MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790465790 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.214

A214 A COMPARISON OF REAL-WORLD UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF INNOVATOR AND BIOSIMILAR INFLIXIMAB: A PRESCRIPTION CLAIMS DATA SUBGROUP ANALYSIS OF GERMAN GASTROENTEROLOGISTS

2018· article· en· W2790465790 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emmanuel M. Ewara, Vipul Jairath, Mohamad Kareem Marrache, Xenofon Baraliakos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicroscopic Colitis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiosimilarInfliximabInnovatorDiscontinuationMedical prescriptionPharmacyInternal medicineSubgroup analysisPharmacoepidemiologySurgeryFamily medicineConfidence intervalPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on utilization patterns for innovator infliximab (IFX) and biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in IBD are scarce. Given low uptake of biosimilars in Canada, evaluation of treatment initiation and discontinuation was undertaken in a proxy country, Germany, which has a similar healthcare environment. To compare utilization patterns of patients prescribed IFX and CT-P13 by a gastroenterologist (GI) in a treatment naïve population at 12 months and in patients who continued IFX vs those who switched to CT-P13 at 6 months. Quintiles IMS™ longitudinal health insurance prescription data captured patients with an initial claim of IFX or CT-P13 prescribed by a GI between Feb 2015-Oct 2016. Patients in each analysis had a minimum of either 6 or 12 months of claims history post-index or post-switch and ≥ 2 total claims of IFX or CT-P13. Six-month analyses included a matched and unmatched analysis for IFX exposure prior to switch. Log-binomial regression analyses were conducted to determine the relative risk (RR) of being retained on treatment at 6 or 12 months adjusted for age, sex, biologic status and prescriber. 636 and 655 patients had follow up time for inclusion in the 12-month treatment naïve and 6-month post-switch analyses, respectively. Only IFX to CT-P13 switch utilization was investigated (n=42). The risk adjusted probability of being retained on treatment after 12 months was 19% greater in the IFX group than in the CT-P13 group (RR IFX=1.19, 95%CI: 1.03–1.38, p= 0.0171) (Table 1). In the matched 6 months post-switch analysis the risk adjusted probability of being retained on treatment was 48% greater in the IFX maintenance group than in the CT-P13 switch group (RR IFX=1.48, 95%CI: 1.19–1.85, p=0.0005) (Table 1). Similar results were found in the unmatched analysis (RR IFX =1.56, 95%CI: 1.25–1.94, p<0.0001) (Table 1). Findings from Germany demonstrate significant differences in real-world utilization patterns of patients prescribed IFX or CT-P13 by a GI. Limitations include no distinction between Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, disease severity and the reasons for staying on treatment or switching could not be determined. Although the sample size of the 6 months analysis of patients who switched from IFX to CT-P13 was small, the analysis provides comparative information on utilization patterns – data that is currently scarce. Future analyses should capture clinical outcomes to better understand observed utilization patterns. Table 1: Multivariable Models Results Only reporting variables that are statistically significant (p<0.05) Janssen Inc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicMicroscopic ColitisFrench-language works237,207