Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 37, Issue 9, pp 2351–2360 | Cite as

Long-term etanercept retention patterns and factors associated with treatment discontinuation: a retrospective cohort study using Canadian claims-level data

  • Majed Khraishi
  • Jelena Ivanovic
  • Yvonne Zhang
  • Brad Millson
  • Marie-Josee Brabant
  • Katia Charland
  • John Woolcott
  • Heather Jones
Original Article


To examine 12-month retention rates over 6 years of etanercept patients in Canada, and to identify factors associated with treatment discontinuation. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using longitudinal prescription drug claims data from IQVIA Private Drug Plan database (PDP), Ontario Public Drug Plan database (OPDP), and Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec database (RAMQ). Between 07/2008 and 06/2010, bio-naïve patients who initiated etanercept were identified and followed for 72 months. Twelve-month retention rates were estimated in one-year increments and factors associated with time to discontinuation over the 72-month period were identified using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. The study identified 4528 etanercept patients (61% female, 85% rheumatic diseases, and 15% psoriasis). Twelve-month etanercept retention rates increased significantly for patients following their first year on therapy (p < 0.0001), with 66% of patients retained at year 1 vs. 79, 82, 84, 83, and 79% at years 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. 17.1% (n = 771) of patients were retained for the entire 72-month study. Patients with psoriasis were at increased risk (HR 1.199; p < 0.0001); while public drug coverage plan patients (OPDP HR 0.721; p < 0.0001 and RAMQ HR 0.537; p < 0.0001) were at decreased risk of treatment discontinuation. Twelve-month etanercept retention rates increased significantly for patients following their first year on therapy. Indication and drug coverage plan were associated with patients’ time to etanercept discontinuation. With a better understanding of factors associated with retention, programs can be designed to address the specific needs of at-risk groups while supporting patients stable on therapy.


Ankylosing spondylitis Epidemiology Psoriasis Psoriatic arthritis Rheumatoid arthritis 


Author contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and drafting of the work and revising it critically for intellectual content. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content.

Funding information

Financial support for the study was provided by Pfizer. Pfizer participated in the design of the study, interpretation of data, review, and approval of this publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Dr. Majed Khraishi is an advisor for Pfizer and Amgen. Dr. Jelena Ivanovic, Yvonne Zhang, Marie-Josee Brabant, Dr. Katia Charland, and Brad Millson are employees of QuintilesIMS and have collaborated on this study in connection with the development of this manuscript as paid consultants to Pfizer. Dr. John Woolcott and Heather Jones are employees of Pfizer.


  1. 1.
    Büsch K, Ludvigsson JF, Ekström-Smedby K, Ekbom A, Askling J, Neovius M (2014) Nationwide prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease in Sweden: a population-based register study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 39(1):57–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spector TD (1990) Rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 16(3):513–537Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lebwohl M (2003) Psoriasis. Lancet 361(9364):1197–1204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacobs P, Bissonnette R, Guenther L (2011) Socioeconomic burden of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases—focusing on work productivity and disability. J Rheumatol 88:55–61Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zink A, Braun J, Listing J, Wollenhaupt J (2000) Disability and handicap in rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis—results from the German rheumatological database. German Collaborative Arthritis Centers. J Rheumatol 27(3):613–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borman P, Toy GG, Babaoğlu S, Bodur H, Cılız D, Allı N (2007) A comparative evaluation of quality of life and life satisfaction in patients with psoriatic and rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol 26(3):330–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robinson Jr D et al (2006) Co-occurrence and comorbidities in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: an exploration using US healthcare claims data, 2001–2002. Curr Med Res Opin 22(5):989–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohler KM et al (1993) Soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptors are effective therapeutic agents in lethal endotoxemia and function simultaneously as both TNF carriers and TNF antagonists. J Immunol (Baltimore, Md: 1950) 151(3):1548–1561Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kerensky TA, Gottlieb AB, Yaniv S, Au SC (2012) Etanercept: efficacy and safety for approved indications. Expert Opin Drug Saf 11(1):121–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Genovese MC, Kremer JM (2004) Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with etanercept. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 30(2):311–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McDonald HP, Garg AX, Haynes RB (2002) Interventions to enhance patient adherence to medication prescriptions: scientific review. JAMA 288(22):2868–2879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kristensen LE, Kapetanovic MC, Gülfe A, Söderlin M, Saxne T, Geborek P (2008) Predictors of response to anti-TNF therapy according to ACR and EULAR criteria in patients with established RA: results from the South Swedish Arthritis Treatment Group Register. Rheumatology (Oxford) 47(4):495–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hetland ML, Christensen IJ, Tarp U, Dreyer L, Hansen A, Hansen IT, Kollerup G, Linde L, Lindegaard HM, Poulsen UE, Schlemmer A (2010) Direct comparison of treatment responses, remission rates, and drug adherence in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab: results from eight years of surveillance of clinical practice in the nationwide Danish DANBIO registry. Arthritis Rheumatol 62(1):22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Iannone F et al (2012) Longterm retention of tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in a large Italian cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the GISEA registry: an appraisal of predictors. J Rheumatol 39(6):1179–1184CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Du Pan SM et al (2009) Comparison of drug retention rates and causes of drug discontinuation between anti-tumor necrosis factor agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 61(5):560–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kristensen LE et al (2006) Impact of concomitant DMARD therapy on adherence to treatment with etanercept and infliximab in rheumatoid arthritis. Results from a six-year observational study in southern Sweden. Arthritis Res Ther 8(6):R174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frazier-Mironer A, Dougados M, Mariette X, Cantagrel A, Deschamps V, Flipo RM, Logeart I, Schaeverbeke T, Sibilia J, le Loët X, Combe B (2014) Retention rates of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab as first and second-line biotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in daily practice. Joint Bone Spine 81(4):352–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heiberg MS, Koldingsnes W, Mikkelsen K, Rødevand E, Kaufmann C, Mowinckel P, Kvien TK (2008) The comparative one-year performance of anti–tumor necrosis factor α drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: results from a longitudinal, observational, multicenter study. Arthritis Care Res 59(2):234–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duclos M, Gossec L, Ruyssen-Witrand A, Salliot C, Luc M, Guignard S, Dougados M (2006) Retention rates of tumor necrosis factor blockers in daily practice in 770 rheumatic patients. J Rheumatol 33(12):2433–2438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Armstrong AW, Robertson AD, Wu J, Schupp C, Lebwohl MG (2013) Undertreatment, treatment trends, and treatment dissatisfaction among patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis in the United States: findings from the national psoriasis foundation surveys, 2003-2011. JAMA Dermatol 149(10):1180–1185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dixon J (2014) Pharmacare in Canada. In: Conference Backgrounder. The Monieson Centre For Business Research in Healthcare. Queen’s School of Business. (Date of Access: October 1, 2017)
  22. 22.
    Suissa S, Garbe E (2007) Primer: administrative health databases in observational studies of drug effects—advantages and disadvantages. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 3(12):725–732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Crystal S, Akincigil A, Bilder S, Walkup JT (2007) Studying prescription drug use and outcomes with Medicaid claims data strengths, limitations, and strategies. Med Care 45(10 SUPL):S58–S65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lie E, Kristensen LE, Forsblad-d'Elia H, Zverkova-Sandström T, Askling J, Jacobsson LT, for the ARTIS Study Group (2015) The effect of comedication with conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs on TNF inhibitor drug survival in patients with ankylosing spondylitis and undifferentiated spondyloarthritis: results from a nationwide prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis 74(6):970–978CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Majed Khraishi
    • 1
  • Jelena Ivanovic
    • 2
  • Yvonne Zhang
    • 2
  • Brad Millson
    • 2
  • Marie-Josee Brabant
    • 2
  • Katia Charland
    • 2
  • John Woolcott
    • 3
  • Heather Jones
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medicine (Rheumatology)Memorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada
  2. 2.Health Access and Outcomes, IQVIAKanataCanada
  3. 3.Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Pfizer Inc.KirklandCanada
  4. 4.Inflammation and Immunology, Global Medical Affairs, Pfizer Inc.CollegevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations