On Saturday, December 9, at the American Society of Hematology’s 59th Annual Meeting and Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, Scott Huntington, MD, MPH, will present his research team’s findings that the receipt of lymphoma care in the community-based setting is associated with guideline-discordant use of rituximab.
On Saturday, December 9, at the American Society of Hematology’s 59th Annual Meeting and Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, Scott Huntington, MD, MPH, will present his research team’s findings that the receipt of lymphoma care in the community-based setting is associated with guideline-discordant use of rituximab.1
Maintenance rituximab monotherapy has been shown to improve progression-free survival in some lymphoma settings, but current guidelines support only 2 years of rituximab maintenance. Data from studies in other disease states suggest that financial incentives may influence the use of infused therapies in US patients, and Huntington and colleagues sought to determine whether community providers (who may have financial incentives to provide rituximab beyond guideline-based time periods) were more likely than hospital-employed providers to prescribe extended maintenance rituximab.
Using the SEER-Medicare database, the researchers identified older adults who were diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma between 2004 and 2011 and who had at least 1 claim for rituximab through 2013. Patients were included in the study if they had more than 7 months of claims for rituximab without a 200-day gap between claims.
The number of rituximab monotherapy claims and the duration of maintenance therapy were calculated for each patient until the receipt of chemotherapy, a 200-day gap in rituximab claims, or death, and the site of rituximab administration was classified as community or hospital-outpatient (as identified on Medicare claims). A logistic regression model was employed to assess the association between care setting and the prolonged use of rituximab monotherapy.
Overall, 2620 patients with 2 years of available follow-up after initiation of rituximab maintenance were identified; 75.1% received their rituximab therapy in a community setting. The median number of rituximab maintenance doses received was 9 (range, 1-103), and the median duration of maintenance was 14 months (range, 0-92), with 261 (10.0%) of patients receiving uninterrupted rituximab maintenance for more than 2 years.
Patients in the community setting were more likely to receive rituximab maintenance for longer than the guideline-recommended period; 11% of patients in the community setting versus 6.9% of patients in the hospital setting received more than 2 years of rituximab maintenance. Furthermore, treatment in a community setting was significantly associated with a patient’s receipt of more than 2 years of maintenance (adjusted odds ration [OR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.10-2.20; P = .012) as well as with receipt of more than 12 doses of rituximab as monotherapy (adjusted OR = 2.01, 95% CI, 1.63-2.48; P < .001).
The authors concluded that receipt of lymphoma care in the community setting is associated with guideline-discordant use of rituximab, and that financial incentives for using anti-cancer therapies in this setting may contribute to the overuse of rituximab.
“Providers practicing in the physician-office setting are more likely to derive income directly from chemotherapy administration compared to hospital-employed physicians,” Huntington told The Center for Biosimilars® over email. “Prior research suggests physicians in community settings are more responsive to reimbursement changes in their choice of chemotherapy regimens compared to hospital-employed providers.”
While it is not known whether changes to reimbursement translate into treatment that is discordant with guidelines, Huntington said that “Financial incentives likely contribute to overutilization during rituximab maintenance, and future studies should consider treatment setting when evaluating cancer-therapy utilization. Our findings support ongoing efforts to minimize financial incentives tied to chemotherapy administration to better align payment with high quality care.”
Reference
1. Huntington S, Hoag J, Zhu W, Gross CP, Davidoff, AJ. Financial incentives and rituximab maintenance: association of treatment with prolonged maintenance in non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated in the United States. Presented at the American Society of Hematology 59th Annual Meeting and Exposition, December 9, 2017; Atlanta, Georgia. Abstract 2120. https://ash.confex.com/ash/2017/webprogram/Paper103349.html
The 6 Key Policy Factors to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 16th 2024Magnus Bodin, senior director and head of international access and policy at Biogen, presented warning signs for unsustainable biosimilar markets as well as key factors needed to create effective policies and future-proof biosimilar markets globally.
Exploring the Biosimilar Horizon: Julie Reed's Predictions for 2024
February 18th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, returns to discuss her predictions for the biosimilar industry for 2024 and beyond as well as the impact that the Forum's 4 new members will have on the organization's mission.
Global Biosimilar Market Projected to Reach $1.3 Trillion by 2032
April 11th 2024The global biosimilar market is projected to surge from $25.1 billion in 2022 to approximately $1.3 trillion by 2032, with a compound annual growth rate of 17.6%, driven mainly by the increasing prevalence of cancer and the cost-effectiveness of biosimilars, as outlined in a report by Towards Healthcare.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
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.