Close Window
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
Enbrel (Etanercept)
Number: 0315


Policy

  1. Aetna considers Enbrel (etanercept) medically necessary for any of the following indications:

    1. Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis:

      Etanercept is considered medically necessary for reducing signs and symptoms, inducing major clinical response, inhibiting the progression of structural damage, and improving physical function in members with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis. 

    2. Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis:

      Entanercept is considered medically necessary for reducing signs and symptoms of moderately to severely active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis in persons aged 2 and older.

    3. Active Psoriatic Arthritis:

      For medical necessity criteria, see CPB 0658 - Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: Biological Therapies.

    4. Ankylosing Spondylitis:

      Etanercept is considered medically necessary for members with moderate to severe ankylosing spondylitis or axial spondyloarthropathy (an early form of ankylosing spondylitis) who have failed treatment with 2 or more non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).  

    5. Reactive Arthritis:

      Etanercept is considered medically necessary for members with refractory reactive arthritis (also known as Reiter’s syndrome) who have failed NSAIDS, methotrexate, steroids, and sulfasalazine.

    6. Behcet's Disease:

      Etanercept is considered medically necessary for treatment of mucocutaneous manifestations (oral ulcers, nodular skin lesions) of Behcet's disease refractory to glucocorticoids and azathioprine.

    7. Chronic Moderate to Severe Psoriasis

      For medical necessity criteria, see CPB 0658 - Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis: Biological Therapies.

  2. Aetna considers Enbrel (etanercept) experimental and investigational for all other indications, including any of the following (not an all inclusive list):

    1. Asthma
    2. Back pain (including radicular pain caused by lumbar spinal stenosis/lumbosacral radiculopathy/sciatica)
    3. Bronchiolitis obliterans
    4. Chronic heart failure
    5. Churg-Strauss syndrome
    6. Dyshidrotic eczema
    7. Graft-versus-host disease
    8. Hidradenitis suppurativa
    9. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
    10. Inclusion-body myositis
    11. Inflammatory bowel disease (e.g., Crohn's disease) arthritis
    12. Kawasaki disease
    13. Keloid
    14. Lumbar disc herniation
    15. Lupus erythematosus
    16. Neck pain
    17. Pyoderma gangrenosum
    18. Sarcoidosis
    19. Sjogren's syndrome
    20. Stroke
    21. Traumatic brain injury
    22. Tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS), formerly known as Hibernian fever
    23. Uveitis
    24. Wegener's granulomatosis.

See also CPB 0205 - Phototherapy and Photochemotherapy (PUVA) for Skin ConditionsCPB 0341 - Remicade (infliximab)CPB 0577 - Laser Treatment for Psoriasis and Other Selected skin conditionsCPB 0595 - Kineret (Anakinra), and CPB 0655 - Adalimumab (Humira).



Background

The patient selection criteria were adapted from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling of Enbrel (etanercept), off-label indications accepted by the U.S. Pharmacopoeial Convention, and from published studies of etanercept’s effectiveness.  Although there is evidence of the effectiveness of both tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept and infliximab (Remicade) in Crohn’s disease arthritis, only infliximab has been shown to also improve the underlying Crohn’s disease.

Guidelines on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (Saag et al, 2008) stated that patients with early RA with low or moderate disease activity (in study) were not considered candidates for biologic therapy.  The use of anti-TNF agents in combination with methotrexate was recommended if high disease activity was present for less than 3 months with features of a poor prognosis.

The FDA-approved labeling for Enbrel includes black-box warnings about the risk of infections with etanercept.  The labeling states that, in post-marketing reports, serious infections and sepsis, including fatalities, have been reported with the use of etanercept.  Many of the serious infections have occurred in patients on concomitant immunosuppressive therapy that, in addition to their underlying disease, could predispose them to infections.  The labeling states that rare cases of tuberculosis (TB) have been observed in patients treated with TNF antagonists, including etanercept.  The labeling recommends that patients who develop a new infection while undergoing treatment with etanercept should be monitored closely.  Administration of etanercept should be discontinued if a patient develops a serious infection or sepsis.  The labeling states that treatment with etanercept should not be initiated in patients with active infections including chronic or localized infections.  The labeling recommends that physicians should exercise caution when considering the use of etanercept in patients with a history of recurring infections or with underlying conditions which may predispose patients to infections, such as advanced or poorly controlled diabetes.  The labeling notes that, in a 24-week study of concurrent etanercept and anakinra therapy, the rate of serious infections in the combination arm (7 %) was higher than with etanercept alone (0 %).  The combination of etanercept and anakinra did not result in higher ACR response rates compared to etanercept alone.  The labeling states that concurrent therapy with etancerpt and anakinra is not recommended.

In a Cochrane review, Jessop et al (2009) evaluated the effects of drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus.  In June 2009, these investigators updated their searches of the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and online ongoing trials registers.  The reference lists of relevant reviews were searched.  Index Medicus (1956 to 1966) was hand-searched and authors were approached for information about unpublished trials.  These researchers included all randomized trials of drugs to treat people with discoid lupus erythematosus.  Drugs included in the search were azathioprine, chloroquine, clofazimine, corticosteroids, (oral and topical), dapsone, gold, interferon alpha-2a, methotrexate, phenytoin, retinoids, sulphasalazine, thalidomide, topical calcineurin blockers (pimecrolimus and tacrolimus), and biological agents (etanercept, efalizimab, infliximab, and rituximab).  Two reviewers independently examined each retrieved study for eligibility.  Two trials involving 136 participants were included.  No new trials were included in this update.  In a cross-over study of 12 weeks duration, fluocinonide 0.05 % cream (a potent topical corticosteroid), appeared to be better than hydrocortisone 1 % cream (a mild corticosteroid) when the first arm of the trial involving 78 participants was analyzed at 6 weeks.  Clearing or excellent improvement was seen in 27 % of people using fluocinonide and in 10 % of those using hydrocortisone, giving a 17 % absolute benefit in favor of fluocinonide (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.0 to 0.34, NNT (number needed to treat) 6).  In the second trial, acitretin (50 mg/day) was compared with hydroxychloroquine (400 mg/day) in 58 people in a parallel trial of 8 weeks duration.  There was marked improvement or clearing in 46 % of people using acitretin and in 50 % of those on hydroxychloroquine, but there was no significant difference between the 2 interventions.  The adverse effects were more frequent and more severe in the acitretin group.  In this trial, clearing of erythema was measured and found to be better in the hydroxychloroquine group (RR 0.61, 95 % CI: 0.36 to 1.06).  The authors concluded that fluocinonide cream may be more effective than hydrocortisone in treating people with discoid lupus erythematosus.  Hydroxychloroquine and acitretin appear to be of equal efficacy, although adverse effects are more frequent and more severe with acitretin.  There is not enough reliable evidence about other drugs (including etanercept) used to treat discoid lupus erythematosus.

Schoindre and colleagues (2009) stated that TNF receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS) is a highly polymorphic auto-inflammatory syndrome related to mutations in the TNFRSF1A gene encoding the type 1 TNF receptor.  Arthralgia and non-erosive synovitis are among the most common manifestations.  These investigators reported the case of a 73-year old woman who presented with chronic erosive joint disease that progressed by flare-ups.  Moderate non-specific abdominal and cutaneous abnormalities were noted, suggesting TRAPS.  This diagnosis was confirmed when genetic tests identified the R92Q mutation in the TNFRSF1A gene.  Although steroid therapy was effective in alleviating the symptoms, combination therapy with methotrexate and etanercept neither decreased the frequency of the flare-ups nor slowed the pace of joint destruction.  Treatment with anakinra is being considered.  The authors noted that this is the first reported case of joint destruction related to TRAPS.

In an uncontrolled, open-label study, Tobinick (2003) presented the case histories of 2 patients (1 woman and 1 man) presenting with a history of chronic neck pain refractory to various treatments.  Both patients were treated with etanercept 25 mg by subcutaneous (s.c.) injection to the cervical region (case 1) or the posterior neck overlying the spine (case 2).  Both patients experienced almost complete pain relief as assessed subjectively.  In case 1, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score decreased from 58 before treatment to 6 one day following treatment.  In addition, 1 day after treatment the patient reported a subjective assessment of 98 % pain improvement, 100 % sensory improvement, and 100 % weakness improvement.  She has remained asymptomatic for more than 1 year.  In case 2, the Oswestry score decreased from 44 before treatment to 4 two months after treatment.  The patient reported 100 % pain relief and 90 % sensory improvement 1 day after treatment.  At 8-month follow-up, pain improvement continued to be 100 % and sensory improvements was 75 %.  The authors concluded that etanercept, delivered by targeted s.c. injection, may be of benefit for selected patients with resistant pain associated with cervical disc disease.  They stated that further study of this new treatment modality is warranted.

Tobinick and Britschgi-Davoodifar (2003) examined the potential of etanercept, delivered by peri-spinal administration, for the treatment of pain associated with intervertebral disc disease.  Charts from 20 selected patients treated by peri-spinal delivery of etanercept 25 mg for severe, chronic, treatment-resistant discogenic pain were reviewed.  Therapeutic benefit was assessed clinically and was documented by changes in a validated pain instrument, the ODI.  Patients were treated off-label with etanercept; 5 detailed case reports were presented, including 3 additional patients.  Rapid, substantial and sustained clinical pain reduction was documented in this selected group of patients.  The cohort of 20 patients had a mean age of 56.5 and mean duration of pain of 116 months.  Nine of the patients had undergone previous spinal surgery; 17 had received an epidural steroid injection or injections (mean 3.2).  This group of patients received a mean of 1.8 doses (range of 1 to 5, median 1.0) of etanercept during the observation period.  The mean length of follow-up was 230 days.  Clinical improvement was confirmed by a decrease in the calculated ODI from a mean of 54.85 +/- 12.5 at baseline, improving to 17.2 +/- 15.3 (p < 0.003) at 24 days and ending at 9.8 +/- 13 (p < 0.003) at 230 days.  The authors concluded that etanercept delivered by peri-spinal administration may offer clinical benefit for patients with chronic, treatment-resistant discogenic pain.  They stated that further study of this new treatment modality is needed.

Tobinick and Davoodifar (2004) presented the clinical results obtained utilizing peri-spinal etanercept off-label for treatment-refractory back and neck pain in a clinical practice setting.  The medical charts of all patients who were treated with etanercept for back or neck pain at a single private medical clinic in 2003 were reviewed retrospectively.  Patients were treated if they had disc-related pain which was chronic, treatment-refractory, present every day for at least 8 hrs, and of moderate or severe intensity.  Patients with active infection, demyelinating disease, uncontrolled diabetes, lymphoma or immunosuppression were excluded from treatment with etanercept.  Etanercept 25 mg was administered by s.c. injection directly overlying the spine.  Visual analog scales (VAS, 0 to 10 cm) for intensity of pain, sensory disturbance, and weakness prior to and 20 mins, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month after treatment were completed.  Inclusion criteria for analysis required baseline and treatment VAS data.  Before and after treatment VAS comparisons for intensity of pain, sensory disturbance, and weakness.  A total of 143 charts out of 204 met the inclusion VAS criteria.  The 143 patients had a mean age of 55.8 +/- 14, duration of pain of 9.8 +/- 11 years, and an initial ODI of 42.8 +/- 18, with 83 % having back pain, 61 % sciatica, and 33 % neck pain; 30 % had previous spinal surgery, and 69 % had previously received epidural steroid injections (mean of 3.0 +/- 3).  Patients received a mean of 2.3 +/- 0.7 doses of peri-spinal etanercept separated by a mean interval of 13.6 +/- 16.3 days.  The mean VAS intensity of pain, sensory disturbance, and weakness were significantly reduced after peri-spinal etanercept at 20 mins, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 month with a p < 0.0001 at each time interval for the first dose in this patient population.  The authors concluded that peri-spinal etanercept is a new treatment modality that can lead to significant clinical improvement in selected patients with chronic, treatment-refractory disc-related pain.  Generalizability of the present study results was limited by the open-label, uncontrolled methodology employed.  Based on this and other accumulating recent studies, etanercept may be useful for both acute and chronic disc-related pain.  The authors stated that further study of this new treatment modality utilizing double-blind placebo-controlled methodology is indicated.

In a pilot study, Genevay and colleagues (2004) examined the effectiveness of etanercept in patients with severe sciatica.  A total of 10 consecutive patients received 3 s.c. injections of etanercept (25 mg every 3 days) in addition to standard analgesia.  Response was evaluated at day 10 (T1) and week 6 (T2) using a VAS for leg pain (VASL) and for low back pain (VASB), and 2 validated functional scores: the ODI and the Roland Morris disability questionnaire (RMDQ).  The control group consisted of 10 patients with severe sciatica, who took part in an observational study on intravenous methylprednisolone.  In the etanercept group, all variables improved: VASB from 36 to 7; VASL from 74 to 12; RMDQ from 17.8 to 5.8, and ODI from 75.4 to 17.3; all p < 0.001.  Pain (VASL and VASB: p < 0.001) and ODI (p < 0.05) were significantly better in the etanercept group than in the methylprednisolone group.  The authors concluded that in this open, historical group controlled study, patients with severe sciatica had sustained improvement after a short treatment with etanercept that was better than standard care plus a short course of methylprednisolone.  These results suggested that inhibition of TNF-alpha is beneficial in the treatment of sciatica and support a pathological role for TNF-alpha in the pathogenesis of sciatica.  They stated that these results need to be confirmed by a randomized controlled trial.

In a review on recent advancements in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain, Burnett and Day (2008) stated that recent studies have shown promising results in the treatment of both acute and chronic lumbar radicular pain with TNF-alpha antagonists such as etanercept and infliximab, as well as with interleukin receptor antagonists.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response study, Cohen and associates (2009) evaluated the effectiveness of trans-foraminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of sciatica.  A total of 24 patients with subacute lumbo-sacral radiculopathy were randomly assigned to receive 2 trans-foraminal epidural injections of 2, 4, or 6 mg of entanercept 2 weeks apart in successive groups of 8.  In each group, 2 patients received epidural saline.  A parallel epidural canine safety study was conducted using the same injection doses and paradigm as in the clinical study.  The animal and human safety studies revealed no behavioral, neurological, or histological evidence of drug-related toxicity.  In the clinical arm, significant improvements in leg and back pain were collectively noted for the etanercept-treated patients, but not for the saline group, 1 month after treatment.  One patient in the saline group (17 %), 6 patients in the 2-mg group (100 %), and 4 patients each in the 4-mg and 6-mg groups (67 %) reported at least 50 % reduction in leg pain and a positive global perceived effect 1 month after treatment.  Six months after treatment, the beneficial effects persisted in all but 1 patient.  The authors concluded that epidural entanercept holds promise as a treatment for lumbo-sacral radiculopathy.

In a triple-blinded randomized controlled study, Okoro et al (2010) examined the treatment effect of etanercept in acute sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation.  Inclusion criteria were acute unilateral radicular leg pain secondary to herniated nucleus pulposus confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging scan.  Exclusions were previous back surgery, spinal stenosis and any contra-indications to the use of etanercept such as immunosuppression.  The patient, the injector, and assessor were blinded to the agent being used.  Follow-up was at 6 weeks and 3 months post-treatment; ODI and VAS were among the assessment criteria.  A total of 15 patients were recruited in a 4 year-period with a 3 months follow-up of 80 %.  The etanercept group had 8 patients whereas the placebo group had 7.  The average ODI for the etanercept group pre-intervention was higher than that in the placebo group (53.6 versus 50.4) and this remained the same after 6 weeks (46.1 versus 31.2) and 3 months of follow-up (37 versus 35).  Visual analog score was also higher in the etanercept group versus placebo; pre-injection (8.6 versus 7.4), 6 weeks (5.0 versus 3.8), and 3 months (4.8 versus 4.5).  The authors concluded that small numbers of trial subjects limited statistical analysis.  The trend appears to show no benefit to the use of etanercept over placebo in the pharmacologic treatment of sciatica.

Berman et al (2008) evaluated the tolerability and efficacy of etanercept as compared to triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) for the treatment of keloids.  A total of 20 subjects were randomly assigned to receive monthly intralesional injections of either 25 mg of etanercept or 20 mg of TAC for 2 months.  Keloids were evaluated at baseline, week 4, and week 8 by subjects and investigators in a blinded fashion using physical, clinical, and cosmetic parameters.  Photographs were taken and adverse events were noted during each evaluation.  Etanercept improved 5/12 parameters including significant pruritus reduction, while TAC improved 11/12 parameters at week 8, although no statistical difference was observed as compared to baseline.  There was no significant difference between the 2 treatment groups.  Both treatments were safe and well- tolerated.  The authors concluded that etanercept was safe, well-tolerated, improved several keloid parameters, and reduced pruritus to a greater degree than TAC therapy.  However, they stated that further studies are needed before it can be recommended for the treatment of keloids.

Standard therapy of acute Kawasaki disease (KD) includes intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and high-dose aspirin, but a substantial number of patients are refractory and require additional treatment.  Tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels are elevated in children with KD, suggesting a role for etanercept in treatment.  In a prospective open-label trial, Choueiter and colleagues (2010) examined the safety and pharmacokinetics of etanercept in children with acute KD (age range of 6 months to 5 years; n = 17) who met clinical criteria and with fever less than or equal to 10 days.  All patients received IVIG and high-dose aspirin.  They received etanercept immediately after IVIG infusion and then twice-weekly.  For the initial safety evaluation, the first 5 patients received 0.4 mg/kg/dose.  Subsequent subjects received 0.8 mg/kg/dose.  A total of 15 patients completed the study.  The pharmacokinetics were similar to that in older children in published series.  No serious adverse events related to etanercept occurred.  No patient demonstrated prolonged or recrudescent fever requiring re-treatment with IVIG.  No patient showed an increase in coronary artery diameter or new coronary artery dilation/cardiac dysfunction.  The authors concluded that etanercept appears to be safe and well-tolerated in children with KD.  They stated that these findings support performance of a placebo-controlled trial.

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare ulcerative inflammatory condition of unknown etiology.  Therapy for PG involves local wound care along with topical and systemic anti-inflammatory and other immunodulatory agents.  Charles et al (2007) assessed the safety and effectiveness of etanercept in the treatment of PG ulcers.  A retrospective analysis was performed on 7 patients with 11 refractory PG ulcers treated with subcutaneous injections of etanercept (25 to 50 mg twice-weekly).  All 7 patients with PG responded well to etanercept.  Eight of the 11 ulcers (73 %) completely healed with the mean time of (12.5 weeks), while the other 3 ulcers had marked reduction in size (within 8 to 18 weeks).  Etanercept was well-tolerated.  No serious side-effects were reported.  Only 1 patient discontinued the drug secondary to side-effects.  The authors concluded that etanercept is an alternative treatment option for patients with refractory ulcers due to PG.  The findings of this small study need to be validated by well-designed studies.

Kirsner (2010) stated that TNF-alpha antagonists (e.g., etanercept) are now being extensively evaluated in the setting of chronic wound healing.  Preliminary studies and case reports provided evidence of the clinical potential of these compounds in PG, and further investigations are warranted.

Song et al (2011) evaluated the potential of etanercept versus sulfasalazine to reduce active inflammatory lesions on whole-body MRI in active axial spondyloarthritis with a symptom duration of less than 5 years.  Patients were randomly assigned to etanercept (n = 40) or sulfasalazine (n = 36) treatment over 48 weeks.  All patients showed active inflammatory lesions (bone marrow oedema) on MRI in either the sacroiliac joints or the spine.  MRI was performed at weeks 0, 24 and 48 and was scored for active inflammatory lesions in sacroiliac joints and the spine including posterior segments and peripheral enthesitis by 2 radiologists, blinded for treatment arm and MRI time point.  In the etanercept group, the reduction of the sacroiliac joint score from 7.7 at baseline to 2.0 at week 48 was significantly (p = 0.02) larger compared with the sulfasalazine group from 5.4 at baseline to 3.5 at week 48.  A similar difference in the reduction of inflammation was found in the spine from 2.2 to 1.0 in the etanercept group versus from 1.4 to 1.3 in the sulfasalazine group between baseline and week 48, respectively (p = 0.01).  The number of enthesitic sites also improved significantly from 26 to 11 in the etanercept group versus 24 to 26 in the sulfasalazine group (p = 0.04 for difference).  A total of 50 % of patients reached clinical remission in the etanercept group versus 19 % in the sulfasalazine group at week 48.  The authors concluded that in patients with early axial spondyloarthritis active inflammatory lesions detected by whole-body MRI improved significantly more in etanercept versus sulfasalazine-treated patients.  This effect correlated with a good clinical response in the etanercept group.

In a prospective randomized study, Ohtori et al (2012) examined the effect of etanercept on radicular pain by its epidural administration onto spinal nerves in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.  A total of 80 patients with low back and radicular leg pain were investigated.  These researchers diagnosed the patients by physical examination, and X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging.  In 40 patients, these investigators administered epidurally 2.0 ml of lidocaine and 10 mg of etanercept onto the affected spinal nerve, and 2.0 ml of lidocaine and 3.3 mg of dexamethasone was used in 40 patients.  Low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness were evaluated using a VAS and ODI score before and for 1 month after epidural administration.  Low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness in the 2 groups were not significantly different before epidural administration.  Epidural administration of etanercept was more effective than dexamethasone for leg pain (3 days, 1, 2, and 4 weeks: p < 0.05), low back pain (3 days, 1 and 2 weeks: p < 0.05), and leg numbness (3 days, 1 and 2 weeks: p < 0.05).  No adverse event was observed in either group.  The authors concluded that these findings indicated that epidural administration of a TNF-α inhibitor onto the spinal nerve produced pain relief, but no adverse event.  They stated that TNF-α inhibitors may be useful tools for the treatment of radicular pain caused by spinal stenosis.  Drawbacks of this study included relatively small sample size, short-term follow-up, and the use of combination therapies of lidocaine and etanercept.

In a multi-center, randomized trial, Cohen et al (2012) examined if epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline better improves pain and function in adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy.  Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by site.  Pharmacists prepared the syringes.  Patients, treating physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment.  A total of 84 adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy of less than 6 months' duration were included in this study.  Two epidural injections of steroids, etanercept, or saline, mixed with bupivacaine and separated by 2 weeks were administered.  The primary outcome measure was leg pain 1 month after the second injection.  All patients had 1-month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for the 6-month study period.  The group that received epidural steroids had greater reductions in the primary outcome measure than those who received saline (mean difference, -1.26 [95 % CI: -2.79 to 0.27]; p = 0.11) or etanercept (mean difference, -1.01 [CI: -2.60 to 0.58]; p = 0.21).  For back pain, smaller differences favoring steroids compared with saline (mean difference, -0.52 [CI: -1.85 to 0.81]; p = 0.44) and etanercept (mean difference, -0.92 [CI:-2.28 to 0.44]; p = 0.18) were observed.  The largest differences were noted for functional capacity, in which etanercept fared worse than the other treatments: steroids versus etanercept (mean difference, -16.16 [CI: -26.05 to -6.27]; p = 0.002), steroids versus saline (mean difference, -5.87 [CI: -15.59 to 3.85]; p = 0.23), and etanercept versus saline (mean difference, 10.29 [CI: 0.55 to 20.04]; p = 0.04).  More patients treated with epidural steroids (75 %) reported 50 % or greater leg pain relief and a positive global perceived effect at 1 month than those who received saline (50 %) or etanercept (42 %) (p = 0.09).  The authors concluded that epidural steroid injections may provide modest short-term pain relief for some adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy, but larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm their benefits.

Uhlving et al (2012) stated that bronchiolitis obliterans (BO) following allogeneic hematopoietic SCT (HSCT) is a serious complication affecting 1.7 to 26.0 % of the patients, with a reported mortality rate of 21 to 100 %.  It is considered a manifestation of chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), but the knowledge of etiology and pathogenesis is still limited.  Diagnostic criteria are being developed, and will allow more uniform and comparable research activities between centers.  At present, no randomized controlled trials have been completed that could demonstrate an effective treatment.  Steroids in combination with other immunosuppressive drugs still constitute the backbone of the treatment strategy, and results from the authors’ and other centers suggested that monthly infusions of high-dose pulse intravenous methylprednisolone (HDPM) might stabilize the disease and hinder progression.

The British Committee for Standards in Haematology’s guideline on “Diagnosis and management of chronic graft-versus-host disease” (Dignan et al, 2012) stated that there is insufficient evidence at present to recommend the use of etanercept in the management of chronic GVHD.  Furthermore, an UpToDate review on “Chronic lung transplant rejection: Bronchiolitis obliterans” (Reilly, 2013) does not mention the use of etanercept as a therapeutic tool.

Tobinick et al (2012) systematically examined the clinical response following peri-spinal administration of etanercept in a cohort of patients with chronic neurological dysfunction after stroke and traumatic brain injury (TBI).  After approval by an independent external institutional review board (IRB), a chart review of all patients with chronic neurological dysfunction following stroke or TBI who were treated open-label with peri-spinal etanercept (PSE) from November 1, 2010 to July 14, 2012 at a group medical practice was performed.  The treated cohort included 629 consecutive patients.  Charts of 617 patients following stroke and 12 patients following TBI were reviewed.  The mean age of the stroke patients was 65.8 years +/- 13.15 (range of 13 to 97).  The mean interval between treatment with PSE and stroke was 42.0 +/- 57.84 months (range of 0.5 to 419); for TBI the mean interval was 115.2 +/- 160.22 months (range of 4 to 537).  Statistically significant improvements in motor impairment, spasticity, sensory impairment, cognition, psychological/behavioral function, aphasia and pain were noted in the stroke group, with a wide variety of additional clinical improvements noted in individuals, such as reductions in pseudobulbar affect and urinary incontinence.  Improvements in multiple domains were typical.  Significant improvement was noted irrespective of the length of time before treatment was initiated; there was evidence of a strong treatment effect even in the subgroup of patients treated more than 10 years after stroke and TBI.  In the TBI cohort, motor impairment and spasticity were statistically significantly reduced. Irrespective of the methodological limitations, the present results provided clinical evidence that stroke and TBI may lead to a persistent and ongoing neuro-inflammatory response in the brain that is amenable to therapeutic intervention by selective inhibition of TNF, even years after the acute injury.  The authors concluded that excess TNF contributes to chronic neurological, neuropsychiatric and clinical impairment after stroke and TBI.  Peri-spinal administration of etanercept produces clinical improvement in patients with chronic neurological dysfunction following stroke and TBI.  The therapeutic window extends beyond a decade after stroke and TBI.  They stated that randomized clinical trials will be necessary to further quantify and characterize the clinical response.

An UpToDate review on “Uveitis: Treatment” (Rosenbaum, 2013) stated that “The role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept in the management of patients with uveitis is uncertain.  Further data from controlled trials are needed to clarify the indications and risks of TNF inhibition in the treatment of ocular inflammatory disease”.

Cordero-Coma et al (2013) established evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of TNF-α agents for managing uveitis patients.  Medline was searched via OVID (1950 to October Week 3, 2011) using a Cochrane highly sensitive search (phases 1 and 2).  Additional literature searches were also conducted including the following databases: the Cochrane, LILACS and the TRIP Database.  A total of 54 studies met all of the inclusion criteria and were included in this review.  A different level of recommendation and evidence is assigned to each anti-TNF-α agent.  The overall rate of reported side effects with anti-TNF-α agents for the treatment of uveitis that required discontinuation of therapy was 2.2 % (26/1,147 patients).  The authors concluded that based on the evidence gathered, infliximab and adalimumab seem to be effective in the management of immune-mediated uveitis.  Moreover, they stated that further randomized studies evaluating the effectiveness of these agents are needed.  It is the most common cause of inflammatory eye disease, with an estimated prevalence of 115 cases per 100,000 persons.  Endogenous or associated with a systemic disease, non-infectious uveitis accounts for approximately 75 % of total cases comprising of a heterogeneous group of inflammatory conditions responsible for about 10 % of legal blindness in developed nations.  Endogenous uveitides are thought to have an autoimmune component mediated by T lymphocytes specific to intra-ocular antigens that have failed to successfully pass basic processes designed to maintain self-tolerance. 

Freeman et al (2013) examined the safety and effectiveness of 3 different doses of etanercept versus placebo for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation (LDH).  A total of 49 subjects aged between 18 and 70 years, with persistent lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to LDH, and an average leg pain intensity of 5/10 or more were randomized to 1 of 4 groups: (i) 0.5-mg, (ii) 2.5-mg, (iii) 12.5-mg etanercept, or (iv) placebo.  Subjects received 2 transforaminal epidural injections, 2 weeks apart, and were assessed for effectiveness up to 26 weeks after the second injection.  The primary outcome measure was the change in mean daily worst leg pain (WLP).  Secondary outcomes included average leg pain, worst back pain, average back pain, in-clinic pain, ODI, patient global impression of change, and tolerability.  Forty-three of the 49 randomized patients completed the study.  Patients receiving 0.5-mg etanercept showed a clinically and statistically significant (p < 0.1) reduction in mean daily WLP compared with the placebo cohort from 2 to 26 weeks for both the per protocol population (-5.13 versus -1.95; p = 0.066) and the intention-to-treat population (-4.40 versus -1.84; p = 0.058).  Fifty percent of these subjects reported a 100 % reduction in WLP 4 weeks post-treatment compared with 0 % of subjects in the placebo cohort.  Improvements in all secondary outcomes were also observed in the 0.5-mg etanercept cohort.  The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in placebo and all etanercept cohorts.  The authors concluded that 2 transforaminal injections of etanercept provided clinically significant reductions in mean daily WLP and worst back pain compared with placebo for subjects with symptomatic LDH.  They stated that epidural etanercept may offer patients with sciatica a safe and effective non-operative treatment.

An UpToDate review on “Acute lumbosacral radiculopathy: Prognosis and treatment” (Levin et al, 2014) does not mention the use of etanercept as a therapeutic option.  Also, an UpToDate review on “Subacute and chronic low back pain: Pharmacologic and noninterventional treatment” (Chou, 2014a) states that “Systemic anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha therapy, which is primarily used in the treatment of inflammatory rheumatologic and bowel disease, does not appear to have a role for patients with chronic low back pain.  This was suggested in the FIRST II trial (n = 40), which found no differences in pain or functional outcomes between a single intravenous infusion of infliximab or saline infusion at three-month and one-year follow-up.  Epidural and intradiscal injections of anti-TNF-alpha therapy have also been evaluated.  Furthermore, an UpToDate review on “Subacute and chronic low back pain: Nonsurgical interventional treatment” (Chou, 2014b) states that “There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of epidural injections of etanercept (tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor) for lumbosacral radiculopathy”.

An UpToDate review on “Acute palmoplantar eczema (dyshidrotic eczema)” (Adams and Marks, 2014) does not mention the use of etanercept as a therapeutic option.

 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
20600 - 20610
96401 - 96450
HCPCS code covered if selection criteria are met:
J1438 Injection, etanercept, 25 mg
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
136.1 Behcet's syndrome [mucocutaneous manifestations (oral ulcers, nodular skin lesions) of Behcet's disease refractory to glucocorticoids and azathioprine]
696.0 Psoriatic arthropathy [see CPB 658 Psoriasis: Biological Therapies]
696.1 Other psoriasis [see CPB 658 Psoriasis: Biological Therapies]
711.00 - 711.99 Arthropathy associated with infections [refractory reactive]
713.0 - 713.8 Arthropathy associated with other disorders classified elsewhere [refractory reactive]
714.0 - 714.9 Rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory polyarthropathies [moderate to severe active]
716.20 - 716.29 Allergic arthritis [refractory reactive]
720.0 Ankylosing spondylitis [moderate to severe and failed two or more NSAIDS]
720.81 - 720.9 Other and unspecified inflammatory spondylopathies [moderate to severe]
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
135 Sarcoidosis
364.3 Unspecified iridocyclitis(uveitis)
428.0 - 428.9 Heart failure [chronic]
433.00 - 436 Stroke
446.1 Acute febrile mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome (MCLS)
446.4 Wegener's granulomatosis [Churg-Strauss syndrome]
491.8 Other chronic bronchitis[bronchiolitis obliterans]
493.00 - 493.92 Asthma
515 Postinflammatory pulmonary fibrosis [idiopathic]
555.0 - 555.9 Regional enteritis
556.0 - 556.9 Ulcerative colitis [Crohn's disease arthritis]
686.01 Pyoderma gangrenosum
695.4 Lupus erythematosus
701.4 Keloid scar
705.81 Dyshidrosis [dyshidrotic eczema]
705.83 Hidradenitis [suppurativa]
710.2 Sicca syndrome [Sjögren's syndrome]
722.10 Displacement of lumbar intervertebral disc without myelopathy [lumbar disc herniation]
723.0 Spinal stenosis of cervical region [radicular pain]
724.00 - 724.09 Spinal stenosis, other than cervical[radicular pain]
724.3 Sciatica
724.4 Thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or radiculitis, unspecified
729.1 Myalgia and myositis [inclusion body]
850.00 - 854.19 Traumatic brain injury
996.85 Complication of bone marrow transplant [graft-versus-host disease]
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
719.00 - 719.09 Effusion of joint [swollen joints]
719.40 - 719.49 Pain in joint [tender joints]


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. Immunex Laboratories. Enbrel® (Etanercept) Product Information. Doc. No. 106662-10. Seattle, WA: Immunex; January 2002.  
  2. Moreland LW. Soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75) fusion protein (ENBREL) as a therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1998;24(3):579-591. 
  3. Moreland LW, Baumgartner SW, Schiff MH, et al. Treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with a recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75)-Fc fusion protein. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:141-147.  
  4. Murray KM, Dahl SL. Recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (p75) Fc fusion protein (TNFR:Fc) in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Pharmacother. 1997;31(11):1335-1338. 
  5. Brower V. Enbrel's phase III reinforces prospects in RA. Nat Biotechnol. 1997;15(12):1240.  
  6. McGahan L. Etanercept: Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Issues in Emerging Health Technologies Issue 8. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 1999.
  7. Lovell DJ, Giannini EF, Reiff A, et al. Etanercept in children with polyarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(11):763-769. 
  8. American College of Rheumatology. Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines. Arthritis Rheuma. 1996;39(5):713-723.  
  9. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research (AHFMR). Etanercept (Enbrel). Emerging Technology Report. Edmonton, AB: AHFMR; 2000.
  10. Yazici Y, Erkan D, Lockshin MD. Etanercept in the treatment of severe, resistant psoriatic arthritis: Continued efficacy and changing patterns of use after two years. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002;20(1):115. 
  11. Yazici Y, Erkan D, Lockshin MD. A preliminary study of etanercept in the treatment of severe, resistant psoriatic arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18(6):732-734. 
  12. Aboulafia DM, Bundow D, Wilske K, et al. Etanercept for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus-associated psoriatic arthritis. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75(10):1093-1098. 
  13. de Vries C. Effects of TNF-alpha antagonists in people with rheumatoid arthritis. STEER: Succint and Timely Evaluated Evidence Reviews. Bazian Ltd., eds. London, UK: Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton; 2001;1(19).
  14. Braun J, Breban M, Maksymowych WP. Therapy for ankylosing spondylitis: New treatment modalities. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2002;16(4):631-651.
  15. Gorman JD, Sack KE, Davis JC Jr. Treatment of ankylosing spondylitis by inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(18):1349-1356.
  16. Brandt J, Khariouzov A, Listing J, et al. Six-month results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of etanercept treatment in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis. Arthritis Rheum.  2003;48(6):1667-1675.
  17. Taylor PC. Anti-TNFalpha therapy for rheumatoid arthritis: An update. Intern Med. 2003;42(1):15-20.
  18. Jobanputra P, Barton P, Bryan S, Burls A. The effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess.  2002;6(21):1-110.
  19. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). Etanercept for ankylosing spondylitis - horizon scanning review. Birmingham, UK: NHSC; 2003.
  20. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Technology Appraisal Guidance 36. London, UK: NICE; 2002.
  21. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of etanercept for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Technology Appraisal Guidance 35. London, UK: NICE; 2002.
  22. Meador R, Hsia E, Kitumnuaypong T, Schumacher HR. TNF involvement and anti-TNF therapy of reactive and unclassified arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002;20(6 Suppl 28):S130-S134.
  23. Wendling D, Claudepierre P, Lohse A, et al. Therapeutic use of anti-TNF-alpha agents in spondyloarthropathies. Presse Med. 2003;32(32):1517-1524.
  24. D'Haens G, Swijsen C, Noman M, et al. Etanercept in the treatment of active refractory Crohn's disease: A single-center pilot trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(9):2564-2568.
  25. Sandborn WJ, Hanauer SB, Katz S, et al. Etanercept for active Crohn's disease: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gastroenterology. 2001;121(5):1088-1094.
  26. Van den Brande JM, Braat H, van den Brink GR, et al. Infliximab but not etanercept induces apoptosis in lamina propria T-lymphocytes from patients with Crohn's disease.  Gastroenterology. 2003;124(7):1774-1785.
  27. Agnholt J, Dahlerup JF, Kaltoft K. The effect of etanercept and infliximab on the production of tumour necrosis factor alpha, interferon-gamma and GM-CSF in in vivo activated intestinal T lymphocyte cultures. Cytokine. 2003;23(3):76-85.
  28. Sandborn WJ. Optimizing anti-tumor necrosis factor strategies in inflammatory bowel disease. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2003;5(6):501-505.
  29. Akobeng AK, Zachos M. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha antibody for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003574. 
  30. Mease PJ, Goffe BS, Metz J, et al. Etanercept in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis: A randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9227):385-390.
  31. Mease PJ. Etanercept, a TNF antagonist for treatment for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Skin Therapy Lett. 2003;8(1):1-4.
  32. Leonardi CL, Powers JL, Matheson RT, et al. Etanercept as monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(21):2014-2022.
  33. Gottlieb AB, Matheson RT, Lowe N, et al. A randomized trial of etanercept as monotherapy for psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2003;139(12):1627-1632; discussion 1632.
  34. Cummins C, Connock M, Fry-Smith A, Burls A. A systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation of new drug treatments for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: Etanercept. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6(17):1-43.
  35. Hochberg MC, Tracy JK, Hawkins-Holt M, Flores RH. Comparison of the efficacy of the tumour necrosis factor alpha blocking agents adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab when added to methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62(Suppl  2):13-16.
  36. Blumenauer B, Judd M, Cranney A, et al. Etanercept for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD004525.
  37. Hellmich B, Gross WL. Recent progress in the pharmacotherapy of Churg-Strauss syndrome. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004;5(1):25-35.
  38. von Haehling S, Jankowska EA, Anker SD. Tumour necrosis factor-alpha and the failing heart--pathophysiology and therapeutic implications. Basic Res Cardiol. 2004;99(1):18-28.
  39. Mann DL, McMurray JJ, Packer M, et al. Targeted anticytokine therapy in patients with chronic heart failure: Results of the Randomized Etanercept Worldwide Evaluation (RENEWAL). Circulation. 2004;109(13):1594-1602.
  40. Sankar V, Brennan MT, Kok MR, Etanercept in Sjogren's syndrome: A twelve-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(7):2240-2245.
  41. Wegener's Granulomatosis Etanercept Trial (WGET) Research Group. Etanercept plus standard therapy for Wegener's granulomatosis. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):351-361.
  42. Naldi L, Rzany B. Psoriasis (Chronic Plaque). In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; July 2006.
  43. Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). Etanercept for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. Emerging Drug List Issue 55. Ottawa, ON: CCOHTA; 2004.
  44. Seo P, Min YI, Holbrook JT, et al. Damage caused by Wegener's granulomatosis and its treatment: Prospective data from the Wegener's Granulomatosis Etanercept Trial (WGET). Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52(7):2168-2178.
  45. Rouhani FN, Meitin CA, Kaler M, et al. Effect of tumor necrosis factor antagonism on allergen-mediated asthmatic airway inflammation. Respir Med. 2005;99(9):1175-1182.
  46. Baughman RP, Lower EE, Bradley DA, et al. Etanercept for refractory ocular sarcoidosis: Results of a double-blind randomized trial. Chest. 2005;128(2):1062-1047.
  47. Barohn RJ, Herbelin L, Kissel JT, et al. Pilot trial of etanercept in the treatment of inclusion-body myositis. Neurology. 2006;66(2 Suppl 1):S123-S124.
  48. Gordon K, Korman N, Frankel E, et al. Efficacy of etanercept in an integrated multistudy database of patients with psoriasis. Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(3 Suppl 2):S101-S111.
  49. Berry MA, Hargadon B, Shelley M, et al. Evidence of a role of tumor necrosis factor alpha in refractory asthma. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(7):697-708.
  50. Erzurum SC. Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha for refractory asthma. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(7):754-758.
  51. Efthimiou P, Markenson JA. Role of biological agents in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. South Med J. 2005;98(2):192-204.
  52. Bolanos-Meade J. Update on the management of acute graft-versus-host disease. Curr Opin Oncol. 2006;18(2):120-125.
  53. Kennedy GA, Butler J, Western R, et al. Combination antithymocyte globulin and soluble TNFalpha inhibitor (etanercept) +/- mycophenolate mofetil for treatment of steroid refractory acute graft-versus-host disease. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2006;37(12):1143-1147.
  54. Perez-Simon JA, Sanchez-Abarca I, Diez-Campelo M, et al. Chronic graft-versus-host disease: Pathogenesis and clinical management. Drugs. 2006;66(8):1041-1057.
  55. Walter N, Collard HR, King TE Jr. Current perspectives on the treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2006;3(4):330-338.
  56. Balakumar P, Singh M. Anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha therapy in heart failure: Future directions. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;99(6):391-397.
  57. Bongartz T, Sutton A J, Sweeting MJ, et al. Anti-TNF antibody therapy in rheumatoid arthritis and the risk of serious infections and malignancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis of rare harmful effects in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2006;295(19):2275-2285.
  58. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of adults with psoriasis. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 103. London, UK: NICE; 2006.
  59. Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, et al. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: A systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(46):1-252.
  60. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of adults with psoriatic arthritis. Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 102. London, UK: NICE; 2006.
  61. Woolacott N, Bravo Vergel Y, Hawkins N, et al. Etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(31):1-258.
  62. Pichon Riviere A, Augustovski F, Alcaraz A, et al. Etanercept, infliximab and adalimumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis [summary]. Report IRR No. 79. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS); 2006.
  63. Coyle D, Judd M, Blumenauer B, et al. Infliximab and etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Technology Report Issue 34. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2006.
  64. Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in adults and an economic evaluation of their cost-effectiveness. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(42):1-248.
  65. Busca A, Locatelli F, Marmont F, et al. Recombinant human soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor fusion protein as treatment for steroid refractory graft-versus-host disease following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Am J Hematol. 2007;82(1):45-52.
  66. Denys BG, Bogaerts Y, Coenegrachts KL, De Vriese AS. Steroid-resistant sarcoidosis: Is antagonism of TNF-alpha the answer? Clin Sci (Lond). 2007;112(5):281-289.
  67. Suarez-Almazor M, Ortiz Z, Lopez-Olivo M, et al. Infliximab and etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic review of long-term clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Technology Report No. 85. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2007.
  68. Suarez-Almazor M, Ortiz Z, Lopez-Olivo M, et al. Infliximab and etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis: Timing, dose escalation, and switching. Technology Report No. 86. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2007.
  69. Brady B, Siebert U, Sroczynski G, et al. Long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of infliximab and etanercept for rheumatoid arthritis. Technology Overview No. 29. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2007.
  70. Foster CS, Tufail F, Waheed NK, et al. Efficacy of etanercept in preventing relapse of uveitis controlled by methotrexate. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003;121(4):437-440.
  71. Melikoglu M, Fresko I, Mat C, et al.  Short-term trial of etanercept in Behcet's disease: A double blind, placebo controlled study. J Rheumatol. 2005;32(1):98-105.
  72. Walker-Bone K, Fallow S. Rheumatoid arthritis. In: BMJ Clinical Evidence. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; June 2005.
  73. Chen Y-F, Jobanputra P, Barton P, et al. Adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: A systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11(28):1-158.
  74. van der Heijde D, Da Silva JC, Dougados M, et al.; Etanercept Study 314
    Investigators. Etanercept 50 mg once weekly is as effective as 25 mg twice weekly in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65(12):1572-1577.
  75. van der Heijde D, Klareskog L, Landewé R, et al. Disease remission and sustained halting of radiographic progression with combination etanercept and methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;56(12):3928-3939.
  76. Davis JC Jr, van der Heijde DM, Braun J, et al. Efficacy and safety of up to 192 weeks of etanercept therapy in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(3):346-352.
  77. van der Heijde D, Burmester G, Melo-Gomes J, et al.; Etanercept Study 400 Investigators. The safety and efficacy of adding etanercept to methotrexate or methotrexate to etanercept in moderately active rheumatoid arthritis patients previously treated with monotherapy. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008;67(2):182-188. 
  78. Braun J, McHugh N, Singh A, et al. Improvement in patient-reported outcomes for patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with etanercept 50 mg once-weekly and 25 mg twice-weekly. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2007;46(6):999-1004.
  79. Henderson RL Jr. Case reports: Treatment of atypical hidradenitis suppurativa with the tumor necrosis factor receptor-Fc fusion protein etanercept. J Drugs Dermatol. 2006;5(10):1010-1011.
  80. Cusack C, Buckley C. Etanercept: effective in the management of hidradenitis suppurativa. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154(4):726-729.
  81. Chou CT. The clinical application of etanercept in Chinese patients with rheumatic diseases. Mod Rheumatol. 2006;16(4):206-213.
  82. Imrie FR, Dick AD. Biologics in the treatment of uveitis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2007;18(6):481-486.
  83. Gul A. Standard and novel therapeutic approaches to Behçet's disease. Drugs. 2007;67(14):2013-2022.
  84. Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM, et al.; American College of Rheumatology. American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(6):762-784.
  85. Singh JA, Christensen R, Wells GA, et al. Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: An overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4): CD007848.
  86. Assasi N, Blackhouse G, Xie F, et al. Overview of anti-TNF-α drugs for refractory inflammatory bowel disease. Technology Overview No. 52. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); 2009.
  87. Jessop S, Whitelaw DA, Delamere FM. Drugs for discoid lupus erythematosus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD002954.
  88. Schoindre Y, Feydy A, Giraudet-Lequintrec JS, et al. TNF receptor-associated periodic syndrome (TRAPS): A new cause of joint destruction? Joint Bone Spine. 2009;76(5):567-569.
  89. Tobinick EL. Targeted etanercept for discogenic neck pain: Uncontrolled, open-label results in two adults. Clin Ther. 2003;25(4):1211-1218.
  90. Tobinick EL, Britschgi-Davoodifar S. Perispinal TNF-alpha inhibition for discogenic pain. Swiss Med Wkly. 2003;133(11-12):170-177.
  91. Tobinick E, Davoodifar S. Efficacy of etanercept delivered by perispinal administration for chronic back and/or neck disc-related pain: A study of clinical observations in 143 patients. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(7):1075-1085.
  92. Genevay S, Stingelin S, Gabay C. Efficacy of etanercept in the treatment of acute, severe sciatica: A pilot study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;63(9):1120-1123.
  93. Charles CA, Leon A, Banta MR, Kirsner RS. Etanercept for the treatment of refractory pyoderma gangrenosum: A brief series. Int J Dermatol. 2007 Oct;46(10):1095-1099.
  94. Berman B, Patel JK, Perez OA, et al. Evaluating the tolerability and efficacy of etanercept compared to triamcinolone acetonide for the intralesional treatment of keloids. J Drugs Dermatol. 2008;7(8):757-761.
  95. Burnett C, Day M. Recent advancements in the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008;21(4):452-456.
  96. Cohen SP, Bogduk N, Dragovich A, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-response, and preclinical safety study of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of sciatica. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(5):1116-1126.
  97. Okoro T, Tafazal SI, Longworth S, Sell PJ. Tumor necrosis alpha-blocking agent (etanercept): a triple blind randomized controlled trial of its use in treatment of sciatica. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(1):74-77.
  98. Adams DR, Yankura JA, Fogelberg AC, Anderson BE. Treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa with etanercept injection. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(5):501-504.
  99. Berman B. Biological agents for controlling excessive scarring. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11 Suppl 1:31-34.
  100. Kirsner RS. Biological agents for chronic wounds. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010;11 Suppl 1:23-25.
  101. Choueiter NF, Olson AK, Shen DD, Portman MA. Prospective open-label trial of etanercept as adjunctive therapy for kawasaki disease. J Pediatr. 2010;157(6):960-966.
  102. Kleinpenning MM, Langewouters AM, Van De Kerkhof PC, Greebe RJ. Severe pyoderma gangrenosum unresponsive to etanercept and adalimumab. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;22(5):261-265.
  103. Akpek EK, Lindsley KB, Adyanthaya RS, et al. Treatment of Sjögren's syndrome-associated dry eye an evidence-based review. Ophthalmology. 2011;118(7):1242-1252.
  104. Palazzi C, D'Angelo S, Cantini F, et al. Etanercept in spondyloarthropathies. Part I: Current evidence of efficacy. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;29(5):858-864.
  105. Song IH, Hermann K, Haibel H, et al. Effects of etanercept versus sulfasalazine in early axial spondyloarthritis on active inflammatory lesions as detected by whole-body MRI (ESTHER): A 48-week randomised controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(4):590-596.
  106. Ohtori S, Miyagi M, Eguchi Y, et al. Epidural administration of spinal nerves with the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor, etanercept, compared with dexamethasone for treatment of sciatica in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: A prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(6):439-444.
  107. Cohen SP, White RL, Kurihara C, et al. Epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline in subacute sciatica: A multicenter, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(8):551-559.
  108. Uhlving HH, Buchvald F, Heilmann CJ, et al. Bronchiolitis obliterans after allo-SCT: Clinical criteria and treatment options. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47(8):1020-1029.
  109. Tobinick E, Kim NM, Reyzin G, et al. Selective TNF inhibition for chronic stroke and traumatic brain injury: An observational study involving 629 consecutive patients treated with perispinal etanercept. CNS Drugs. 2012;26(12):1051-1070.
  110. Dignan FL, Amrolia P, Clark A, et al; on behalf of the Haemato-oncology Task Force of the British Committee [trunc]. Diagnosis and management of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Br J Haematol 2012;158(1):46-61. Available at: http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=36926&search=etanercept+. Accessed March 7, 2013.
  111. Reilly JJ, Jr. Chronic lung transplant rejection: Bronchiolitis obliterans. Last reviewed January 2013. UpToDate Inc. Waltham, MA.
  112. Cordero-Coma M, Yilmaz T, Onal S. Systematic review of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha therapy for treatment of immune-mediated uveitis. Ocul Immunol Inflamm. 2013;21(1):12-20.
  113. Rosenbaum JT. Uveitis: Treatment. Last reviewed January 2013. UpToDate Inc. Waltham, MA.
  114. Freeman BJ, Ludbrook GL, Hall S, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, trial of transforaminal epidural etanercept for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(23):1986-1994.
  115. Levin K, Hsu PS, Armon C. Acute lumbosacral radiculopathy: Prognosis and treatment. Last reviewed January 2014. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA.
  116. Chou R. Subacute and chronic low back pain: Pharmacologic and noninterventional treatment. Last reviewed January 2014a. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA.
  117. Chou R. Subacute and chronic low back pain: Nonsurgical interventional treatment. Last reviewed January 2014b. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA.
  118. Adams DR, Marks, JG, Jr. Acute palmoplantar eczema (dyshidrotic eczema). Last reviewed January 2014. UpToDate Inc., Waltham, MA.


email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top