The retrospective analysis of practice care delivery measures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showed substantial time savings for both patients and the healthcare system, researchers report.
A recent study evaluated real‐world practice efficiency changes associated with giving brand-name rituximab by subcutaneous injection, rather than intravenous (IV) administration, by studying differences in the amount of time patients spent receiving the therapy for cancer.
The retrospective analysis of practice care delivery measures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) showed substantial time savings for both patients and the healthcare system, researchers report.
Patient data for those receiving rituximab for malignancies from September 2016 to September 2018 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Multiple regression techniques were used to analyze the association between treatment type (IV versus subcutaneous) and chair time (defined as the difference in patient room‐in and room‐out times) in the year prior to and after subcutaneous therapy adoption at MSKCC. Model covariates included treatment time and location, therapy type (monotherapy versus combination) and patient demographics. Since the first dose of rituximab took longer, that session was excluded from the analysis.
Data for 6744 visits (3018 visits prior to subcutaneous adoption and 3726 after) for 1503 patients receiving rituximab were collected.
Patients receiving IV combination therapy had a mean chair time of 203 minutes; overall, subcutaneous injection reduced chair time by a mean of 92 min (P <.001).
Monotherapy, regardless of route, reduced time by a mean of 30 min (P <.001) compared with combination therapy; mean chair time was further reduced by 39 min (P <.001) for subcutaneous patients receiving monotherapy.
During the course of the study, chair time continued to fall after adoption of subcutaneous rituximab (P = .042), and the reductions were greater at the lymphoma‐specific site than multispecialty oncology infusion centers (P <.001).
Given increasing constraints on infusion chair space, increased utilization of subcutaneous rituximab may improve practice efficiency and patient access to care, the researchers concluded.
These findings may have relevance for the US biosimilars market; while a subcutaneously administered version of the brand-name rituximab is FDA-approved, no approved biosimilars have a subcutaneous option. It remains to be seen whether the route of administration will impact clinicians’ choice of the reference or the biosimilar options, and if so, in which settings this may be a factor, and whether biosimilar savings will overcome the benefits of reduced chair time.
Reference
Matasar MJ, Qiu A, Shapouri S, et al. Real‐world assessment of practice efficiency with the introduction of subcutaneous rituximab. Presented at: 15th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma Palazzo dei Congressi, June 18-22, 2019; Lugano, Switzerland. Abstract 516.
Physician and Patient Perspectives After Starting or Switching to Amgevita in IBD
March 23rd 2024A real-world study surveying physicians and patients on adalimumab biosimilar ABP 501 (Amgevita) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) found both patients initiating ABP 501 and those who had switched from the reference product had higher satisfaction levels.
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.
The Role of Biosimilars: Advancing Access, Financial Health, and System Sustainability
March 11th 2024Kashyap Patel, MD, CEO of Carolina Blood and Cancer Care, a member of the Community Oncology Alliance, and member of The Center for Biosimilars® Advisory Board, glances back at the development of the biosimilar industry and the last 5 years of progress.
Pipelines and Preparation: How the US Can Prepare for More RA Biosimilars
April 16th 2023What can practices do to prepare for all the biosimilars to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) coming down the pipeline? And how can they ensure that the lower-than-anticipated adoption rates for infliximab biosimilars are not repeated? Robert Zutaut, RPh, from McKesson Provider Solutions, tackles all this and more on this episode of Not So Different.
Cardinal Health Report Showcases Biosimilar Growth, Provider and Payer Evolution, and More
February 29th 2024In its annual biosimilars report, Cardinal Health provided updates on how provider acceptance growth, evolving payer dynamics, and the growing pipeline for biosimilars will shape the biosimilar landscape over the next 5 years.
Biosimilar Substitution Within OCM Could Result in Lower Total Cost of Care
February 16th 2024Researchers found that the total cost of care per oncology episode was significantly lowered when biosimilar substitution was implemented in Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM), suggesting that biosimilar uptake can serve as a critical tool to mitigate risk and improve financial performance for providers.