Pmu26 - Budget Impact Analysis of Intravenous Biosimilars Compared With Intravenous Originators and Subcutaneous Products

Jang, Yeonsoo; Byrne, Aidan; Toron, Farah; Yoon, Sang-Wook

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.1862

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…36 In a UK budget impact model assessing the cost of adoption of IV biosim-RITUX and IV biosimilar trastuzumab, the higher administration costs of the IV biosimilars versus SC were offset by lower acquisition costs, resulting in a lower total cost for IV biosimilars. 37 Despite the benefits of SC administration to patients and the healthcare system, its wider adoption may be hampered by prevailing health insurance policies and physician reimbursement models. For instance, it has been suggested that higher out-of-pocket costs for selfinjectable medications for rheumatoid arthritis may result in stronger patient preference for infusion biologics.…”

Section: Countervailing Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs

Epstein¹

2021

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought increased attention to vulnerable populations such as older or immunocompromised patients and heightened the focus on alternatives to intravenous (IV) formulations, particularly those that may be administered in a non-clinical setting. Among these alternative formulations are subcutaneous (SC) injections, which comprise an increasing share of commercialized and pipeline therapies. While much has been published about the benefits and limitations of IV versus SC administration to patients and health systems, less attention has been given to payer considerations regarding these routes of administration. Accordingly, this article provides payer perspectives on some of the key differences between IV and SC administration as they relate to management and billing, cost, treatment adherence and safety, and patient preference and quality of life. The benefits and limitations of these drug administration routes to key healthcare stakeholders—namely patients, physicians, and payers—are also discussed. Considerations of relevance are highlighted, including the potential for misalignment of stakeholder interests and countervailing factors that may impact decision-making about IV and SC formulations.

show abstract

Section: Countervailing Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs

Epstein¹

2021

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, a study carried out a budget impact analysis from the National Health Service perspective of introducing intravenous biosimilars in the UK market where the reference product is available as an intravenous and a subcutaneous formulation [16].…”

Section: Trastuzumabmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do biosimilars sustain value, affordability, and access to oncology care?

Simoens

2020

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Systematic Review of Time and Resource Use Costs of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Administration of Oncology Biologics in a Hospital Setting

McCloskey¹,

Ortega²,

Nair³

et al. 2022

PharmacoEconomics Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The introduction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatment options, including dual HER2 blockade, has improved the prognosis for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (BC) substantially. However, most of these treatments are administered via the intravenous (IV) route, which can present many challenges, such as long infusion and observation times, issues associated with repeated IV access, and increased strain on time and resources of medical centers and healthcare professionals. A fixed-dose combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab for subcutaneous (SC) injection (pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and hyaluronidase-zzxf (PHESGO ® , F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; PH FDC SC)) has been approved for use alongside chemotherapy for early-stage and metastatic HER2-positive BC. Objectives This systematic literature review was performed to identify evidence relating to time/resource use and resulting cost differences between SC and IV administration of oncology biologics in a hospital setting, and, ultimately, to inform economic modeling and associated health technology assessment of PH FDC SC. Methods Electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and EconLit) were searched on 9 April 2020. Additional hand searches were performed to identify publications not captured in the electronic database search. Publication screening and data extraction (study characteristics, participants, interventions, costs, and time/resource use) were carried out per the standard Cochrane review methodology. The quality of economic evidence of cost analyses was assessed using the 36-item checklist of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Single Technology Appraisal Specification for submission of evidence (January 2015). Results The database search identified 2,740 records, of which 237 underwent full text screening. Full text screening, prioritization of publications about patients with a cancer diagnosis, and the addition of four citations identified during the hand search resulted in 72 final included publications, relating to 71 unique studies. This included 40 publications that described the time/resource use and/or costs associated with SC versus IV trastuzumab administration for the treatment of HER2-positive BC, and 28 publications that described time/resource use and/or costs associated with rituximab SC versus IV administration for the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma/follicular lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. The majority of publications showed substantial time savings for preparation and administration of SC versus IV therapy, and cost savings associated with reductions in healthcare professional time and resource use for SC administration. Limitations There was a lack of consensus between publications regarding time and cost measurements. In addition, the search was limited to publications related to ...

show abstract

Pmu26 - Budget Impact Analysis of Intravenous Biosimilars Compared With Intravenous Originators and Subcutaneous Products

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs

Payer Perspectives on Intravenous versus Subcutaneous Administration of Drugs

How do biosimilars sustain value, affordability, and access to oncology care?

A Systematic Review of Time and Resource Use Costs of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Administration of Oncology Biologics in a Hospital Setting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About