The retrospective analysis of practice care delivery measures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center showed substantial time savings for both patients and the healthcare system, researchers report.
A recent study evaluated real‐world practice efficiency changes associated with giving brand-name rituximab by subcutaneous injection, rather than intravenous (IV) administration, by studying differences in the amount of time patients spent receiving the therapy for cancer.
The retrospective analysis of practice care delivery measures at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) showed substantial time savings for both patients and the healthcare system, researchers report.
Patient data for those receiving rituximab for malignancies from September 2016 to September 2018 were extracted from the electronic medical record. Multiple regression techniques were used to analyze the association between treatment type (IV versus subcutaneous) and chair time (defined as the difference in patient room‐in and room‐out times) in the year prior to and after subcutaneous therapy adoption at MSKCC. Model covariates included treatment time and location, therapy type (monotherapy versus combination) and patient demographics. Since the first dose of rituximab took longer, that session was excluded from the analysis.
Data for 6744 visits (3018 visits prior to subcutaneous adoption and 3726 after) for 1503 patients receiving rituximab were collected.
Patients receiving IV combination therapy had a mean chair time of 203 minutes; overall, subcutaneous injection reduced chair time by a mean of 92 min (P <.001).
Monotherapy, regardless of route, reduced time by a mean of 30 min (P <.001) compared with combination therapy; mean chair time was further reduced by 39 min (P <.001) for subcutaneous patients receiving monotherapy.
During the course of the study, chair time continued to fall after adoption of subcutaneous rituximab (P = .042), and the reductions were greater at the lymphoma‐specific site than multispecialty oncology infusion centers (P <.001).
Given increasing constraints on infusion chair space, increased utilization of subcutaneous rituximab may improve practice efficiency and patient access to care, the researchers concluded.
These findings may have relevance for the US biosimilars market; while a subcutaneously administered version of the brand-name rituximab is FDA-approved, no approved biosimilars have a subcutaneous option. It remains to be seen whether the route of administration will impact clinicians’ choice of the reference or the biosimilar options, and if so, in which settings this may be a factor, and whether biosimilar savings will overcome the benefits of reduced chair time.
Reference
Matasar MJ, Qiu A, Shapouri S, et al. Real‐world assessment of practice efficiency with the introduction of subcutaneous rituximab. Presented at: 15th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma Palazzo dei Congressi, June 18-22, 2019; Lugano, Switzerland. Abstract 516.
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.
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: Biosimilar Use, Dose Rounding Produce More Cost Savings Than Either Strategy Alone
November 18th 2023A retrospective study of New England patients receiving trastuzumab or bevacizumab found that combining dose rounding and biosimilar use resulted in greater cost savings than either strategy alone.
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.
Panelists Deliberate Strategies to Enhance Biosimilar Integration in Managed Care Spaces
November 13th 2023At the recent Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus meeting, panelists discussed the impact of introducing biosimilars in new medical fields, emphasizing the need for more education and collaboration to ensure their smooth integration into health care systems.
Public Payer in Poland Saves €243 Million by Using Biosimilar TNF Inhibitors
November 11th 2023The use of biosimilars of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors within Poland’s public payer saved over €243 million from 2013 to 2021, with about 68% of that coming from the rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases alone.