Using a biosimilar can produce substantial cost savings in patients who are receiving infliximab therapy for inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but dose escalations, which are frequent for those who use infliximab, can increase the cost of therapy, even with a biosimilar.
Using a biosimilar can produce substantial cost savings in patients who are receiving infliximab therapy for inflammatory diseases like rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but dose escalations, which are frequent for those who use infliximab, can increase the cost of therapy, even with a biosimilar.
Recently, in a paper appearing this month in Arthritis Research and Therapy, investigators studied the frequency of dose escalation with biosimilar infliximab versus using an alternative agent—like golimumab—that is subject to fewer dose escalations.
In the study, the authors assembled 2 cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries with RA who were starting treatment with either infliximab (n = 5147) or intravenous golimumab (n = 2843). They used CMS fee-for-service Medicare data from 2012 to 2016 to compare dose escalation (defined as a dose increase of 100 mg or more for infliximab or 50 mg or more for golimumab, or increased frequency of dosing), persistence, and the cost to Medicare.
A hypothetical modeling scenario was used to compare dose-escalated infliximab versus golimumab using Medicare-approved amounts in the first quarter of 2016 to evaluate the extent to which dose escalation would be needed before it offset higher Medicare-approved payment a mounts for golimumab, and the model took into account potential discounts for biosimilar infliximab.
They found that dose escalation occurred in 49% of patients receiving infliximab, versus just 5% of those receiving golimumab. Physician ownership of infusion centers was associated with an increased likelihood that infliximab doses would be increased (odds ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44).
The mean costs paid by Medicare over the initial 18 months of treatment were higher for golimumab ($28,146, standard deviation [SD]; $16,030) than for infliximab ($21,216; SD, $15,819). Among patients who persisted with treatment through 18 months, least square mean costs were $43,940 for golimumab and $34,671 for infliximab.
In the modeling scenario used to evaluate the level of dosing that would be required to offset higher costs of golimumab use, all dosing frequencies of infliximab at doses of either 3 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg yielded lower annual costs than golimumab. At 10 mg/kg every 6 weeks, infliximab became more costly than golimumab unless discounts of 30% of higher were applied. At 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks, discounts of 50% of greater would be necessary. Given the 21% average sales price discount of the biosimilar Inflectra in 2019, even a dose of infliximab at 8 mg/kg every 6 weeks would be cost-neutral or cost-saving versus golimumab.
The authors conclude that, “costs associated with dose escalating infliximab to 10 mg/kg every 4 or 6 weeks are substantial and likely offset even appreciable dose savings associated with biosimilars,” and, in patients who require such escalations, using an alternative therapy is likely to be less expensive while achieving similar outcomes. For all other lower doses, costs associated with dose escalation are likely to be offset by biosimilar savings.
Reference
Curtis JR, Xie F, Kay J, Kallich JD. Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis [published online December 12, 2019]. Arthritis Res Ther. doi: 10.1186/s13075-019-2022-8.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
Biosimilars in America: Overcoming Barriers and Maximizing Impact
July 21st 2024Join us as we explore the complexities of the US biosimilars market, discussing legislative influences, payer and provider adoption factors, and strategies to overcome industry challenges with expert insights from Kyle Noonan, PharmD, MS, value & access strategy manager at Cencora.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
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.
Boosting Health Care Sustainability: The Role of Biosimilars in Latin America
November 21st 2024Biosimilars could improve access to biologic treatments and health care sustainability in Latin America, but their adoption is hindered by misconceptions, regulatory gaps, and weak pharmacovigilance, requiring targeted education and stronger regulations.
Breaking Down Biosimilar Barriers: Payer and PBM Policies
November 13th 2024Part 2 of this series for Global Biosimilars Week dives into the complexities of payer and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) policies, how they impact biosimilar accessibility, and how addressing these issues may look under a second Trump term.