Aim: Ozanimod and fingolimod are sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor–modulating therapies for relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Comparative effectiveness was assessed by matching adjusted indirect comparisons of safety and efficacy trial outcomes at first-dose cardiac monitoring, 1 year and 2 years. Results: After adjustment, baseline characteristics were similar. Ozanimod was associated with a lower risk of extended first-dose monitoring, conduction abnormalities including atrioventricular block. One-year risks of any adverse event (AE), mean lymphocyte count reductions and abnormal liver enzymes were lower with ozanimod. Two-year risks of AEs leading to discontinuation, any AEs, herpetic infections, bradycardia and abnormal liver enzymes were lower with ozanimod. Analyses of efficacy outcomes were similar. Conclusion: Ozanimod appears to have a favorable benefit-risk profile versus fingolimod.

Objective: Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) can reduce multiple sclerosis (MS) relapse rates; however, effectiveness of treatments may vary. It is important to understand real-world treatment patterns in the context of MS relapses. We describe MS relapses related to treatment patterns among patients who switch treatment after their first DMT. Methods: IBM MarketScan research databases were used to identify adult patients with MS who switched DMTs (index-first switch) after being newly treated with a DMT from January 2009 through March 2017, with 12 months of continuous enrollment pre-and post-index. Non-persistence was defined as discontinuing (at least 60 days without DMT) or switching DMTs. MS relapses were defined using a validated claims-based algorithm. Multivariable analysis was used to examine odds of 12-month persistence, odds of post-index relapse, and number of relapses. Results: In total, 4121 patients with MS met all inclusion criteria (mean age 46.4 years; female 76.2%). Overall, 49.6% switched to an oral DMT, 36.5% to an injectable DMT, and 13.9% to an infusion DMT. Switching DMTs resulted in a 32.4% reduction in relapses between preand post-index. Only 54.6% of patients were persistent throughout the first year. Patients who switched to oral DMTs had 95% higher adjusted odds of persistence and 18% lower adjusted odds of a post-index period relapse than patients who switched to injectable DMTs. The number of baseline relapses was not associated with persistence but with 68% higher odds of a post-index relapse, with each additional baseline relapse associated with a 44% increase in number of post-index relapses. Conclusions: Among patients with MS who switched DMTs, persistence was consistently low regardless of treatment. Although persistence with oral DMTs was slightly higher than with injectable DMTs, overall results indicate poor persistence to second-line therapy and highlight the need to improve long-term persistence with DMTs.

Aim: Biologics and apremilast have advanced psoriasis management by adding treatment options. This study evaluated persistence, adherence and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients receiving apremilast or biologics. Methods: Administrative claims data for adults starting apremilast or biologics from 1 January 2013 to 30 June 2016 were matched based on demographics. Results: Apremilast (n = 703) and biologics (n = 1378) had similar baseline characteristics. 12-month persistence and adherence rates were similar. Adjusted total healthcare costs were lower with apremilast versus biologics (p < 0.001) due to lower total outpatient pharmacy costs (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Real-world apremilast users had similar adherence and lower total healthcare costs versus biologic users. Apremilast's cost advantage was evident regardless of whether the patients were persistent or nonpersistent, or switched or did not switch treatments.

The results of our meta-analysis call for further long-term studies to determine the place of EECP therapy in the management of chronic stable angina. Currently, EECP therapy should be considered for patients with stable angina who are refractory to or not suitable for invasive therapy and/or medical management.

We evaluated treatment patterns and healthcare costs of initiating psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treatment with oral apremilast versus biologics. Methods: Claims data identified biologic-naive adults with PsA who initiated either apremilast or a biologic from 2013 to 2016. Results: Medication adherence was similar at 12 months (76.9 vs 73.4%; p = 0.175) between apremilast (n = 381) and matched biologic (n = 761) patients. Apremilast users had $12,715 lower total costs per-patient-per-month (p < 0.001), largely due to outpatient pharmacy and medical costs. Conclusion: Commercially insured patients with PsA initiating apremilast had adherence similar to those initiating biologics but lower total healthcare costs.