Article

Adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab utilization patterns and drug costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Janssen Scientific Affairs , LLC, Horsham, PA 19044, USA.
Journal of Medical Economics 12/2011; 15(2):332-9. DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2011.649325
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the utilization patterns of the anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents Humira (adalimumab), Enbrel (etanercept), and Remicade (infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare medication costs during the first year of treatment. (Humira is a registered trademark of Abbott Laboratories, IL; Enbrel is a registered trademark of Immunex Corporation, CA; and Remicade is a registered trademark of Janssen Biotech, Inc., PA).
This retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims included patients who were aged ≥18 years, had ≥2 RA diagnosis codes, and had ≥365 days of persistence with the index anti-TNF. Patients excluded had claims for anti-TNF agents within 6 months before the index date. Refill patterns for adalimumab and etanercept, number of infliximab infusions, time between infusions, and dose per infusion were analyzed for 12 months. Direct anti-TNF medication costs were compared among anti-TNFs for the initial treatment year.
Infliximab-treated patients (n = 457) were significantly older than adalimumab- (n = 337) or etanercept-treated patients (n = 902). Time between refills was longer than recommended for 28% and 30% of adalimumab and etanercept refill periods, respectively. Potential cumulative time without therapy was 33 days for adalimumab and 43 days for etanercept. Statistically significant differences in mean per-patient anti-TNF medication costs for the first year were reported for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab ($14,991, $13,361, and $18,139, respectively; p < 0.0001); however, a cost assessment using labeled dosing of the anti-TNF agents with optimal treatment compliance yielded comparable annual medication costs.
This analysis only evaluated utilization patterns for selected anti-TNF agents and was not inclusive of other medications that patients may have been using for RA. Absolute patient adherence could not be assessed due to lack of information on how patients were self-administering adalimumab and etanercept or if samples of the agents were made available.
This study identified gaps in patients' refills compared with prescriber recommendations. The infliximab-treated group had infusion patterns consistent with prescribing information. Potential clinical and economic implications of dose attenuation with adalimumab and etanercept should be explored further.

1 Bookmark
 · 
159 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PurposeThis is the second of a three-part series on medication adherence in which the authors describe the continuum of adherence to nonadherence of medication usage. Data sourcesResearch articles through MEDLINE and PubMed. Conclusions Understanding the magnitude and scope of the problem of medication nonadherence is the first step in reaching better adherence rates (described in Part One of this series). The second step is to recognize the complexities of the reasons for medication adherence/nonadherence (described here). Reasons for nonadherence include beliefs related to the benefits of medication for physical and mental disorders, complexities of systems of health care and treatment plans, and lifestyle and demographic characteristics of patients. The final step is to evaluate each patient for medication adherence, tailoring the plan of care according to patient and system specific barriers (described in Part Three of this series). Implications for practiceNurse practitioners must recognize a critical element of thorough care is to assess medication adherence at each patient visit, countering patient and system barriers as indicated. Nurse practitioners also need to adjust assessment and prescribing practices according to the evidence for best practices to improve medication adherence.
    Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 02/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate medication adherence and persistence of patients treated with Etanercept and Adalimumab for Rheumatoid Arthritis, also giving economic evaluations on therapy costs for Received Daily Dose (RDD). Materials and methods: This retrospective study took into account 6 years from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012. Medication adherence was quantified utilizing the ratio between RDD and Prescribed Daily Dose (PDD). Persistence has been reckoned taking into account the actual days of therapy comparing posology with supplied dose. The persistence has been graphed according to Kaplan-Meier method. The cost per RDD was reckoned starting from the expense incurred by Pescara General Hospital. Results: Medication adherence gave results in values between 0.88-0.97 for Etanercept and 0.83-0.90 for Adalimumab. The value of persistence was 100% for Etanercept and 90% for Adalimumab for the first year, and 70% for Etanercept and 80% for Adalimumab for the second year. In the 3rd year the persistence for Etanercept was 50% while for Adalimumab it was 60%. In the fourth year the persistence for Etanercept was 21% while for Adalimumab it was 27%. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Log rank test. The average cost per RDD was €32.97 for Etanercept and for Adalimumab it was €32.00 as an average of 6 years. Conclusion: The medication adherence was good for both Etanercept and Adalimumab. The rate of persistence decreased strictly in the fourth year of treatment. This data suggests the need for continuous monitoring of patients in treatment with TNF blockers.
    Journal of Medical Economics 03/2014;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objectives: To estimate biologic cost per effectively treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using a claims-based algorithm for effectiveness. Methods: Patients with RA aged 18 to 63 years in the IMS PharMetrics(™) Plus database were categorized as effectively treated if they met all six criteria: (1) a medication possession ratio ≥ 80% (subcutaneous) or at least as many infusions as specified in US labeling (intravenous); (2) no biologic dose increase; (3) no biologic switch; (4) no new nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug; (5) no new or increased oral glucocorticoid; and (6) ≤ 1 glucocorticoid injection. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient was defined as total cost of the index biologic (drug plus intravenous administration) divided by the number of patients categorized by the algorithm as effectively treated. Similar methods were used for the index biologic in the second year and for a second biologic after a switch. Results: Rates that the index biologic was categorized as effective in the first year were 31.0% etanercept (2,243/7,247), 28.6% adalimumab (1,426/4,991), 28.6% abatacept (332/1,160), 27.2% golimumab (71/261), and 20.2% infliximab (474/2,352). Mean biologic cost per effectively treated patient, per the algorithm, was $50,141 etanercept, $53,386 golimumab, $56,942 adalimumab, $73,516 abatacept, and $114,089 infliximab. Biologic cost per effectively treated patient, using this algorithm, was lower for patients who continued the index biologic in the second year and higher after switching. Conclusions: When a claims-based algorithm was applied to a large commercial claims database, etanercept was categorized as the most effective and had the lowest estimated 1-year biologic cost per effectively treated patient. This proxy for effectiveness from claims databases was validated against a clinical effectiveness scale, but analyses of the second year or the year after a biologic switch were not included in the validation. Costs of other medications were not included in cost calculations.
    Journal of Medical Economics 04/2014;