During the American College of Rheumatology's (ACR) Winter Rheumatology Symposium last week in Snowmass, Colorado, one of the sessions comprised a panel addressing treatment options for inflammatory arthritis. One case study the panel addressed the pros and cons of dose reduction versus an increase in dosing interval of a biologic for a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who has achieved low disease activity or remission.
Last week, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) held its Winter Rheumatology Symposium in Snowmass, Colorado. One of the sessions comprised a panel addressing treatment options for inflammatory arthritis. The following doctors made up the panel: Joel M. Kremer, MD, Center for Rheumatology, LLP; Vivian Bykerk, MD, FRCPC, Hospital for Special Surgery; Eric L. Matteson, MD, Mayo Clinic; Christopher T. Ritchlin, MD, MPH, University of Rochester; and Michael E. Weinblatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital (moderator).
During the session, the panel members were given case studies, 1 of which involved the pros and cons of dose reduction versus an increase in dosing interval of a biologic for a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who has achieved low disease activity or remission.
Weinblatt asked his fellow panelists, “Do you lower the dose or stretch out the interval of a biologic in someone in low disease activity or remission? Is it better to reduce the dose, or to increase the dosing interval?”
The approach was the same among the panelists, including the moderator; rheumatologists would increase the dosing interval, rather than reduce the dose.
Matteson said that his rationale for adjusting the time interval instead of the dose was that patients are usually on fixed dosages, and “the syringe only has a certain amount of the drug in it.”
Kremer, Bykerk, and Ritchlin all stressed the fact that the patient’s adherence should also be evaluated before making a change in treatment. “Often, patients adjust their own medications and dosing intervals, so before making a change like this, the prescriber should be clear on what the patient is taking and how often they’re taking it,” said Bykerk.
Weinblatt closed out the question by offering his own view, emphasizing that if an adjustment is made to the treatment regimen, methotrexate should still be included.
“I personally think that if [the patient] is antibody-positive, you can’t expect the drug to do everything if you’re stretching out the interval. You [also] need methotrexate. We know based upon some well-done studies with adalimumab that they need to be on at least 10 mg a week of methotrexate if you’re stretching out the adalimumab intervals to maintain clinical response and reduce the risk of antibodies,” said Weinblatt.
Overall, the panel agreed that, in patients in low disease activity or remission, they would each look to adjust the treatment regimen. In each of their practices, panelists suggested that they have had some success with this course of action already, but did note that the long-term (5 years and beyond) effect caused by stretching out the dosage intervals is currently unknown.
The panelists’ points of view appear to be in line with broader thinking on handling biologics in patients who have achieved low disease activity or even remission; treatment is becoming increasingly expensive for patients with inflammatory diseases. Given the length of time that patients typically receive treatment, the cost to the patient—and the payer—is mounting. In an effort to address these rising costs as well as limit the amount of drugs patients are taking, some studies have sought to examine the feasibility of dose reduction. Researchers involved in such studies aim to investigate whether decreasing the dose, or increasing the time interval between doses, could lead to some cost-savings while maintaining efficacy.
AMCP Posters Tackle Interchangeability and Medicaid, Factors Driving Biosimilar Access
April 24th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) annual meeting explore how an interchangeable insulin glargine biosimilar plays into Medicaid budgets and the top factors driving access to biosimilars.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
Pipelines and Preparation: How the US Can Prepare for More RA Biosimilars
April 16th 2023What can practices do to prepare for all the biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) coming down the pipeline? And how can they ensure that the lower-than-anticipated adoption rates for infliximab biosimilars are not repeated? Robert Zutaut, RPh, from McKesson Provider Solutions, tackles all this and more on this episode of Not So Different.
Physician and Patient Perspectives After Starting or Switching to Amgevita in IBD
March 23rd 2024A real-world study surveying physicians and patients on adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) found both patients initiating ABP 501 and those who had switched from the reference product had higher satisfaction levels.