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.
What Clinicians Need to Know About Using Biosimilars to Treat IBD
April 13th 2024A review article, intended to act as a guide for clinicians, summarizes the available infliximab and adalimumab biosimilars for treating inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) as well as others that are coming down the pipeline.
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.
Study: More Biosimilar Competition Is Not Lowering Patient OOP Costs
March 29th 2024Despite more biosimilars entering the market and generating significant savings for payers and health care systems, these savings are not resulting in lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients, according to a recent study.
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.
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.