MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

4CPS-254 Biosimilar rituximab – a year beyond

2019· article· en· W2944589946 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mafalda Sá Pereira, Giovanna de Oliveira Sá Costa, S Domingos-Camões, A Alcobia

Bibliographic record

VenueSection 4: Clinical pharmacy services · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsBiosimilarRituximabMedicineDiscontinuationRheumatoid arthritisPharmacyRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineOncologyLymphomaFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> The introduction of a biosimilar drug represents similar efficacy at lower cost, providing savings without compromising patient treatment. In oncology, biological therapies account for more than 33% of health expenses.<sup>1</sup> Rituximab has a particular profile of first infusion-related reactions (IRR), such as hypersensitivity reactions, hypotension and cardio-respiratory compromise, which may lead to treatment discontinuation.<sup>2</sup> <h3>Purpose</h3> To evaluate the safety profile of biosimilar rituximab in the approved indications and the economic impact of the introduction of biosimilar rituximab. <h3>Material and methods</h3> Retrospective analysis of first IRR reported to the pharmacy services or described in the patient file with biosimilar rituximab, between July 2017 and July 2018. The switch to biosimilar rituximab was performed in all patients. <h3>Results</h3> During the analysis period, 127 patients had been treated with biosimilar rituximab. According to their pathology, they were classified into two categories: oncological, 48% and non-oncological disorders, 52%, which included rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and off-label use. In the oncological group, the switch was carried out in 9.8% of patients, 90.2% were naïve. The mean time between the last administration of rituximab and the first administration of biosimilar rituximab was 34 days [(21–58 days). Three suspension cases of biosimilar rituximab have been reported, resulting in two successful re-challenges and one permanent discontinuation. The rate of first IRR was 6.5% in oncological disorders, with three severe reactions (4.9%). Regarding the non-oncological group, the switch was performed in 39.4% of patients, 60.6% were naïve. The mean switch time was 13.6 months (0.9–48 months). One case of suspension was reported, which resulted in a successful re-challenge. The rate of first IRR was 2.9% for RA, with no severe reactions. Biosimilar rituximab introduction translated into a 64% cost reduction of €1 71 000. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Biosimilar rituximab introduction resulted in significant savings (64%) with no major changes in safety profile (4.5% oncological disorders and none for RA of severe first IRR), when compared with the summary of product characteristics of the originator (12% and 0.5%).<sup>2</sup> The difference may be associated with an underestimated report, since it is a commonly used drug with a known IRR profile. <h3>References and/or acknowledgements</h3> 1. http://www.infarmed.pt/documents/15786/2682984/junho/34525a26–4c19–4035–8132-cfdb29105022?version=1.0 2. Mabthera SPC available at: https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/product-information/mabthera-epar-product-information_en.pdf No conflict of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.346 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSection 4: Clinical pharmacy servicesSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207