Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38551589›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2024

Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs for Biologic Drugs After Biosimilar Competition.

Kimberly Feng, Massimiliano Russo, Luca Maini, Aaron S Kesselheim, Benjamin N Rome

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. 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 · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Impact of Nonmedical Adalimumab Switches in a Rheumatology Patient Population.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Patient out-of-pocket costs and rheumatology biosimilar competition.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Switching from Adalimumab Reference Product to and Among Adalimumab Biosimilars Outside the USA: Insights for US Clinicians.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Review
  20. Beyond Cost: Observations on Clinical and Patient Benefits of Biosimilars in Real-World Settings.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kimberly FengProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Massimiliano RussoProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Luca MainiDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Aaron S KesselheimProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Benjamin N RomeProgram on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsPharmacyBiological FactorsCohort StudiesCosts and Cost AnalysisFemaleHealth ExpendituresHumansMaleMiddle AgedBiological FactorsBiosimilar Pharmaceuticals

Identifiers

PMID38551589
PMCPMC10980968
OpenAlexW4393318617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.