This week, a study from Spain retrospectively compared direct costs of intravenous and subcutaneous reference rituximab in the setting of lymphoma, taking into consideration drug costs, pharmacy costs, and chair time-related costs at a single center in 2017. They also conducted the same analysis using the costs of biosimilar rituximab.
This month, the United States saw its first rituximab biosimilar become available for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. While the launch was greeted with excitement, some have questioned whether the 10% list price discount for the biosimilar, Truxima, is adequate to drive uptake, especially given the fact that other biosimilars (for different reference products) are now entering the US marketplace at discounts approaching 40%.
As the brand-name rituximab, Rituxan, is also available in a subcutaneously administered formulation that reduced chair time and administration costs, questions remain about how willing providers will be to adopt the intravenously (IV) delivered biosimilar.
This week, a study from Spain, where biosimilar rituximab is already available, retrospectively compared direct costs of IV and subcutaneous reference rituximab in the setting of lymphoma, taking into consideration drug costs, pharmacy costs, and chair time-related costs at a single center in 2017.
Using pharmacy department data, as well as economic data from hospital management software, the research team found that, in 2017, 103 patients with lymphoma received 141 IV cycles of rituximab and 386 cycles of subcutaneous rituximab. The brand-name rituximab cost the hospital €1056.85 (US $1170.19) per vial for IV use and €1334.77 (US $1477.92) per vial for subcutaneous use. The median cost per IV cycle was €1458.45 (US $1614.86), making it more expensive than the fixed-dose subcutaneous formulation to acquire.
Once preparation and facilities use were included in the cost analysis, each IV cycle cost a median of €1955.94 (US $2166.89) versus a fixed cost of €1460.01 (US $1617.47) per cycle of the subcutaneous formulation, for a median savings of €495.93 (US $549.42) per cycle with use of the subcutaneous route of administration.
Testing the same analysis using the costs of biosimilar rituximab, which is available to the hospital at a 15% discount for a savings of €163.77 (US $181.43) per cycle, the authors write that it would be necessary for the price of the IV biosimilar rituximab to be 34% lower than the price of subcutaneous rituximab in order to achieve the same cost as the subcutaneous option.
The authors also note that, though this study did not consider patient preferences, in other studies, 80% to 83% of patients stated a preference for subcutaneous administration because of shorter time, more comfortable administration, and a reduced emotional burden related to receiving their treatment.
“Biosimilars represent an important way to save in healthcare management,” write the authors, noting that “They provide sustainability and must have the support of both private and public administrations. However, they add, “Our study demonstrates an important potential annual saving[s]…using [subcutaneous] rituximab when compared to infusing IV rituximab, [and] this saving still remains even when considering the new IV biosimilar.”
Reference
Sánchez DO, Gutiérrez A, do Pazo F, et al. Comparative cost analysis of intravenous and subcutaneous administration of rituximab in lymphoma patients [published online November 18, 2019]. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S212257.
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?
Patients With IBD Maintain Therapy 2 Years Post Switching to Infliximab Biosimilar
March 23rd 2025People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who switched to the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 had higher treatment persistence (84% and 91%) than those new to infliximab (66% and 53%), with no new safety concerns.
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.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.