| Title |
Economic Burden of Switching to a Non-Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Versus a Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Biologic Therapy among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Advances in Therapy, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12325-016-0318-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zheng-Yi Zhou, Jenny Griffith, Ella Xiaoyan Du, Daniel Chin, Keith A. Betts, Arijit Ganguli |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to examine healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with switching to another tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (TNFi) therapy versus a non-TNFi therapy among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) discontinuing use of an initial TNFi biologic therapy. Patients with ≥2 RA diagnoses who used ≥1 TNFi on or after their initial RA diagnosis were identified in a US employer-based insurance claims database. Patients were selected based on ≥1 claim of another TNFi or a non-TNFi biologic therapy (occurring after 2010, and within 30 days before to 60 days after discontinuation of the initial TNFi), and continuous insurance ≥6 months before (baseline period) and ≥12 months after the switch date (study period). Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were measured during the baseline period. All-cause and RA-related HRU and costs were analyzed during the 12-month study period using multivariable regression analysis controlling for baseline characteristics and selected comorbidities. Of the 1577 patients with RA that switched therapies, 1169 patients used another TNFi and 408 patients used a non-TNFi biologic. The most commonly used initial TNFi treatments were etanercept (50%) and adalimumab (34%) among the TNFi cohort, and infliximab (39%) and etanercept (28%) among the non-TNFi cohort. The TNFi cohort had significantly fewer outpatient visits [all-cause: 23.01 vs. 29.77 visits/patient/year; adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.78, P < 0.001; RA-related: 7.42 vs. 13.58; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001] and rheumatologist visits (all-cause: 4.01 vs. 6.81; adjusted IRR = 0.66, P < 0.001; RA-related: 3.23 vs. 6.40; adjusted IRR = 0.58, P < 0.001) than the non-TNFi cohort. All-cause total costs were significantly lower for patients who switched to another TNFi instead of a non-TNFi therapy ($36,932 vs. $44,566; adjusted difference = $7045, P < 0.01), as were total RA-related costs ($26,973 vs. $31,735; adjusted difference = $4904, P < 0.01). Adult patients with RA discontinuing TNFi therapy who switched to an alternative TNFi incurred lower healthcare costs than patients who switched to a non-TNFi biologic. AbbVie, Inc. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,256,395
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#1,078
of 2,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,146
of 300,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#16
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,349 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.