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2018.01.003 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boonen A, Linden SM van der (2006) The burden of ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol Suppl 78:4–11Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee S, Mendelsohn A, Sarnes E (2010) The burden of psoriatic arthritis. Pharm Ther 35:680–689Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D et al (2014) The global burden of rheumatoid arthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 73:1316–1322.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204627 Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braun J, Bollow M, Remlinger G et al (1998) Prevalence of spondylarthropathies in HLA-B27 positive and negative blood donors. Arthritis Rheum 41:58–67Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hense S, Luque Ramos A, Callhoff J et al (2016) Prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Germany based on health insurance data: regional differences and first results of the PROCLAIR study. Z Rheumatol 75:819–827.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00393-016-0088-0 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacob C, Meier F, Neidhardt K et al (2016) Epidemiology and costs of psoriatic arthritis in Germany—a retrospective claims data analysis. Value Health 19:A566.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.09.1268 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reich K, Krüger K, Mössner R, Augustin M (2009) Epidemiology and clinical pattern of psoriatic arthritis in Germany: a prospective interdisciplinary epidemiological study of 1511 patients with plaque-type psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 160:1040–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.09023.x Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Braun J, Kellner H, Max R, Rihl M, Schmitz-Bortz E, Schulze-Koops H, Zinke S, Fan T, Ding Q, Lyu R (2013) Disease severity, quality of life, and productivity loss among patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Germany. 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting (Abstract Number: 1012) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gerhold K, Richter A, Schneider M et al (2015) Health-related quality of life in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis in the era of biologics: data from the German biologics register RABBIT. Rheumatol Oxf Engl 54:1858–1866.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kev194 Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haase I, Pongratz G, Sander O et al (2018) SAT0698 Mortality of patients with diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in germany 2012: analysis of claims data from 60 million people. Ann Rheum Dis 77:1196–1197.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-eular.1651 Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gossec L, Smolen JS, Ramiro S et al (2016) European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of psoriatic arthritis with pharmacological therapies: 2015 update. Ann Rheum Dis 75:499–510.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-208337 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smolen JS, Landewé R, Bijlsma J et al (2017) EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update. Ann Rheum Dis 76:960–977.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van der Heijde D, Ramiro S, Landewé R et al (2017) 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 76:978–991.  https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210770 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosman Z, Shoenfeld Y, Zandman-Goddard G (2013) Biologic therapy for autoimmune diseases: an update. BMC Med 11:88.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-88 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’Angelo S, Tramontano G, Gilio M et al (2017) Review of the treatment of psoriatic arthritis with biological agents: choice of drug for initial therapy and switch therapy for non-responders. Open Access Rheumatol Res Rev 9:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.2147/OARRR.S56073 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ungprasert P, Erwin PJ, Koster MJ (2017) Indirect comparisons of the efficacy of biological agents in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rheumatol 36:1569–1577.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-017-3693-7 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mócsai A, Kovács L, Gergely P (2014) What is the future of targeted therapy in rheumatology: biologics or small molecules? BMC Med 12:43.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-43 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saad AA, Ashcroft DM, Watson KD et al (2009) Persistence with anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis: observational study from the British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register. Arthritis Res Ther 11:R52.  https://doi.org/10.1186/ar2670 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fisher A, Bassett K, Wright JM et al (2014) Comparative persistence of the TNF antagonists in rheumatoid arthritis—a population-based cohort study. PLoS One 9:e105193.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105193 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Govoni M, Lyu R, Ding Q, Fan T (2014) Persistence rate with subcutaneous biologic therapies in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (As). Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 17:A384.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2014.08.2635 Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neubauer S, Cifaldi M, Mittendorf T et al (2014) Biologic TNF inhibiting agents for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: persistence and dosing patterns in Germany. Health Econ Rev 4:32.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13561-014-0032-4 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lyu R, Govoni M, Ding Q et al (2016) Treatment persistence among patients with rheumatoid disease (RA, AS, PsA) treated with subcutaneous biologics in Germany. Rheumatol Int 36:143–153.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-015-3348-4 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Machado MA de Á, Moura CS de, Ferré F et al (2016) Treatment persistence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Rev Saude Publica 50:50.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006265 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mahlich J, Sruamsiri R (2016) Persistence with biologic agents for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Japan. Patient Prefer Adherence 10:1509–1519.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S110147 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Palmer JB, Li Y, Herrera V et al (2016) Treatment patterns and costs for anti-TNFα biologic therapy in patients with psoriatic arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:261.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1102-z Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chastek B, Chen C-I, Proudfoot C et al (2017) Treatment persistence and healthcare costs among patients with rheumatoid arthritis changing biologics in the USA. Adv Ther 34:2422–2435.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-017-0617-5 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Degli Esposti L, Favalli EG, Sangiorgi D et al (2017) Persistence, switch rates, drug consumption and costs of biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study in Italy. Clin Outcomes Res CEOR 9:9–17.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S108730 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilke T, Mueller S, Lee SC et al (2017) Drug survival of second biological DMARD therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective non-interventional cohort analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:332.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1684-0 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fagerli KM, Kearsley-Fleet L, Watson KD et al (2018) Long-term persistence of TNF-inhibitor treatment in patients with psoriatic arthritis. Data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register. RMD Open 4:e000596.  https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2017-000596 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee M-Y, Shin J-Y, Park S-Y et al (2018) Persistence of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of the South Korean National Health Insurance Database. Semin Arthritis Rheum 47:485–491.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.08.007 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Walsh JA, Adejoro O, Chastek B, Park Y (2018) Treatment patterns of biologics in US patients with ankylosing spondylitis: descriptive analyses from a claims database. J Comp Eff Res 7:369–380.  https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2017-0076 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rathmann W, Bongaerts B, Carius HJ, Kruppert S (2018) Basic characteristics and representativeness of the German Disease Analyzer database. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 56(10):459–466.  https://doi.org/10.5414/CP203320 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gossen N, Jacob L, Kostev K (2016) Second-line therapy with biological drugs in rheumatoid arthritis patients in German rheumatologist practices: a retrospective database analysis. Rheumatol Int 36:1113–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3448-9 Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Drosselmeyer J, Jacob L, Rathmann W et al (2017) Depression risk in patients with late-onset rheumatoid arthritis in Germany. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehabil 26:437–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1387-2 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ziegelbauer K, Kostev K, Hübinger M et al (2018) The impact of non-persistence on the direct and indirect costs in patients treated with subcutaneous tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in Germany. Rheumatol Oxf Engl.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/key099 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Oldroyd AGS, Symmons DPM, Sergeant JC et al (2018) Long-term persistence with rituximab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Oxf Engl 57:1089–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/key036 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brocq O, Roux CH, Albert C et al (2007) TNFalpha antagonist continuation rates in 442 patients with inflammatory joint disease. Jt Bone Spine Rev Rhum 74:148–154.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2006.06.011 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesMontigny-le-BretonneuxFrance
  2. 2.Hospital Saint-AntoineParisFrance
  3. 3.EpidemiologyIQVIA, Commercial GmbH & Co OHGFrankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations