Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34815261›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Projected impact of biosimilar substitution policies on drug use and costs in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional time series analysis.

Tara Gomes, Daniel McCormack, Sophie A Kitchen, J Michael Paterson, Muhammad M Mamdani, Laurie Proulx, Lorraine Bayliss, Mina Tadrous

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tara GomesUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont. tara.gomes@unityhealth.to.
Daniel McCormackUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
Sophie A KitchenUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
J Michael PatersonUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
Muhammad M MamdaniUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
Laurie ProulxUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
Lorraine BaylissUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
Mina TadrousUnity Health Toronto and the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute (Gomes, Kitchen, Mamdani), St. Michael's Hospital; ICES (Gomes, McCormack, Paterson, Mamdani, Tadrous); Canada; Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation (Gomes, Paterson, Mamdani), and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy (Gomes, Mamdani, Tadrous) at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont.; Department of Family Medicine (Paterson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Women's College Hospital (Tadrous), Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (Gomes, McCormack, Kitchen, Paterson, Mamdani, Proulx, Bayliss, Tadrous), Toronto, Ont.
St Michael’s Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral Canadian provinces have introduced reimbursement policies mandating substitution of innovator biologics with lower-cost biosimilars. We estimated the number of patients affected and cost implications if such policy changes were to be implemented in Ontario, Canada.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional time series analysis of Ontarians dispensed publicly funded biologics indicated for inflammatory diseases (rheumatic conditions, inflammatory bowel disease: infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab) between January 2018 and December 2019, and forecasted trends to Dec. 31, 2020. The primary source of data was pharmacy claims data for all biologics reimbursed by the public drug program. We modelled the number of patients affected and government expenditures (in nominal Canadian dollars) of several biosimilar policy options, including mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution, substitution in new users, introduction of a biosimilar for adalimumab, and price negotiations. In a secondary analysis, we included insulin glargine.

resultsIn 2018, 14 089 individuals were prescribed a publicly funded biologic for inflammatory diseases. A mandatory nonmedical biosimilar substitution would potentially have affected 7209 patients and saved $238.6 million from 2018 to 2020. A new-user substitution would have affected 757 patients and saved $34.2 million. If an adalimumab biosimilar were to become available, 12 928 patients would be affected by a mandatory nonmedical substitution and the 3-year savings would increase to $645.9 million (all biosimilars priced at 25% of innovator biologics). Finally, an expanded nonmedical substitution policy including insulin glargine would affect 115 895 patients and save $288.7 million (not including adalimumab).

interpretationPolicies designed to curb rising costs of biologics can have substantially different effects on patients and government expenditures. Such analyses warrant careful consideration of the balance between cost savings and effects on patients.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsDrug CostsAdolescentAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDrug and Narcotic ControlDrug PrescriptionsFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioReimbursement MechanismsBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID34815261
PMCPMC8612652
OpenAlexW3217724730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.