Evaluation of Real-World Experience with Tofacitinib Compared with Adalimumab, Etanercept, and Abatacept in RA Patients with 1 Previous Biologic DMARD: Data from a U.S. Administrative Claims Database

This article has been corrected. Please see: Corrections in J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 23(4):493 BACKGROUND: Real-world data comparing tofacitinib with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics, treatment patterns, and costs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving tofacitinib versus the most common bDMARDs (adalimumab [ADA], etanercept [ETN], and abatacept [ABA]) following a single bDMARD in a U.S. administrative claims database. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients aged ≥ 18 years with an RA diagnosis (ICD-9-CM codes 714.0x-714.4x; 714.81) and 1 previous bDMARD filling ≥ 1 tofacitinib or bDMARD claim in the Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases (November 1, 2012-October 31, 2014). Monotherapy was defined as absence of conventional synthetic DMARDs within 90 days post-index. Persistence was evaluated using a 60-day gap. Adherence was assessed using proportion of days covered (PDC). RA-related total, pharmacy, and medical costs were evaluated in the 12-month pre- and post-index periods. Treatment patterns and costs were adjusted using linear models including a common set of clinically relevant variables of interest (e.g., previous RA treatments), which were assessed separately using t-tests and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Overall, 392 patients initiated tofacitinib; 178 patients initiated ADA; 118 patients initiated ETN; and 191 patients initiated ABA. Tofacitinib patients were older versus ADA patients (P = 0.0153) and had a lower proportion of Medicare supplemental patients versus ABA patients (P = 0.0095). Twelve-month pre-index bDMARD use was greater in tofacitinib patients (77.6%) versus bDMARD cohorts (47.6%-59.6%). Tofacitinib patients had greater 12-month pre-index RA-related total costs versus bDMARD cohorts (all P < 0.0001) and greatest index use of monotherapy (P = 0.0080 vs. ABA). A similar (all P > 0.10) proportion of patients were persistent with tofacitinib (42.6%) versus ADA (37.6%), ETN (42.4%), and ABA (43.5%). Mean PDC was 0.55 for tofacitinib versus 0.57 (ADA), 0.59 (ETN), and 0.44 (ABA; P = 0.0003). Adjusted analyses generated similar findings to the unadjusted treatment patterns. Tofacitinib had lower adjusted 12-month post-index mean RA-related total costs ($23,568) versus ADA ($29,278; P < 0.0001), ETN ($26,885; P = 0.0248), and ABA ($30,477; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, tofacitinib was more commonly used as monotherapy and yielded at least comparable persistence and adherence with lower adjusted mean RA-related total costs versus ADA, ETN, and ABA. Further analysis is warranted given the greater 12-month pre-index bDMARD use and RA-related costs for tofacitinib versus bDMARDs.