A retrospective study using a large US claims database of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis suggests that extensive above-label use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab occurs in many patients who take these biologics, and leads to higher costs.
A retrospective study using a large US claims database of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis suggests that extensive above-label use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab occurs in 20%, 2.6%, and 14.8% of patients, respectively, who take these biologics.
The practice of above-label use (defined as dosing at least 10% higher than indicated on a product’s label for 180 days or more over a 12-month period following the maintenance period) was associated with additional costs beyond those that would have been incurred with on-label use, according to the researchers, who were led by Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD. The study, sponsored by Novartis, appears in the Journal of Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy.
The authors said it is important to know how often off-label and above-label dosing occurs in order to gain a better understanding of real-world costs, because cost-of-treatment estimates are often based on labeled dosing, especially in budget impact and cost-effectiveness analyses.
The study used data from the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Encounters Database and the Medicare Supplemental Database for the period between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013. Data were from 3310 patients with psoriasis who were aged 18 or older and had at least 1 claim for a biologic of interest. Patients had at least 1 prescription filled for the biologic during the “look-forward” period (extending for 18 months after the end of the maintenance period) to ensure that patients were on a continuous treatment with the biologic. Patients began receiving treatment with etanercept (n = 1443), adalimumab (n = 1447), or ustekinumab (n = 420).
The mean duration of extensive above-label use was roughly similar for the 3 treatments. Additional annual costs per patient that resulted from extensive above-label use were $19,458 for etanercept, $18,972 for adalimumab, and $21,045 for ustekinumab. The total additional annual costs incurred were $5,623,362 for etanercept, $701,964 for adalimumab, and $1,304,790 for ustekinumab.
The researchers said that the mean duration of extensive above-label use was high with all 3 of the biologics, and exceeded 275 days over the 12-month follow-up period. They also noted that, because the additional costs assessed in their study only capture extra treatment costs, the other costs are not included. These additional costs include increased medical costs, costs of office visits, and costs due to treatment of adverse events or worsened side-effects from above-label dosing. “The real additional total costs associated with above-label dosing will be higher than reported in this study, and future studies are needed to look into the overall economic impact,” they said.
The researchers noted that their pharmacy claims database approach did not allow them to speculate on why above-label use was substantially less prevalent with adalimumab than with etanercept or ustekinumab, and whether that use was a result of differential efficacy or other factors. It is possible that some individuals require higher dosing to achieve the same results. “This subject warrants further research because it has implications for maximizing the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapy,” they concluded.
Biosimilar Market Development Requires Strategic Flexibility and Global Partnerships
April 29th 2025Thriving in the evolving biosimilar market demands bold collaboration, early global partnerships, and a fresh approach to development strategies to overcome uncertainty and drive future success.
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?
Eye on Pharma: Sandoz Files Antitrust Suit; Yuflyma Interchangeability; Costco’s Ustekinumab Pick
April 22nd 2025Sandoz's antitrust suit against Amgen, the FDA’s interchangeability designation for Celltrion’s adalimumab biosimilar, and the inclusion of an ustekinumab biosimilar in Costco’s prescription program highlight growing momentum to expand biosimilar access and affordability for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.
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.
How State Substitution Laws Shape Insulin Biosimilar Adoption
April 15th 2025States with fewer restrictions on biosimilar substitution tend to see higher uptake of interchangeable insulin glargine, showing how even small policy details can significantly influence biosimilar adoption and expand access to more affordable insulin.
Latest Biosimilar Deals Signal Growth Across Immunology, Oncology Markets
April 14th 2025During Q1 2025, pharmaceutical companies accelerated biosimilar expansion through strategic acquisitions and partnerships in hopes of boosting patient access to lower-cost treatments in immunology and oncology.