Potential and Realized Cost Savings with the Use of the Biosimilar Grastofil Vs Neupogen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Filgrastim was first introduced to the Canadian marketplace as Neupogen® in 1992 to treat neutropenia caused by chemotherapy regimens. In 2009, the first biosimilar drug was approved for use in Canada, and in March 2016, a biosimilar for filgrastim (Grastofil®) became available. Biosimilars represent safe, effective, and cost effective alternatives to originator biologic medications. However, although biosimilar medications present opportunities for significant cost savings to the health care system, overall uptake and use of biosimilar medications in North America has been low. The aim of this study was to describe the overall use of the filgrastim products Grastofil® and Neupogen® in Canada. Methods: A retrospective analysis of Canadian drug purchases between July 2016 and June 2018 was performed for the drug filgrastim (Neupogen®, Grastofil®). The data used to estimate drug purchases were obtained from IQVIA™, a multi-national healthcare analytics company. Samples from the IQVIA™ Canadian Drugstore and Hospital Purchases (CDH) audit covered greater than 88% of the hospital market and one-third of the retail market. Samples were stratified by region, market size, and type of outlet (e.g. cancer centers, long-term care). For each drug, the total purchase dollar amounts were provided by province on a month by month basis. Potential cost-savings were calculated as a product between the units of each product purchased and the cost difference between Neupogen® and the biosimilar Grastofil® on a quarterly basis for each province. Results: Between July 1st, 2016 and June 30th, 2018, Grastofil® accounted for 27.0% (382,254/1,415,762 units) of filgrastim purchases. During this time period, $62,061,576 was spent on Grastofil® purchases and $204,152,590 was spent on Neupogen® purchases. Through use of the biosimilar Grastofil®, $13,443,873 (37.0%) in savings were realized. Had there been 100% use of the biosimilar Grastofil®, it would have resulted in $36,348,476 in cost savings. In the first quarter (July to September 2016) Grastofil® accounted for 1.5% of filgrastim purchases, whereas in the April to June 2018 quarter it increased to 43.6% of filgrastim purchases. The overall percentage of filgrastim units purchased by Canadian province varied substantially. The market share captured by Grastofil® ranged from a low of 0.08% ($4007/$5,189,623) in the province of Nova Scotia, to a high of 81.62% ($932,864/$1,142,905) in the province of Saskatchewan. Canada's largest province, Ontario, saw Grastofil® account for 44.7% ($9,047,489/$20,229,421) of purchases during this time period. Discussion: Although the biosimilar Grastofil® only accounted for 27% of filgrastim purchases between 2016 and 2018, there was substantial growth over this time period. By the end of June 2018, Grastofil® accounted for approximately 44% of filgrastim purchases, which is substantially higher than other biosimilar medications currently available in Canada. There are also stark differences between each province, whereas some had little to no use of the biosimilar, whereby in other provinces the purchases of Grastofil® outnumbered the purchases of Neupogen®. Had there been exclusive use of the biosimilar, an additional $23 million dollars in savings could have been realized. Conclusions: The use of biosimilars represents an opportunity for cost savings to be realized in an over-extended health care system. Although there appears to be acceptance for the use of Grastofil® as the overall purchases trended up from 2016 to 2018, there are still significant cost savings that could be realized by greater use of biosimilar drugs. Disclosures Mansell: Apobiologix: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».