A recently published systematic literature review sought to compare the effects of down-titration of biologics compared with standard dosing on clinical efficacy and health-related quality of life, and to evaluate the impact of decreased doses on the cost of RA treatment.
Biologic therapies have resulted in better treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and have allowed many patients to achieve remission. The efficacy of these therapies has allowed clinicians to consider down-titration (also referred to as dose reduction or dose tapering) for patients who have achieved remission or low disease activity (LDA), though rheumatology guidelines in the United States, Asia, and Europe all acknowledge the fact that the level of evidence guiding down-titration is moderate to very low.
A recently published systematic literature review sought to compare the effects of down-titration of biologics compared with standard dosing on clinical efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQL), and to evaluate the impact of decreased doses on the cost of RA treatment.
The investigators, led by Chak Sing Lau, MD, conducted an electronic literature search of English-language references published from January 2000 to February 2015. Randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and pharmacogenomics studies were eligible for inclusion and screened for risk of bias. The studies that qualified for inclusion evaluated adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab:
In terms of economic outcomes, most studies reported a decrease in cost with down-titration. One retrospective US cost analysis found, however, that patients with a decreased dose had a significantly higher number of inpatient admissions, physician visits, laboratory and diagnostic tests, and prescriptions.
Based on these findings, the authors concluded that down-titration can be successful in some patients with RA, and that down-titration generally decreases costs. However, because some patients are unable to retain remission or LDA after having changed their treatment dosage, care must be exercised so that these patients do not experience joint damage.
How AI Can Help Address Cost-Related Nonadherence to Biologic, Biosimilar Treatment
March 9th 2025Despite saving billions, biosimilars still account for only a small share of the biologics market—what's standing in the way of broader adoption and how can artificial intelligence (AI) help change that?
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
Empowering Vulnerable Populations: The Path to Equitable Biologic Therapy Access
December 22nd 2024Elie Bahou, PharmD, senior vice president and system chief pharmacy officer at Providence, discusses strategies to improve equitable access to biologic therapies, including tiered formularies, income-based cost sharing, patient assistance programs, and fostering payer partnerships.
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.