Patterns of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor (<scp>TNF</scp>i) Biosimilar Use Across United States Rheumatology Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is unclear if biosimilars of biologics for inflammatory arthritis are realizing their promise to increase competition and improve accessibility. This study evaluates biosimilar tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) utilization across rheumatology practices in the United States and compares whether patients initiating biosimilars remain on these treatments at least as long as new initiators of bio-originators. METHODS: We identified a cohort of patients initiating a TNFi biosimilar between January 2017 and September 2018 from an electronic health record registry containing data from 218 rheumatology practices and over 1 million rheumatology patients in the United States. We also identified a cohort of patients who initiated the bio-originator TNFi during the same period. We calculated the proportion of biosimilar prescriptions compared with other TNFi's and compared persistence on these therapies, adjusting for age, sex, diagnoses codes, and insurance type. RESULTS: We identified 909 patients prescribed the biosimilar infliximab-dyyb, the only biosimilar prescribed, and 4413 patients with a new prescription for the bio-originator infliximab. Biosimilar patients tended to be older, have a diagnosis code for rheumatoid arthritis, and covered by Medicare insurance. Over the study period, biosimilar prescriptions reached a maximum of 3.5% of all TNFi prescriptions. Patients persisted on the biosimilar at least as long as the bio-originator infliximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The uptake of biosimilars in the United States remains low despite persistence on infliximab-dyyb being similar to the infliximab bio-originator. These results add to clinical studies that should provide greater confidence to patients and physicians regarding biosimilar use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".