This week, a study from Spain retrospectively compared direct costs of intravenous and subcutaneous reference rituximab in the setting of lymphoma, taking into consideration drug costs, pharmacy costs, and chair time-related costs at a single center in 2017. They also conducted the same analysis using the costs of biosimilar rituximab.
This month, the United States saw its first rituximab biosimilar become available for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. While the launch was greeted with excitement, some have questioned whether the 10% list price discount for the biosimilar, Truxima, is adequate to drive uptake, especially given the fact that other biosimilars (for different reference products) are now entering the US marketplace at discounts approaching 40%.
As the brand-name rituximab, Rituxan, is also available in a subcutaneously administered formulation that reduced chair time and administration costs, questions remain about how willing providers will be to adopt the intravenously (IV) delivered biosimilar.
This week, a study from Spain, where biosimilar rituximab is already available, retrospectively compared direct costs of IV and subcutaneous reference rituximab in the setting of lymphoma, taking into consideration drug costs, pharmacy costs, and chair time-related costs at a single center in 2017.
Using pharmacy department data, as well as economic data from hospital management software, the research team found that, in 2017, 103 patients with lymphoma received 141 IV cycles of rituximab and 386 cycles of subcutaneous rituximab. The brand-name rituximab cost the hospital €1056.85 (US $1170.19) per vial for IV use and €1334.77 (US $1477.92) per vial for subcutaneous use. The median cost per IV cycle was €1458.45 (US $1614.86), making it more expensive than the fixed-dose subcutaneous formulation to acquire.
Once preparation and facilities use were included in the cost analysis, each IV cycle cost a median of €1955.94 (US $2166.89) versus a fixed cost of €1460.01 (US $1617.47) per cycle of the subcutaneous formulation, for a median savings of €495.93 (US $549.42) per cycle with use of the subcutaneous route of administration.
Testing the same analysis using the costs of biosimilar rituximab, which is available to the hospital at a 15% discount for a savings of €163.77 (US $181.43) per cycle, the authors write that it would be necessary for the price of the IV biosimilar rituximab to be 34% lower than the price of subcutaneous rituximab in order to achieve the same cost as the subcutaneous option.
The authors also note that, though this study did not consider patient preferences, in other studies, 80% to 83% of patients stated a preference for subcutaneous administration because of shorter time, more comfortable administration, and a reduced emotional burden related to receiving their treatment.
“Biosimilars represent an important way to save in healthcare management,” write the authors, noting that “They provide sustainability and must have the support of both private and public administrations. However, they add, “Our study demonstrates an important potential annual saving[s]…using [subcutaneous] rituximab when compared to infusing IV rituximab, [and] this saving still remains even when considering the new IV biosimilar.”
Reference
Sánchez DO, Gutiérrez A, do Pazo F, et al. Comparative cost analysis of intravenous and subcutaneous administration of rituximab in lymphoma patients [published online November 18, 2019]. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. doi: 10.2147/CEOR.S212257.
Biosimilar Substitution Can Reduce TCOC, Improve Provider Performance in Value-Based Payment Models
December 7th 2023A simulation study estimated the impact of biosimilar substitution on total cost of care (TCOC) and provider financial performance in the final performance period of the Oncology Care Model.
Study Documents HCPs’ Experiences of a Mandatory Switch to Inform Future Transitions
December 2nd 2023A survey explores the experiences of health care providers (HCP) in New Zealand throughout the transition process following a mandatory switch from the adalimumab originator (Humira) to a biosimilar in 2022.
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.
IQVIA Highlights Opportunity to Cash In on Biosimilars for Biologics Losing Market Exclusivity
November 29th 2023A report from IQVIA noted that Europe could miss out on €15 billion in cost savings by not having biosimilars for medications about to lose market exclusivity, shedding light on the implications for overall health care savings and ultimately, patient access.
HHS Praises Biosimilars Savings but Opportunities to Reduce Part B Spending Remain
November 28th 2023Although biosimilars have already generated savings for Medicare Part B programs and beneficiaries, opportunities for substantial reductions in spending remain, according to a report from the HHS.