2. Humira® (adalimumab) [package insert], AbbVie, Inc, North Chicago, IL, 2013. 3. Cimzia® (certolizumab pegol) [package insert], UCB, Inc, Smyrna, GA, 2012.
Utilization Patterns of Adalimumab, Etanercept, and Golimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis L.A. Ellis, R. Meyer, S.C. Bolge, J. Tkacz, P. Kardel, C. Reutsch 1
1
1
2
2
2
Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Horsham, PA, USA; Health Analytics; Columbia, MD, USA 2
■■
■■
■■ ■■
Purpose ■■
To compare real-world utilization patterns of subcutaneous anti-TNF agents as observed in a large, national commercial payer dataset of patients diagnosed with RA
■■
Methods ■■
■■
■■ ■■ ■■
■■
■■
This was a retrospective claims study employing the Optum Insight Clinformatics dataset for the period of 1/1/2009 through 3/31/2012 Inclusion Criteria: —— Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) —— ≥2 claims with an RA diagnosis (ICD-9: 714.xx), —— ≥24 months of continuous medical and pharmacy eligibility —— 30-day supplies of either adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA) or golimumab (GLM) biologic medication Exclusion Criteria: pregnancy, Crohn’s disease, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis Certolizumab was not included due to small sample size Non-excluded patients meeting the inclusion criteria were assigned to a biologic treatment group based upon the most recent biologic received during the study enrollment period (1/1/2009 to 3/31/2011) As compared to etanercept and adalimumab groups, the golimumab group had a higher proportion of members who were female, had pre-index chronic disease and pre-index biologic use The following utilization measures were described: —— Monthly dose —— Refill interval • proportion of compliant fills, defined as having a refill interval occurring ≥21 and ≤38 days from the previous fill
100
Results ■■
80 60
61.8%
70.5%
82.0%
40 20 0
A total of 2,099 etanercept, 1,532 adalimumab, and 261 golimumab patients met inclusion criteria (Table 1) 5 Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population were summarized elsewhere All three groups significantly differed from each other on the MPR measure. The mean/ SD MPR for the golimumab group (0.88/0.11) was significantly higher than the mean/SD MPRs for the adalimumab (0.85/0.11) and etanercept groups (0.81 /0.15). Likewise, the mean MPR of the adalimumab group was significantly higher than the etanercept group (p
