MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404935841 · doi:10.1111/1475-6773.14410

Drivers of infliximab biosimilar uptake: A comparative analysis of new biosimilar initiations versus switching in a national rheumatology registry

2024· article· en· W4404935841 on OpenAlexaff
Eric T. Roberts, Nick Bansback, Chien‐Wen Tseng, Stephen Shiboski, Jing Li, Gabriela Schmajuk, Jinoos Yazdany

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsBiosimilarMedicineInfliximabMedicaidRheumatologyFamily medicineInternal medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the variability in new infliximab biosimilar starts as well as switching from bio-originator to biosimilar infliximab, across insurance payers and rheumatology practices nationally. STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN: Data came from Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness, a national registry with electronic health records from over 1100 US rheumatologists. Key outcomes include ever use of a biosimilar, date of initiation, and date of switching. Key variables of interest include insurance payer and practice. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: Secondary analysis of 37,560 patients aged ≥18 years administered infliximab (bio-originator or biosimilar) between April 2016 and September 2022 in Rheumatology Informatics System for Effectiveness. We tested for differences in use of biosimilar infliximab by demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, and diagnosis using standard mean differences and multivariable modified Poisson regression. We used generalized estimating equations to assess the adjusted effect of insurance and year of initiation on new biosimilar starts. We analyzed variation in biosimilar switching by insurance, date of switch, and practice. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A total of 8196 (21.8%) infliximab users ever used a biosimilar and use did not differ significantly by demographic or clinical characteristics. In 2022, uptake among new users was higher among those with Medicaid (55%; 95%CI 43%-68%) and private insurance (51%; 95%CI 46%-57%) compared to Medicare (36%; 95%CI 29%-43%). Few prevalent bio-originator infliximab users switched to a biosimilar, and switching was lowest among Medicare beneficiaries (7% vs. 14.2% in Medicaid and 16.9% among privately insured). In adjusted analyses, practice level differences explained 37% of variation among new biosimilar starts and 34% of variation among those switching to a biosimilar. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore two critical areas for enhancing biosimilar infliximab usage: increasing switching among prevalent users and increasing uptake among Medicare beneficiaries initiating treatment. Significant variation in uptake across practices also suggests that local switching policies are likely key drivers of uptake.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Services ResearchSame topicBiosimilars and Bioanalytical MethodsFrench-language works237,207