ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2024
Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biosimilar uptake policies in Europe: a cross-country mixed-methods policy analysis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2018, the French government introduced two mutually exclusive financial incentives to increase etanercept and insulin glargine biosimilar use. The general case redirects 20% of the price difference between the reference product and its biosimilars to hospitals for every biosimilar dispensed in community pharmacies from hospital prescriptions. The experimental case redirects 30% to prescribing clinical units after hospital selection. Adalimumab was added to these incentives in 2019, after its first biosimilar was launched.
objectiveThis retrospective observational study aimed to compare both general and experimental incentives after 19 months to assess the impact of directly incentivizing clinical units for adalimumab biosimilars.
methodThe monthly number of adalimumab boxes dispensed in community pharmacies was linked to the corresponding hospital's prescription using IQVIA Xponent data from November 2017 to October 2020. The monthly mean rate of adalimumab biosimilars was compared between incentive groups and subgroups depending on hospitals' prior experience with the etanercept experimental case.
resultsGeneral case hospitals had a significantly lower mean biosimilar uptake (16.7% vs 23.2%, p = 0.029) than those included in the experimental case. Twenty-three of the 40 hospitals in the experimental case and ten out of the 91 hospitals studied in the general case had already taken part in the etanercept experiment. Biosimilar uptake was higher, but not statistically significant, for hospitals with prior experience in the adalimumab general case group (p = 0.086).
conclusionsThis study confirmed that incentivizing close to physicians was more effective in increasing the biosimilar rate. It also suggested that previous incentive experience positively influenced biosimilar penetration.
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.