Search

To assess cardiovascular, glycaemic, weight and safety outcomes of long-term treatment with dulaglutide 1.5 mg compared with placebo in patients with a baseline HbA1c of less than 7% versus 7% or higher.Intention-to-treat analyses were performed on REWIND participants with a baseline HbA1c measurement, using Cox proportional hazards regression and mixed model for repeated measures. Subgroup analyses with factors for baseline HbA1c categories and their interaction with treatment group, as well as analyses within the HbA1c subgroups, were conducted. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were performed for baseline HbA1c subgroups of 6.5% or less and more than 6.5%.Of the 9876 eligible participants, 3921 and 5955 had a baseline HbA1c of less than 7% and 7% or higher, respectively. Mean baseline HbA1c was 6.3% and 8.0% and the mean duration of diabetes was 9.0 and 11.6 years in the respective subgroups. The less than 7% subgroup was slightly older and less frequently insulin-treated. There was no evidence of a differential dulaglutide treatment effect on body mass index (BMI) reduction, cardiovascular or safety outcomes of interest between the baseline HbA1c subgroups. Treatment-by-baseline HbA1c group interaction was significant for HbA1c change from baseline (P .001), with a greater reduction in the subgroup with higher baseline HbA1c values. Sensitivity analyses by baseline HbA1c subgroups of 6.5% or less and more than 6.5% showed similar results.The reduced incidence of cardiovascular events, and the reduction in BMI in participants treated with once-weekly dulaglutide, were independent of the baseline HbA1c level. Conversely, participants with a higher baseline HbA1c level had greater reductions in HbA1c. Dulaglutide has a positive benefit-risk profile and can be considered in patients with comparatively well-controlled HbA1c levels seeking optimal metabolic control and cardiovascular benefits.

This post hoc analysis investigated the effect of dulaglutide on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in subgroups of participants at increased CVD risk in the AWARD-11 study.Participants who received once weekly dulaglutide 1.5, 3.0 or 4.5 mg for 52 weeks were categorized according to their baseline Framingham CVD risk category [low (N = 295), medium (N = 481) and high (N = 1054) risk], as well as their baseline CVD risk according to the REWIND study eligibility criteria (N = 953). Serum lipids and vital signs were assessed at baseline and at 52 weeks. Data were analysed as least squares mean percentage change from baseline for lipids and least squares mean change from baseline for vital signs.Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics were balanced across doses within the CVD risk groups. In the high Framingham CVD risk and REWIND-like groups, dulaglutide resulted in dose-related decreases in total cholesterol (≤6.0%), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≤8.8%), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≤19.4%) and triglycerides (≤21.5%), with little change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased up to 5.6 mmHg and 1.6 mmHg, respectively, and heart rate increased up to 2 beats/min.This post hoc analysis suggests the magnitude of the favourable effects of dulaglutide 3.0 mg and 4.5 mg on several cardiometabolic CVD risk factors was similar to, if not greater than, those of dulaglutide 1.5 mg among participants with type 2 diabetes and increased CVD risk.gov Identifier: NCT03495102.

Background/Objectives: This article compares the effectiveness of baricitinib (BARI) 4 mg (oral, Janus kinase [JAK] 1/2 inhibitor) versus other targeted synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in combination with methotrexate (MTX), in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response (IR) to MTX. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the interventions of interest. Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) were used to compare American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses at 24 weeks. A series of prespecified sensitivity analyses addressed the potential impact of, among others, baseline risk, treatment effect modifiers, and trial design on treatment response. Results: Nineteen RCTs were included in the NMA (primary analysis). For ACR20, BARI 4 mg + MTX was found to be more effective than adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg + MTX (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.33), abatacept (ABA) 10 mg + MTX (IV/4 weeks) (OR 1.45), infliximab (IFX) 3 mg + MTX (IV/8 wks) (OR 1.63), and rituximab (RTX) 1000 mg + MTX (OR 1.63). No differences were found on ACR50. For ACR70, BARI 4 mg + MTX was more effective than ADA 40 mg + MTX (OR 1.37), ABA 10 mg + MTX (OR 1.86), and RTX 1000 mg + MTX (OR 2.26). Sensitivity analysis including 10 additional RCTs with up to 20% of patients with prior biologic use showed BARI 4 mg + MTX to be more effective than tocilizumab (TCZ) 8 mg + MTX on ACR20 (OR 1.44). Results for all sensitivity analyses were consistent with the direction and magnitude of the primary results. Key limitations include the time span in which trials were conducted (1999–2017), during which patient characteristics and treatment approaches might have changed. Conclusion: This NMA suggests that BARI 4 mg + MTX is an efficacious treatment option in the MTX-IR population as evidenced by the robustness of results.

Background/Objective Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. Methods A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. Results Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). Conclusions Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (− $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40273-019-00829-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the long-term clinical, functional, and cost outcomes for early RA patients (symptoms

Introduction: This exploratory post hoc analysis investigated the relative changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with dulaglutide versus active comparators across a continuous range of baseline HbA1c values using data from three phase III randomised controlled trials. Methods: Data from patients receiving once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg, once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg or twice-daily exenatide 10 ?g in the intent-to-treat populations in the AWARD-5, AWARD-6 and AWARD-1 trials were analysed using last observation carried forward analysis of covariance. Starting with the predefined statistical model from each study, the type of association between HbA1c baseline and change at 26 weeks was modelled. Consistency of treatment effect was assessed via treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction terms. Results: Improvements in HbA1c occurred in all treatment groups across the entire baseline HbA1c range. The relationship between HbA1c baseline and magnitude of change was linear in all treatment groups, with greater reductions in patients with higher baseline HbA1c values. Across the continuum of baseline HbA1c values, patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg achieved a similar mean HbA1c reduction to patients receiving liraglutide 1.8 mg and a greater reduction than patients receiving twice-daily exenatide or sitagliptin. In AWARD-5, the treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction P value (0.001) demonstrated progressively greater HbA1c reduction in dulaglutide-treated compared with sitagliptin-treated patients as baseline HbA1c increased. Conclusion: Our results suggest that dulaglutide is an appropriate therapeutic option for patients with T2DM across a wide range of baseline HbA1c values, including those with poor metabolic control.

Introduction In the last 20 years, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have become available for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and a treat-to-target strategy has been introduced. We hypothesise that these advances should have resulted in changes to the characteristics of patients with RA participating in clinical trials of the newest therapies. This study determined whether the baseline characteristics of patients with RA enrolled in clinical trials have changed in the past decade versus patients participating in earlier RA studies. Methods This secondary analysis was based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) identified in a systematic literature review. Baseline characteristics of patients with RA with inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs were compared between RCTs published in 1999–2009 and those published in 2010–2017 using random-effects meta-analyses. Results Forty RCTs were analysed: 22 from 1999–2009 and 18 from 2010–2017. No significant difference between the two timeframes and no obvious trend over time were observed for age, gender, disease duration, rheumatoid factor status, tender and swollen joint counts, physician and patient global assessments of disease activity, and pain scores. Variability between RCTs was high. Similar results were observed for Disease Activity Scores and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores, but with low variability between RCTs. Conclusion The baseline characteristics of patients with RA participating in RCTs do not appear to have changed in the last decade despite the availability of new treatments and a different treatment approach. Further research should determine the impact of baseline patient characteristics on patients’ response to RA treatments. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01435-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users., Plain Language Summary In the last 20 years, new treatments and a new treatment approach (called treat-to-target) have been introduced for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Consequently, the characteristics of patients with RA participating in clinical trials of the newest therapies should have changed compared with those of patients who participated in clinical trials of older therapies. This is important as patient characteristics may influence patients’ response to drug treatment. To determine whether characteristics of patients with RA have changed over time, we compared the baseline characteristics (e.g. age, gender, disease duration, measures of disease activity, and pain scores) of patients with RA between 22 clinical trials published in 1999–2009 and 18 published in 2010–2017. No significant difference between the two timeframes and no obvious trend over time were observed for any baseline characteristic of patients with RA, including physician and patient measures of disease activity, and patient measures of physical function and pain. Thus, the baseline characteristics of patients with RA participating in clinical trials do not appear to have changed in the last decade despite the introduction of new treatments and the treat-to-target approach. Further research is needed to determine the impact of baseline patient characteristics on patients’ response to RA treatments. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01435-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo compare improvement in pain and physical function for patients treated with baricitinib, adalimumab, tocilizumab and tofacitinib monotherapy from randomised, methotrexate (MTX)-controlled trials in conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs)/biologic (bDMARD)-naïve RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs).MethodsData were from Phase III trials on patients receiving monotherapy baricitinib, tocilizumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib or MTX. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (0–100 mm) and physical function using the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI). An MAIC based on treatment-arm matching, an MAIC with study-level matching and Bucher’s method without matching compared change in outcomes between therapies. Matching variables included age, gender, baseline disease activity and baseline value of outcome measure.ResultsWith all methods, greater improvements were observed in pain and HAQ-DI at 6 months for baricitinib compared with adalimumab and tocilizumab (pConclusionsResults suggest greater pain reduction and improved physical function for baricitinib monotherapy compared with tocilizumab and adalimumab monotherapy. No statistically significant differences in pain reduction and improved physical function were observed between baricitinib and tofacitinib with the MAIC analyses.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials. Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions. Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences. Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Aim We evaluated the safety of baricitinib in an East Asian (EA) patient population with moderate-to-severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), through an integrated sub-analysis of data from the overall baricitinib RA clinical program. Methods Data from EA patients who received any dose of baricitinib from five completed studies (1 Phase 2, 4 Phase 3) and an ongoing long-term extension study were pooled up to 1 September, 2016. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIR) and incidence rates (IRs), both per 100 patient-years (PY), were calculated. Results This analysis included 740 EA patients with 1294 PY of total baricitinib exposure (maximum 3.5 years). Overall, 109 patients discontinued baricitinib due to adverse events (AEs); EAIR: 8.4. No deaths were reported in this cohort. Serious AEs were reported by 125 patients (EAIR: 9.7). Serious infections were the most common serious AEs (n = 53, IR: 4.15). IR of herpes zoster infection was 6.2; the majority of events were of mild-to-moderate severity. Three cases (IR: 0.23) of tuberculosis were reported. The IRs of malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) was 0.99 and EAIR specifically of lymphoma was 0.1. The IR of major adverse cardiovascular events was 0.26, and deep vein thrombosis was reported in four patients (EAIR: 0.3). Two cases of gastrointestinal perforations (EAIR: 0.2) were reported. Conclusion Integrated data show that baricitinib is well-tolerated in EA patients with moderate-to-severely active RA in the context of demonstrated efficacy, which is generally consistent with safety results of the overall study population.

Introduction This exploratory post hoc analysis investigated the relative changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated with dulaglutide versus active comparators across a continuous range of baseline HbA1c values using data from three phase III randomised controlled trials. Methods Data from patients receiving once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg, once-daily sitagliptin 100 mg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg or twice-daily exenatide 10 μg in the intent-to-treat populations in the AWARD-5, AWARD-6 and AWARD-1 trials were analysed using last observation carried forward analysis of covariance. Starting with the predefined statistical model from each study, the type of association between HbA1c baseline and change at 26 weeks was modelled. Consistency of treatment effect was assessed via treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction terms. Results Improvements in HbA1c occurred in all treatment groups across the entire baseline HbA1c range. The relationship between HbA1c baseline and magnitude of change was linear in all treatment groups, with greater reductions in patients with higher baseline HbA1c values. Across the continuum of baseline HbA1c values, patients treated with dulaglutide 1.5 mg achieved a similar mean HbA1c reduction to patients receiving liraglutide 1.8 mg and a greater reduction than patients receiving twice-daily exenatide or sitagliptin. In AWARD-5, the treatment-by-baseline HbA1c interaction P value (0.001) demonstrated progressively greater HbA1c reduction in dulaglutide-treated compared with sitagliptin-treated patients as baseline HbA1c increased. Conclusion Our results suggest that dulaglutide is an appropriate therapeutic option for patients with T2DM across a wide range of baseline HbA1c values, including those with poor metabolic control. Funding Eli Lilly and Company. Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article. Electronic Supplementary Material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-019-0625-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AIMS Insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity are challenged in achieving body weight stability or reduction, in addition to glycaemic control. Post-hoc analyses of body weight and insulin dose data from the AWARD-4 trial involved comparison of treatment with once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg (N = 295) or 0.75 mg (N = 293) and treatment with daily insulin glargine (N = 296), each with prandial insulin lispro (± metformin). MATERIALS AND METHODS Changes in weight and in the proportion of patients without weight gain or with weight loss of at least 3%, 5% or 10% or composites of HbA1c less than 7% without weight gain and weight loss of at least 3% after 52 weeks were compared between the dulaglutide (either dose) groups and the insulin glargine group, overall and by baseline BMI (

Background: In Phase 3 trial, RA-BEGIN, baricitinib (BARI) monotherapy demonstrated superiority to MTX in pain reduction and HAQ-DI improvement in treatment of csDMARD-naive active RA patients.1 No prospective head-to-head (H2H) trial data are available comparing BARI monotherapy vs. bDMARD monotherapy in csDMARD-naive RA patients. Objectives: To assess pain and HAQ-DI for BARI monotherapy from a randomized, MTX-controlled trial vs adalimumab (ADA), tocilizumab (TCZ), and tofacitinib (TOFA) monotherapy from similar randomized, MTX-controlled trials in csDMARD/bDMARD naive RA patients using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Methods: Individual patient data from the RA-BEGIN BARI 4 mg arm were weighted to match baseline characteristics of the ADA arm from PREMIER,2 TOFA 5 mg arm from ORAL-START,3 and TCZ 8 mg/kg arm from combination of AMBITION and FUNCTION,4,5 respectively; MTX arms were also matched between trials. Method of moments was used to determine weights for age, gender, baseline disease scores, and baseline values of the outcome variable. Mean change on pain VAS and HAQ-DI at Week 24 for BARI were adjusted for the above baseline characteristics with the weighted linear model, and then indirectly compared vs. respective published results for Week 24 TCZ and TOFA and for Week 26 ADA data. Statistical significance of the weighted treatment effect was assessed with the bootstrap method. Sensitivity analyses included MAIC with study level matching6, Bucher’s method without matching adjustment7, and inclusion of disease duration as an additional matching variable. Results: Across trials, the mean baseline pain VAS ranged from 58.7 to 65.2 with a 6-month mean change in pain of -28.3 to -33.5 for the MTX arm, indicating comparability between trials. Similar HAQ-DI and changes in HAQ-DI for the MTX arm were observed. At Week 24, BARI showed numerically greater improvement over MTX in pain than that for TCZ, ADA, and TOFA; statistically significant pain improvement were observed for BARI vs ADA and TCZ with all 3 matching methods but only with the Bucher method for TOFA (figure 1). BARI-treated patients showed significantly greater improvement in HAQ-DI at Week 24 than TCZ and ADA but not TOFA (figure 1). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Conclusions: This indirect comparison of different studies in cs/bDMARD-naive RA patients, after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, suggest a greater pain reduction and improved physical function for BARI monotherapy vs. TCZ and ADA monotherapy. There is suggestion of greater pain reduction for BARI monotherapy vs. TOFA monotherapy, but no differences in improved physical function between the JAK inhibitors. A H2H clinical trial would be needed to confirm these results. References 1Fleischmann, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol2017. 2Breedveld, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol2006. 3Lee, et al. N Engl J Med2014. 4Jones, et al. Ann Rheum Dis2010. 5Burmester, et al. Ann Rheum Dis2016. 6Signorovitch, et al. Pharmacoeconomics2010. 7Bucher, et al. J Clin Epi1997. Disclosure of Interest: B. Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, SOBI, UCB, B. Zhu Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, P. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, UCB, Abide Therapeutics, Consultant for: AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, UCB, Biogen, Sandoz, Novartis, and Janssen, M. van de Laar Grant/research support from: Abbvie; BMS; Grunenthal; Pfizer; Janssen; MSD, Lilly, Consultant for: Abbvie, Grunenthal; Pfizer, Janssen, MSD, Lilly, Speakers bureau: Pfizer; Janssen, Eli Lilly, P. Emery Consultant for: Pfizer, MSD, Abbvie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, Eli Lilly and Company, F. De Leonardis Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, C. Gaich Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, C. Nicolay Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, Z. Kadziola Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, I. De La Torre Shareholder of: Eli Lilly and Company, Employee of: Eli Lilly and Company, R. Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genetech, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB

BACKGROUND We investigated the rate of severe hypoglycemic events and confounding factors in patients with type-2-diabetes treated with sulfonylurea (SU) at specialized diabetes centers, documented in the German/Austrian DPV-Wiss-database. METHODS Data from 29,485 SU-treated patients were analyzed (median[IQR] age 70.8[62.2-77.8]yrs, diabetes-duration 8.2[4.3-12.8]yrs). The primary objective was to estimate the event-rate of severe hypoglycemia (requiring external help, causing unconsciousness/coma/convulsion and/or emergency.hospitalization). Secondary objectives included exploration of confounding risk-factors through group-comparison and Poisson-regression. RESULTS Severe hypoglycemic events were reported in 826(2.8%) of all patients during their most recent year of SU-treatment. Of these, n = 531(1.8%) had coma, n = 501(1.7%) were hospitalized at least once. The adjusted event-rate of severe hypoglycemia [95%CI] was 3.9[3.7-4.2] events/100 patient-years (coma: 1.9[1.8-2.1]; hospitalization: 1.6[1.5-1.8]). Adjusted event-rates by diabetes-treatment were 6.7 (SU + insulin), 4.9 (SU + insulin + other OAD), 3.1 (SU + other OAD), and 3.8 (SU only). Patients with ≥1 severe event were older (p 60 mL/min: 3.9). CONCLUSIONS These real-life data showed a rate of severe hypoglycemia of 3.9/100 patient-years in SU-treated patients from specialized diabetes centers. Higher risk was associated with known risk-factors including lack of diabetes-education, older age, and decreased eGFR, but also with lower BMI and lower triglyceride-levels, suggesting that SU-treatment in those patients should be considered with caution. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication.A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs.Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557).Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

To determine if EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D) health utility scores were able to discriminate among different levels of improvement in psoriasis severity following therapy.Data were from three placebo-controlled phase 3 ixekizumab studies (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3) with patients who had baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index scores10 (DLQI10). Psoriasis severity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI]), general health utility (EQ-5D), and psoriasis-specific utility (EQ-PSO, UNCOVER-3 only) were assessed. EQ-5D-5L utility scores were generated using the England EQ-5D-5L value set, a crosswalk applied to the EQ-5D-3L United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) value sets, and a regression-based exploratory scoring function for the EQ-PSO (UK). Analysis of variance was used to estimate change in EQ-5D-5L from baseline to Week 12 per PASI improvement level: PASI50, PASI 50 to75, PASI 75 to90, PASI 90 to100, and PASI 100. Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward method. Value sets for the UK, England, and the US were applied.In total, 2085 patients across UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3 had baseline DLQI10 and available utility scores. At Week 12, mean EQ-5D utility scores increased with increasing PASI improvement levels (p 0.001, all analyses). Mean health utilities for PASI 90 to100 and PASI 100 were similar when based on the generic classifier, whereas a clear differentiation between PASI 90 to100 and PASI 100 was observed for EQ-PSO mean scores (UNCOVER-3 only, n = 645; PASI 90 to100: 0.141, PASI 100: 0.200; adjusted p = 0.043).EQ-5D-5L index-based scores have limited ability to differentiate among psoriasis patients at the highest PASI improvement levels. ConclusionsL Adding psoriasis-specific EQ-PSO dimensions to the EQ-5D may enhance responsiveness to improvement in skin clarity at the highest PASI levels, and, therefore, generate utility scores that better reflect treatment benefit in cost-utility models.

We investigated the rate of severe hypoglycemic events and confounding factors in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with sulfonylurea at specialized diabetes centers, documented in the German/Austrian DPV-Wiss database.Data from 29 485 sulfonylurea-treated patients were analyzed (median[IQR] age 70.8[62.2-77.8] years, diabetes duration 8.2[4.3-12.8] years). The primary objective was to estimate the event rate of severe hypoglycemia (requiring external help, causing unconsciousness/coma/convulsion and/or emergency hospitalization). Secondary objectives included exploration of confounding risk factors through group comparison and Poisson regression.Severe hypoglycemic events were reported in 826(2.8%) of all patients during their most recent year of sulfonylurea treatment. Of these, n = 531(1.8%) had coma, n = 501(1.7%) were hospitalized at least once. The adjusted event rate of severe hypoglycemia [95%CI] was 3.9[3.7-4.2] events/100 patient-years (coma: 1.9[1.8-2.1]; hospitalization: 1.6[1.5-1.8]). Adjusted event rates by diabetes treatment were 6.7 (sulfonylurea + insulin), 4.9 (sulfonylurea + insulin + other OAD), 3.1 (sulfonylurea + other OAD) and 3.8 (sulfonylurea only). Patients with ≥1 severe event were older (p 0.001) and had longer diabetes duration (p = 0.020) than patients without severe events. Participation in educational diabetes-programs and indirect measures of insulin-resistance (increased BMI, plasma-triglycerides) were associated with fewer events (all p 0.001). Impaired renal function was common (n = 3113 eGFR; ≤30 mL/min) and associated with an increased rate of severe events (≤30 mL/min: 7.7; 30-60 mL/min: 4.8;60 mL/min: 3.9).These real-life data showed a rate of severe hypoglycemia of 3.9/100 patient-years in sulfonylurea-treated patients from specialized diabetes centers. Higher risk was associated with known risk factors including lack of diabetes education, older age and decreased eGFR but also with lower BMI and lower triglyceride levels, suggesting that sulfonylurea treatment in those patients should be considered with caution.