The objective was to project incremental cost differences between [IV Truxima] and [SC-Rituxan] over 1 year for a hypothetical 5-million-member US healthcare insured (Medicare) population.
Sizeable savings per patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were anticipated by a Medicare savings model.
A model of rituximab use that involved transitioning a portion of patients to intravenous rituximab biosimilar (Truxima) from a subcutaneous originator rituximab (Rituxan) formulation demonstrated savings of $2359 to $8186 per patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), investigators reported at this year's American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.
Truxima is a CD20-directed monoclonal antibody and was the first of 3 rituximab biosimilars approved in the United States.
Investigators based their savings analysis on a 5-million-member insured population (Medicare) in which 972 patients would be treated for NHL or CLL during a 1-year span. Of those patients, 49 would receive subcutaneous rituximab/hyaluronidase (SC-R). For purposes of the study, investigators assumed that 25% of the 49 patients (n = 13) would receive intravenous biosimilar treatment (IV-R-BIOSIM).
The 1-year model factored in drug and administration costs and assumed efficacy and safety would be equivalent between the 2 cohorts. For the IV-R-BIOSIM dosing, the investigators assumed body surface area of 1.8m2.
The objective was to project incremental cost differences between [IV Truxima] and [SC-Rituxan] over 1 year for a hypothetical 5-million-member US healthcare insured (Medicare) population.
They also assumed annual dose counts (with either IV-R-BIOSIM or SC-R) of 10 for untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) with maintenance; 8, untreated FL without maintenance, relapsed/refractory FL, or untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; and 6, CLL. Duration of IV-R-BIOSIM infusion was assumed to be 3 hours. SC-R costs included an initial IV Rituxan dose.
For the 13 patients who received the hypothetical IV-R-BIOSIM dosing, estimated total 1-year savings were $57,864. The investigators said their budget impact model was most sensitive to low or high body surface area dosing and the proportion of patients with CLL.
“These findings demonstrate the potential economic benefits of IV-R-BIOSIM vs SC-R that may result in expanded access to rituximab therapy,” they said.
Reference
James E, Trautman H, McBride A, Choudhry A, Thompson S. US budget impact analysis of an intravenous rituximab biosimilar versus subcutaneous rituximab for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Presented at: ASCO 2021; June 3-7, 2021. Abstract e18821.
Biosimilars Development Roundup for October 2024—Podcast Edition
November 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the GRx+Biosims conference, which included discussions on data transparency, artificial intelligence (AI), and collaboration to enhance the global supply chain for biosimilars and generic drugs, as well as the evolving requirements for biosimilar devices.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Skinny Labeling
January 2nd 2025To close out the year, 4 senators came together to introduce a new bipartisan bill to protect biosimilar and generic drug manufacturers from patent litigation when obtaining “skinny label” approvals for their products.
The Top 5 Most-Read Policy Articles of 2024
December 28th 2024The top biosimilar policy articles of 2024 highlight advancements that include FDA guidance to simplify biosimilar interchangeability and CMS drug price negotiations under the Inflation Reduction Act, alongside challenges posed by pharmacy benefit manager rebate practices and the need for more active stakeholder engagement.