ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2018
Comparative Price Analysis of Biological Products for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of jakinibs in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy of methotrexate in reducing the risk of bone erosion in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2021Pooled it
- Indirect Costs of Rheumatoid Arthritis Depending on Type of Treatment-A Systematic Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Comparing cost-utility of DMARDs in autoantibody-negative rheumatoid arthritis patients.Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2021Trial
- Randomized, Parallel Group, Open-Label Bioequivalence Trial of Intramuscular Pegaspargase in Patients With Relapsed Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.JCO global oncology · 2020Trial
- Review
- Cell-Based Therapy and Genome Editing as Emerging Therapeutic Approaches to Treat Rheumatoid Arthritis.Cells · 2024Review
- Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19.PloS one · 2024Article
- Fostering healthcare system sustainability through efficient practices: Can adopting biosimilars ease the financial burden of rheumatoid arthritis?F1000Research · 2024Review
- Bronchiectasis is as crucial as interstitial lung disease in the severe pneumonia that occurs during treatment with biologic DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective cohort study in a single facility.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
- Trends and frontiers of research on pharmacoeconomics from 2012-2021: a scientometric analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Reestablish immune tolerance in rheumatoid arthritis.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Did the Introduction of Biosimilars Influence Their Prices and Utilization? The Case of Biologic Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (bDMARD) in Bulgaria.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Policies to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars in European Countries and Their Potential Impact on Pharmaceutical Expenditure.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Review
- Preclinical rheumatoid arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis prevention.Current opinion in rheumatology · 2020Review
- Update on the Pathomechanism, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options for Rheumatoid Arthritis.Cells · 2020Review
- Clinical and Economic Impact of Ibalizumab for People With Multidrug-Resistant HIV in the United States.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2020Article
- Availability of drugs for severe COVID-19 in sub-Saharan Africa.The Pan African medical journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biological products for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis usually are cost effective for healthcare systems in Europe, but they are huge financial burden due to the high number of patients and the significant budget impact. The expected saving from introduction on the market of biosimilars are significant and are linked to better access and affordability. The aim of this study was to conduct comparative price analysis of biological products for rheumatoid arthritis therapy among seventeen EU countries. The point of view is that of the Bulgarian pricing and reimbursement system and the chosen countries are those from external reference basket for prices comparison at manufacturing level. All authorized biological products by EMA with therapeutic indication rheumatoid arthritis were selected. The access for treatment is evaluated as the availability of the product on the market and the prices level. We assessed the availability of all trade names in the price lists of the observed countries. The prices data was obtained from the official web pages of the responsible institutions up to date December 2017. The results show that four out of all six INNs have authorized biosimilars in EMA. Despite its earlier authorization biosimilar adalimumab is not present in any of the price lists of countries. From all eighteen countries only in Lithuania and Estonia there were no published prices of any of the selected medicinal products. Countries with higher number of biosimilar prices are Spain and France. Differences in manufacturers' prices of reference biological products in selected countries in comparison with the lowest manufacturer price are higher with 22 to 69% while the retail prices between 62 and 95%. Differences are mostly notable for rituximab, and less notable for tocilizumab. Manufacturers' and retail prices of biosimilar products were established only for three INNs (etanercept, rituximab, and infliximab). Manufacturers' prices differ between 26 and 75%, while retail prices differ between 40 and 92% for biosimilars. Comparison of the differences between manufacturer prices of reference biological product and biosimilars shows 36% difference for etanercept, 39% for rituximab, and 31% for infliximab, while at retail level the differences are 11, 86, and 143%, respectively. The limitation of the study is that the prices are the official ones without discounts due to confidentiality and the real prices may be lower. The second limitation is that the methodology for pricing differs in the countries and this could also influence the prices on both levels (manufacturer and retail). Introduction of biosimilars on the national markets led to significant decrease in reimbursed prices paid by public funds and thus might benefit the patients' access to biological therapy. The decrease of prices after biosimilars entrance on the market is not as notable as for commodity generics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.