ArticleJAMA health forum2024
Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar RGB-14-P with denosumab in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the transition (switch) phase.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Trial
- A Randomized Phase 1 Study Comparing the PK, PD, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Proposed Biosimilar RGB-14-X and Denosumab in Healthy Adult Males.Clinical and translational science · 2026Trial
- A randomised Phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed denosumab biosimilar RGB-14-P and reference denosumab in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2025Trial
- Understanding Social Drivers of Health Among US Adults with Psoriasis from Different Races and Ethnicities.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Impact of Nonmedical Adalimumab Switches in a Rheumatology Patient Population.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2026Article
- Osteoporosis treatment with biosimilars in Malaysia and Thailand: a budget impact analysis.Archives of osteoporosis · 2026Article
- Integration of Ustekinumab Biosimilars into Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care: Evidence, Implementation, and Patient-Centered Considerations.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Patient out-of-pocket costs and rheumatology biosimilar competition.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026Article
- Impact on hospitals of price reductions for physician-administered biologics.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of proposed biosimilar RGB-19 and tocilizumab intravenously administered to adults with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: a phase 3, randomised study.EULAR rheumatology open · 2026Article
- Applying biotechnology to overcome cancer drug resistance and improve public health outcomes.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2026Article
- Out-of-Pocket Spending for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition for Medicare Patients.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Structure-based virtual screening identifies potent CD28 inhibitors that suppress T cell co-stimulation in cellular and mucosal models.European journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Insulin Glargine Utilization and Spending Before and After the First Biosimilar Insulin Glargine: A Real-World Data Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Biologic Drug Prices in Medicare Part B After Entry of Biosimilars to the Market.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Navigating the Biosimilars from Bench to Bedside in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.Paediatric drugs · 2025Review
- Comparison of the PK, PD, safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of proposed biosimilar RGB-19 and tocilizumab in healthy Japanese males: a phase 1, randomised, crossover study.EULAR rheumatology open · 2025Article
- Biosimilars in dermatology: New opportunities and obstacles.JAAD international · 2025Article
- Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
- Beyond Cost: Observations on Clinical and Patient Benefits of Biosimilars in Real-World Settings.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Biologic drugs account for a growing share of US pharmaceutical spending. Competition from follow-on biosimilar products (subsequent versions that have no clinically meaningful differences from the original biologic) has led to modest reductions in US health care spending, but these savings may not translate to lower out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients. Objective: To investigate whether biosimilar competition is associated with lower OOP spending for patients using biologics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a national commercial claims database (Optum Clinformatics Data Mart) to identify outpatient claims for 1 of 7 clinician-administered biologics (filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, epoetin alfa, bevacizumab, rituximab, and trastuzumab) from January 2009 through March 2022. Claims by commercially insured patients younger than 65 years were included. Exposure: Year relative to first biosimilar availability and use of original or biosimilar version. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients' annual OOP spending on biologics for each calendar year was determined, and OOP spending per claim between reference biologic and biosimilar versions was compared. Two-part regression models assessed for differences in OOP spending, adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics (age, sex, US Census region, health plan type, diagnosis, and place of service) and year relative to initial biosimilar entry. Results: Over 1.7 million claims from 190 364 individuals (median [IQR] age, 53 [42-59] years; 58.3% females) who used at least 1 of the 7 biologics between 2009 and 2022 were included in the analysis. Over 251 566 patient-years of observation, annual OOP costs increased before and after biosimilar availability. Two years after the start of biosimilar competition, the adjusted odds ratio of nonzero annual OOP spending was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.04-1.12; P < .001) and average nonzero annual spending was 12% higher (95% CI, 10%-14%; P < .001) compared with the year before biosimilar competition. After biosimilars became available, claims for biosimilars were more likely than reference biologics to have nonzero OOP costs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.11-1.16]; P < .001) but had 8% lower mean nonzero OOP costs (adjusted mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93; P < .001). Findings varied by drug. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this cohort study suggest that biosimilar competition was not consistently associated with lower OOP costs for commercially insured outpatients, highlighting the need for targeted policy interventions to ensure that the savings generated from biosimilar competition translate into increased affordability for patients who need biologics.
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.