Research Article - International Journal of Clinical Rheumatology (2021) Volume 16, Issue 5
Treatment patterns and costs of patients with ankylosing spondylitis initiating biologic therapy in taiwan - a population-based analysis
- *Corresponding Author:
- Chia-Fang Lee
Eli Lilly and Company (Taiwan), Inc. Taipei, Taiwan
E-mail: [email protected]
Objective: To evaluate the real-world treatment patterns and costs of patients initiating their first biologic therapy for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) in Taiwan.
Methods: Taiwan’s National Health Insurance claims data between 1/1/2014 and 12/31/2017 was used to identify and follow patients with AS initiating their first biologic therapy in 2015. Patients > 18 years of age, with AS (ICD-9-CM: 720.0), a claim for a biologic therapy in 2015, continuous enrollment for at least one year following index, and no claims for biologics in the previous year were indexed into the study. A matched cohort of non-biologic patients with AS receiving anti-inflammatory drugs was derived. Patients were followed from their index date (first biologic claim) through the end of the study period, death, or they were lost to follow-up.
Results: There were 430 as patients included in the biologic-initiators cohort (Adalimumab=191; Etanercept=122; Golimumab=177). PRE-index utilization rates were significantly higher for biologic-initiators compared to the matched cohort for corticosteroids, opioids, and csDMARDs (all p<0.0001). utilization rates of NSAIDs and csDMARDs were lower for biologic initiators and higher for the matched cohort during the follow-up period compared to the pre-index period. mean total healthcare costs were higher and average non-medication costs were lower for biologic-initiators compared to the matched cohort during the two years post-index.
Conclusions: Patients initiating their first biologic therapy for as had high rates of as-related medication utilization during the pre-index period followed by a decrease in utilization rates after biologic initiation.
asia-pacific • economics • epidemiology
During the pre-index period biologic initiators had significantly higher utilization rates of corticosteroids (58.8% vs. 37.2%; p<0.0001), opioids (58.6% vs. 37.2%; p<0.0001), and csDMARDs (85.8% vs. 42.8%; p<0.0001) compared to the matched cohort (Figures 1-3). Biologic initiators also had non-significantly higher absolute utilization rates compared to the matched cohort for all medication classes including NSAIDs (92.3% vs. 87.1%), topical analgesics (19.1% vs. 18.3%), muscle relaxants (52.1% vs. 49.8%), and pregabalin (1.2% vs. 1.0%).
Relative reductions in medication usage between the pre- and post-index periods was generally higher for the biologic-initiators cohort than the matched cohort. The only increase in medication utilization for biologic-initiators was for sleep aids (+5.9%), compared to the matched cohort, which saw relative rates of utilization increase in NSAIDs (+2.2%), csDMARDs (+9.1%), sleep aids (+7.6%), and pregabalin (+70.0%). Relative reductions in medication utilization for biologic-initiators were found in muscle relaxants (-34.0%), opioids (-30.9%), corticosteroids (-30.8%), anxiolytics (-28.1%), pregabalin (-25.0%), topical analgesics (-24.6%), NSAIDs (-22.9%), csDMARDs (-9.2%), and antidepressants (-9.5%).
The median follow-up time of the biologic initiators was 29.9 m. The median length of follow-up did not significantly vary between first-line biologics with 29.8 m for adalimumab and etanercept, and 30.1 m for golimumab. Over the follow-up period, there were 40 (9.3%) patients switching to a second-line biologic. Switching patterns between biologics are described in the Sankey diagram (Figure 4). Patients initiating adalimumab were most likely to switch (12.0%; 23/191), followed by etanercept (7.4%; 9/122), and golimumab (6.8%; 8/117) during the follow-up period. The most utilized second-line therapy after switching was golimumab (57.5%; 23/40), followed by adalimumab (25.0%; 10/40), and etanercept (17.5%; 7/40).
Average mean total healthcare costs were higher for the biologic-initiators cohort (NT$579,444 and NT$571,244) compared to the matched cohort (NT$75,327 and NT$71,619) in both the first and second years of follow-up (Tables 1 & 2). The incremental cost between the cohorts was driven by additional drug costs for the biologic-initiators cohort. Average mean non-medication costs were lower for the biologic-initiators cohort in both years of follow-up. Non-drug costs decreased by 15.2% (NT$8,179), from NT$53,885 to NT$45,707 in the second year of followup compared to a 4.3% (NT$2,446) decrease from NT$56,893 to NT$54.447 for the matched cohort.
|Characteristics||Biologic Initiators||Matched Cohort1||P-Value|
|18.0 - 20.5||21||4.9||84||5||0.9938|
|20.6 - 24.5||26||6||104||6.2|
|24.6 - 30.5||63||14.7||252||15|
|30.6 - 41.5||111||25.8||432||25.7|
|41.6 - 53.5||100||23.3||395||23.5|
|53.6 - 61.5||64||14.9||253||15.1|
|61.6 - 64.5||23||5.3||89||5.3|
|64.6 - 71.5||19||4.4||64||3.8|
|CCI (mean, SD)||0.8||1.3||0.7||1.1||0.2706|
|Coronary Artery Disease||21||4.9||45||2.7||0.0193|
|Peripheral Vascular Disease (PVD)||6||1.4||7||0.4||0.0208|
|Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)||3||0.7||4||0.2||0.1546|
|Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)||10||2.3||7||0.4||<0.0001|
|Peptic Ulcer Disease||94||21.9||310||18.5||0.1115|
|Neurologic / Psychologic Conditions||2||0.5||1||0.1||0.1077|
Notes: CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index
1Patients were matched on age, gender, and CCI score
Table 1. Baseline patient demographics and clinical characteristics.
|Cost (Nt$)||Biologic-Naive||Matched Cohort|
|YEAR 1||YEAR 2||YEAR 1||YEAR 2|
|Medication||3,993.80||31,749.40||-||0-0||2,953.80||24,332.70||-||0 - 0||2,800.30||29,310.10||-||0 - 0||1,729.20||11,694.10||-||0 - 0|
|Non-Medication||20,134.10||113,039.60||-||0-0||15,200.20||65,393.50||-||0 - 0||23,230.50||109,211.90||-||0 - 0||20,806.30||78,434.80||-||0 - 0|
|Total Inpatient Costs||24,128.00||138,208.00||-||0-0||18,153.90||80,088.30||-||0 - 0||26,030.70||133,812.70||-||0 - 0||22,535.50||87,316.00||-||0 - 0|
|Medication||521,475.90||172,750.00||529,447.50||415,929–645,511||522,513.80||172,380.20||536,250.00||415,929 – 648,506||15,523.50||39,020.90||6,614.00||2,271 – 14,594||15,336.70||38,555.50||6,538.00||2,265 – 14,536|
|Non-Medication||32,594.70||48,518.20||23,151.50||16,932–36,189||29,664.70||21,338.30||23,018.00||16,926 – 36,189||31,781.70||55,414.40||20,584.00||11,961 – 35,542||31,783.30||55,488.80||20,593.00||11,961 – 35,575|
|Total Outpatient Costs||554,070.60||180,811.80||570,649.00||446,083–679,173||552,178.50||177,513.30||570,418.00||443,177 – 678,699||47,305.20||72,367.10||29,583.00||16,407 – 52,943||47,120.00||72,204.50||29,549.00||16,404 – 52,833|
|Medication||88.7||426.6||-||0-0||69.7||332.9||-||0 - 0||110.2||603.4||-||0 – 1,499||105.5||575.3||-||0 - 72|
|Non-Medication||1,156.50||5,176.80||-||0-0||841.8||2,458.80||-||0 - 0||1,881.10||5,716.70||-||0 - 73||1,857.80||5,704.20||-||0 – 1,403|
|Total ER Costs||1,245.20||5,495.10||-||0-0||911.5||2,657.30||-||0 - 0||1,991.30||6,017.80||-||0 – 1,412||1,963.40||5,991.40||-||0 – 1,489|
|Medication||525,558.50||172,269.40||543,485.50||419,344–649,572||525,537.30||172,795.30||543,313.00||415,929 – 650,620||18,434.00||50,619.40||7,012.50||2,536 – 16,312||17,171.40||41,107.20||6,978.00||2,506 – 16,277|
|Non-Medication||53,885.30||148,702.20||25,149.50||17,324–43,915||45,706.60||75,296.60||24,797.00||17,234 – 43,346||56,893.30||136,371.40||24,930.50||13,479 – 53,172||54,447.40||111,897.60||24,868.00||13,457 – 53,051|
|Total Costs||579,443.80||233,906.70||576,872.50||450,579–70,5261||571,243.90||194,007.10||576,741.00||448,664 – 704,487||75,327.20||167,513.60||35,260.00||18,920 – 71,446||71,618.80||130,881.30||35,117.00||18,829 – 71,228|
Notes: Costs in NT$
ER: Emergency Room; IQR: Interquartile Range; SD: Standard Deviation
Table 2. Healthcare Costs (NT$) during the follow-up period.
We evaluated the treatment patterns and costs of AS patients in Taiwan initiating their first biologic and a matched cohort of AS patients receiving NSAIDs without a biologic for a minimum of one year. There were significantly higher rates of IBD (p<0.0001), uveitis (p<0.0001), and psoriasis (p<0.0001) in the cohort of patients initiating their first biologic compared to the matched cohort, which reflect the heterogeneity of axial spondyloarthritis conditions. Baseline utilization rates for corticosteroids, opioids, NSAIDs, muscle relaxants, and csDMARDs were all numerically higher for biologic-initiators than the matched cohort during the pre-index period. The heightened presence of baseline axial spondyloarthritis burden and pre-index medication utilization may have been contributing factors to the selection of a biologic for AS treatment.
This study showed a higher rate of rheumatoid arthritis diagnosis (10.5%) within the cohort of AS patients initiating their first biologic compared to the matched cohort (5.2%). The high rate of rheumatoid arthritis with AS patients observed in our study is consistent with other published analyses of claims-based datasets in the Asia-Pacific region including another study in Taiwan (4.98% among all AS patients) and Japan (53.9% among biologic DMARD patients) [1,2]. However, the coexistence of rheumatoid arthritis and AS in clinical practice is a relatively rare occurrence . Rationales for the high RA prevalence rates in these claims analyses may include the use of rheumatoid arthritis diagnostic codes during the diagnostic process of AS or the presence of peripheral arthritis that is being misclassified.
An analysis of the hospital-based Medical Data Vision database in Japan also reported medication utilization during a 12-month follow-up period for AS biologic-initiators . Utilization rates during the 12-month follow-up period for the biologic-initiators of the measured classes of medication higher for opioids (40.5% vs. 5.2%) and csDMARDs (77.9% vs. 66.1%) but lower for antidepressants (6.7% vs. 11.3%), anxiolytics (25.6% vs. 30.4%), and corticosteroids (40.7% vs. 52.2%) in our study compared to the recent study in Japan . However, it should be noted that the study in Japan utilized a hospital-based database and may not be representative of the general AS population, which is observed in our analysis.
Of the patients initiating their first biologic for AS, 9.3% (n=40) switched to another TNFi during the follow-up period (median of 29.9 months) in this study. This rate of switching is consistent with other real-world studies evaluating treatment patterns of first-time biologic initiators in AS [4,5]. A study by Lindstrom et al. of 2,590 AS patients starting their first TNFi in Sweden between 2006 – 2015 reported 13% of patients were on their second TNFi at the end of their first year on therapy . Palmer et al. reported 8.9% of TNFi initiators switched to another biologic within a 3-year follow-up period . A claims-based analysis in the United States reported a slightly higher percentage (26.1%) of switching for first-time TNFi users for AS to a second TNFi during the two-year follow-up period .
Patients receiving biologic therapy in this study had higher average total costs compared to the matched cohort of non-biologic patients. However, nonmedication costs were similar between the two cohorts with average costs of NT$53,885 and NT$56,893 in the biologic and matched non-biologic cohorts, respectively. Furthermore, non-medication costs were reduced by 15.2% (NT$8,179) in the biologic cohort compared to 4.3% (NT$2,446) in the matched non-biologic cohort when comparing year one and year two of the followup period. The reduction in non-medication costs could be attributed to the effectiveness of biologics [7-11]. Comparison of costs across studies in different settings is difficult due to different health systems and pricing. However, most economic analyses of AS patients receiving biologics have reported that biologics are a high percentage of total healthcare costs [12,13].
The results of this study can be considered by decision-makers and stakeholders in Taiwan to understand the treatment patterns, cost, and unmet needs associated with TNFi biologics in Taiwan. Compared to the matched cohort, patients initiating a biologic experienced a greater decline in medication (corticosteroid, opioid, NSAID, antidepressant, anxiolytic, csDMARD, topical analgesic, muscle relaxants, and pregabalin) utilization after index, and a greater reduction in non-medication costs between year one and two of follow-up [14-18]. These changes show the value of biologic therapy in lowering the medication utilization and non-medication cost burden. However, 9% of patients initiating their first biologic had to switch to another biologic during the follow-up period. Furthermore, during the time of this study patients were limited in their selection of biologics during the index date to only TNFis, and the only alternative-MOA biologic, secukinumab, only became available towards the tail-end of the follow-up period [19-22]. As the TRA notes in their recommendations if there is intolerance and/or toxicity to the initial TNFi it is recommended for patients to try an alternative MOA . As there was no alternative MOA available for the majority of this study’s timeline there may have been an even higher percentage of patients that would have benefited from switching to an alternative MOA. This suggests an unmet need for biologics with new mechanisms of action and/or better optimization of the first choice of biologic [23,24].
This study has several limitations. This was a non-randomized retrospective analysis that relied on propensity score matching of the limited clinical information available in the claims database and was subject to the potential of unmeasured confounding. The propensity score matching included age, gender, and CCI, but did not include the musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal manifestations and comorbidities included in this analysis, which could have accounted for differences between the cohorts . AS-related comorbidities were not controlled for to allow for differences in disease severity between the two cohorts. As it is a claims-based database analysis only limited clinical information such as diagnostic codes are available, clinical information that could have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of biologic and non-biologic treatment was not included. Thus, no inference as to the reason for treatment switching, discontinuation, or augmentation can be made. The database also only contains data for direct healthcare costs (reimbursed materials and services) and does not include indirect costs such as those related to absenteeism and presenteeism, which are important factors for consideration in ankylosing spondylitis [26,27]. Second, ankylosing spondylitis is often subject to misdiagnosis and without clinical information validation of the ICD-code algorithm used to identify AS in this analysis cannot be trusted as fully accurate . Lastly, the current treatment paradigm for biologic therapy of AS patients in Taiwan is likely different than in 2015 due to the reimbursement of new biologics with different mechanisms of action [29,30].
Patients initiating their first biologic therapy experienced large declines in the utilization of other AS-related medications and non-medication costs during their first year of therapy compared to a matched cohort of AS patients receiving NSAID therapy without biologic use. The rate of switching to a second-line biologic may suggest the need for additional biologic options at initiation and improvements in initial treatment selection.
This study was funded by Eli Lilly & Co.
Bruce CM Wang and Wesley Furnback are paid consultants to Eli Lilly & Co. Ching-Yun Wei and Chia-Fang Lee are employed by Eli Lilly & Co. Masayo Sato was employed by Eli Lilly & Co. at the time of this study.
- Shuo-Yan Gau, Yung-Heng Lee, Hsi-Kai Tsou et al. Patients with ankylosing spondylitis are associated with high risk of fibromyalgia: A nationwide population-based cohort study. Front. Med. 8, (2021).
- Tetsuya Tomita, Masayo Sato, Elizabeth Esterberg et al. Treatment Patterns and Health Care Resource Utilization Among Japanese Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis: a Hospital Claims Database Analysis. Mod. Rheumatol. 1–23(2020).
- Tacjana Anna Barczyńska, Małgorzata Węgierska, Paweł Żuchowski et al. Coexistence of rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. Reumatologia 53(5), 279(2015).
- Ulf Lindström, Tor Olofsson, Sara Wedrén et al. Biological treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a nationwide study of treatment trajectories on a patient level in clinical practice. Arthritis. Res. Ther. 21(1), 128(2019).
- Palmer JB. Treatment patterns and costs for ant-TNF alpha therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology. 2161–1149(2015).
- Theresa Hunter, Krista Schroeder, David Sandoval et al. Persistence, discontinuation, and switching patterns of newly initiated TNF inhibitor therapy in ankylosing spondylitis patients in the United States. Rheumatol. Ther. 6(2), 207–215(2019).
- James Cheng-Chung Wei, Chin-Hsiu Liu, Jui-Cheng Tseng et al. Taiwan Rheumatology Association consensus recommendations for the management of axial spondyloarthritis. Int. J. Rheum. Dis. 23(1), 7–23(2020).
- Blanch C. Economic burden of ankylosing spondylitis in Europe. A systematic review of the literature. Value. Health. 19(7),A541–A542(2016).
- Janneke J de Winter, Leonieke J van Mens, Désirée van der Heijde et al. Prevalence of peripheral and extra-articular disease in ankylosing spondylitis versus non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis: a meta-analysis. Arthritis. Res. Ther. 18(1), 1–11(2016).
- Linda E Dean, Gareth T Jones, Alan G MacDonald et al. Global prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology. 53(4), 650–657(2014).
- Department of Household Registration Affairs, MOI.
- Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 45(6), 613–619 (1992).
- El Maghraoui, Abdellah. Extra-articular manifestations of ankylosing spondylitis: prevalence, characteristics and therapeutic implications. Eur. J. Intern. Med. 22(6), 554–560(2011).
- Cheng-Yang Hsieh, Chien-Chou Su, Shih-Chieh Shao et al. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database: past and future. Clin. Epidemiol. 11, 349(2019).
- Hsieh M-Y, C-FKuo. FRI0428 Epidemiology of Ankylosing Spondylitis in Taiwan: A Nationwide Population Study. 590–591(2016).
- Klaus Krüger, Ulrich von Hinüber, Florian Meier et al. Ankylosing spondylitis causes high burden to patients and the healthcare system: results from a German claims database analysis. Rheumatol. Int. 38(11), 2121–2131(2018).
- Ming-Chi Lu, Kuang-Yung Huang, Chien-Hsueh Tung et al. Factors associated with disease-specific quality of life in Taiwanese patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a cross-sectional study. BMJ. open. 9(6), e028966(2019).
- Malinowski Krzysztof Piotr, Paweł Kawalec. The indirect costs of ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert. Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes. Res. 15(2), 285–300(2015).
- Rachid Rafia, Roberta Ara, Jon Packham et al. Healthcare costs and productivity losses directly attributable to ankylosing spondylitis. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 30(2), 246(2012).
- James T Rosenbaum, Lisa Pisenti, Yujin Park et al. Insight into the quality of life of patients with ankylosing spondylitis: real-world data from a US-based life impact survey. Rheumatol. Ther. 6(3), 353–367 (2019).
- Qiang Shi, Ko-Jen Li, Tamas Treuer et al. Estimating the response and economic burden of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in Taiwan using the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). PloS. One. 13(4) (2018).
- Josef S Smolen, Monika Schöls, Jürgen Braun et al. Treating axial spondyloarthritis and peripheral spondyloarthritis, especially psoriatic arthritis, to target: 2017 update of recommendations by an international task force. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 77(1), 3–17(2018).
- TaurogJoel D, Avneesh Chhabra, Robert A. Colbert. Ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis. N. Engl. J. Med. 374.26 (2016): 2563–2574.
- Liudan Tu, Jayanti Chamling Rai, Shuangyan Cao et al. Costs and work limitation of patients with ankylosing spondylitis in China. Clin. Exp. Rheumatol. 32(5) (2014): 661–666.
- Désirée van der Heijde, Sofia Ramiro, Robert Landewé et al. 2016 update of the ASAS-EULAR management recommendations for axial spondyloarthritis. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 76(6), 978–991(2017).
- Jessica A Walsh, Xue Song, Gilwan Kim et al. Evaluation of the comorbidity burden in patients with ankylosing spondylitis using a large US administrative claims data set. Clin. Rheumatol. 37(7), 1869–1878(2018a).
- Jessica A Walsh, Xue Song, Gilwan Kim et al. Healthcare utilization and direct costs in patients with ankylosing spondylitis using a large US administrative claims database. Rheumatol. Ther. 5(2), 463–474 (2018b).
- Jessica A Walsh, Xue Song, Gilwan Kim et al. Evaluation of the comorbidity burden in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors using a large administrative claims data set. J. Pharm. Health. Serv. Res. 9(2), 115–121(2018c).
- Michael M Ward, Atul Deodhar, Lianne S Gensler et al. 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network recommendations for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Arthritis. Care. Res. (Hoboken). 71(10), 1285–1299 (2019).
- T Y Zhu, L-S Tam, V W-Y Lee et al. Costs and quality of life of patients with ankylosing spondylitis in Hong Kong. Rheumatology. 47(9), 1422–1425 (2008).