Dataset Information

Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab. METHODS:We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating infliximab or golimumab. Frequency of dose escalation was summarized descriptively over 18?months, as were Medicare-approved amounts for reimbursement. Analyses were repeated conditioning on high adherence (i.e., non-discontinuation, >?10-week gap). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and mixed models evaluated factors associated with infliximab dose escalation. RESULTS:A total of 5174 infliximab and 2843 golimumab initiators were observed. Dose escalation was rare for golimumab (5%) but common for infliximab (49%), and was even more common (72%) for infliximab among patients who persisted on treatment. Regardless of dose escalation, the adjusted least square mean dollar amounts were appreciably higher for golimumab ($28,146) than for infliximab ($21,216) and greater among persistent patients (cost difference $9269, favoring infliximab). Only when patients escalated infliximab to ??8?mg/kg every 6?weeks was golimumab IV at break-even or less expensive. After controlling for multiple factors, physician ownership of the infusion center was associated with greater likelihood of infliximab dose escalation (odds ratio?=?1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44). CONCLUSION:Despite frequent dose escalation with infliximab that often increase its dose by threefold or more, the savings from the current price of its biosimilar substantially offsets the costs of an alternative infused TNFi biologic for which no biosimilar is available.

SUBMITTER: Curtis JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6909454 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

Curtis Jeffrey R JR Xie Fenglong F Kay Jonathan J Kallich Joel D JD

Arthritis research & therapy 20191212 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab.<h4>Methods</h4>We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis ...[more]

PMID: 31831064

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:While dose escalation of golimumab has been used for patients with rheumatoid arthritis who demonstrate an inadequate response to the standard dose, its effectiveness has not been fully evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome observed by dose escalation of golimumab for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the daily clinical setting. METHODS:A post hoc analysis was performed of data from the 24-week post-marketing surveillance conducted in Japan (n?=?5154). A total of 301 patients with moderate or high disease activity at baseline who underwent dose escalation of golimumab were assessed for effectiveness at 24 weeks based on several variables, such as DAS28-CRP, SDAI, and CDAI, as well as for medication persistence through 24 weeks. In addition, the study population was stratified by the time to dose escalation, and effectiveness was likewise evaluated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a moderate/good EULAR response to golimumab at 24 weeks. RESULTS:Patients with golimumab dose escalation showed significant improvement of the clinical signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis at 24 weeks, as indicated by reduction of the DAS28-CRP (?0.89), SDAI (?8.64), and CDAI (?8.28) scores. This result was relatively consistent across the subgroups stratified by the timing of dose escalation. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, 78.1% of the patients continued to receive golimumab at 24 weeks, and this was also similar among the subgroups stratified by the time to dose escalation. Multivariate analysis identified male sex and previous biologic therapy as factors that were significantly associated with the clinical response at 24 weeks. CONCLUSION:In real-world clinical practice, improvement of disease activity was observed after uptitration of golimumab from 50 to 100 mg regardless of the timing. Male patients and biologic-naive patients were more likely to respond to dose escalation of golimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION:UMIN-CTR, Identifier: UMIN000015895.

Project description:Purpose:The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare treatment patterns and infusion-related health care resource expenditures for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating golimumab for intravenous use (GLM-IV) and infliximab (IFX) therapy and to assess cost implications from the commercial perspective. Methods:Adult RA patients with a new episode of GLM-IV or IFX treatment between Janu-ary 1, 2014 and March 31, 2016 were identified from MarketScan databases and evaluated for maintenance infusion intervals and related costs of treatment. IFX and GLM-IV patients were matched 1:1 on index medication treatment duration, gender, payer type, prior biologic use, and post-index methotrexate use. Paid amounts for drugs and associated administration costs were applied to treatment group dosing patterns. Results:Final matched treatment groups included 547 GLM-IV and 547 IFX patients (mean age = 55-56 years). Mean (SD) follow-up was 609 (161) days for GLM-IV and 613 (163) days for IFX. Treatment duration was 396 (240) days for GLM-IV and 397 (239) days for IFX. Overall, 80% of GLM-IV and 39% of IFX maintenance infusions were given approximately every 8 weeks; and 6% of GLM-IV and 53% of IFX maintenance infusions occurred more frequently than every 8 weeks (P<0.001). When weighting of the maintenance infusion interval was applied, the mean number of induction plus maintenance infusions during the first year of treatment was estimated at 7.03 for GLM-IV and 9.48 for IFX. From the commercial perspective, drug plus administration costs per infusion were $5,846 for GLM-IV and $5,444 for IFX with total annual cost of therapy for GLM-IV patients costing $10,507 less than that for IFX patients in the first year and $6,774 less than that for IFX patients in subsequent years. Conclusion:Annual GLM-IV drug plus administration costs for commercial health plans were significantly less than IFX in RA patients due to differences in real-world dosing and administration.

Project description:IntroductionTo assess changes in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) outcomes related to social, mental, and physical well-being after approximately 1 year of intravenous (IV) golimumab or infliximab treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using real-world evidence from AWARE.MethodsAWARE was a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter, observational, U.S.-based phase 4 study of 1270 RA patients who initiated treatment with IV golimumab or infliximab. PROMIS-29 and PROMIS short form (SF) Fatigue 7a and Pain Interference 6b questionnaires were administered at baseline and infusions 2, 5, and 8 (approximately weeks 4, 28, and 52 for IV golimumab and weeks 2, 22, and 46 for infliximab). Mean changes from baseline in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs and response rates for achieving ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements were determined.ResultsAmong all patients, baseline mean ± SD PROMIS T-scores were consistent between treatment groups and indicated worse physical function (38.2 ± 6.8 IV golimumab, 38.0 ± 6.9 infliximab), more pain interference (63.0 ± 7.6 IV golimumab, 63.9 ± 7.8 infliximab), and greater fatigue (58.4 ± 9.9 IV golimumab, 59.4 ± 10.0 infliximab) in these patients vs the general U.S. population (T-score = 50). Through the 8th infusion of either treatment, IV golimumab- and infliximab-treated patients achieved meaningful improvements (≥ 3-point improvement in T-scores) in all PROMIS-29 domains and respective SFs, and the proportions of patients with ≥ 3, ≥ 5, or ≥ 10-point improvements in T-scores increased from infusion 2 through infusion 8.ConclusionsRA patients treated with IV golimumab or infliximab achieved comparable improvements across social, mental, and physical well-being PROMIS measures. Additionally, PROMIS detected meaningful clinical changes in patient-reported outcomes in both treatment groups.ClinicaltrialsGov registration numberNCT02728934.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2014 and 2015, biosimilars for the drugs filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine were approved for use in Canada. The introduction of biosimilars in Canada could provide significant cost savings for the Canadian healthcare system over originator biologic drugs, however it is known that the use of biosimilars varies widely across the world. The aim of this study was to estimate the use of biosimilars in Canada and potential cost-savings from their use. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of Canadian drug purchases for filgrastim, infliximab, and insulin glargine from July 2016 to June 2018. This was a cross-sectional study and the time horizon was limited to the study period. As a result, no discounting of effects over time was included. Canadian drugstore and hospital purchases data, obtained from IQVIA™, were used to estimate the costs per unit and unit volume for biosimilars and originator biologic drugs within each province. Potential cost-savings were calculated as a product of the units of reference originator product purchased and the cost difference between the originator biologic and its corresponding biosimilar. RESULTS:The purchase of biosimilars varied by each province in Canada, ranging from a low of 0.1% to a high of 81.6% of purchases. In total, $1,048,663,876 Canadian dollars in savings could have been realized with 100% use of biosimilars over the originator products during this 2?year time period. The potential savings are highest in the province of Ontario ($349 million); however, even in smaller markets (PEI and Newfoundland), $28 million could have potentially been saved. Infliximab accounted for the vast majority of the potential cost-savings, whereas the purchases of the biosimilar filgrastim outpaced that of the originator drug in some provinces. In sensitivity analyses assuming only 80% of originator units would be eligible for use as a biosimilar, $838 million dollars in cost savings over this two-year time period would still have been realized. CONCLUSIONS:The overall use of biosimilar drugs in Canada is low. Policy makers, healthcare providers, and patients need to be informed of potential savings by increased use of biosimilars, particularly in an increasingly costly healthcare system.

Dataset Information

Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

Publications

Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets