Will savings from biosimilars offset increased costs related to dose escalation? A comparison of infliximab and golimumab for rheumatoid arthritis

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab. METHODS: We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating infliximab or golimumab. Frequency of dose escalation was summarized descriptively over 18 months, as were Medicare-approved amounts for reimbursement. Analyses were repeated conditioning on high adherence (i.e., non-discontinuation, \u3e 10-week gap). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and mixed models evaluated factors associated with infliximab dose escalation. RESULTS: A total of 5174 infliximab and 2843 golimumab initiators were observed. Dose escalation was rare for golimumab (5%) but common for infliximab (49%), and was even more common (72%) for infliximab among patients who persisted on treatment. Regardless of dose escalation, the adjusted least square mean dollar amounts were appreciably higher for golimumab ($28,146) than for infliximab ($21,216) and greater among persistent patients (cost difference $9269, favoring infliximab). Only when patients escalated infliximab to \u3e /= 8 mg/kg every 6 weeks was golimumab IV at break-even or less expensive. After controlling for multiple factors, physician ownership of the infusion center was associated with greater likelihood of infliximab dose escalation (odds ratio = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44). CONCLUSION: Despite frequent dose escalation with infliximab that often increase its dose by threefold or more, the savings from the current price of its biosimilar substantially offsets the costs of an alternative infused TNFi biologic for which no biosimilar is available

Problems with analyses and interpretation of data in "use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States".

A recent article in the journal reported analyses of KDQOL-36™ survey data collected from 240,343 adults (330,412 surveys) dialyzed at a large dialysis organization in the United States during 2014-2016. The authors concluded that the KDQOL-36™ Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease scale had the highest mean score of the KDQOL-36™ scales. We note that this inference was erroneous because the scales are not scored on the same numeric scale. In addition, the authors found that responses to a general health perceptions item ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor") was not significantly associated with any of the 5 KDQOL-36 scale scores. In contrast, we find significant and noteworthy correlations in two other datasets. These analytic issues call into question the accuracy and validity of the conclusions of this paper

Problems with analyses and interpretation of data in "use of the KDQOL-36™ for assessment of health-related quality of life among dialysis patients in the United States".

A recent article in the journal reported analyses of KDQOL-36™ survey data collected from 240,343 adults (330,412 surveys) dialyzed at a large dialysis organization in the United States during 2014-2016. The authors concluded that the KDQOL-36™ Symptoms and Problems of Kidney Disease scale had the highest mean score of the KDQOL-36™ scales. We note that this inference was erroneous because the scales are not scored on the same numeric scale. In addition, the authors found that responses to a general health perceptions item ("In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor") was not significantly associated with any of the 5 KDQOL-36 scale scores. In contrast, we find significant and noteworthy correlations in two other datasets. These analytic issues call into question the accuracy and validity of the conclusions of this paper

A Systematic Literature Review of Health-related Quality of Life Measures for Women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder.

IntroductionHypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) / Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder (FSIAD) impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women and their partners, yet existing measures fail to adequately capture relevant concepts (ie, what is essential to measure including symptoms/impacts) important to women with HSDD/FSIAD.ObjectivesTo identify HRQoL tools used to assess women with HSDD/FSIAD, and to evaluate their psychometric properties (ie, reliability, validity, and responsiveness).MethodsWe conducted searches in PubMed, Embase and PsychINFO from June 5, 1989 to September 30, 2020 for studies in women with HSDD/FSIAD and psychometric analyses (English only). Principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias Checklist and other psychometric criteria were applied. Based on this search, 56 papers were evaluated including 15 randomized-controlled trials, 11 observational/single arm/open label studies, and 30 psychometric studies.ResultsOf the 18 measures identified, the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Sexual Distress Scale-Revised (FSDS-R) were included in most studies (> 50%). General HRQoL instruments were not used in any of the clinical trials; the SF-12, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L were reported in two observational studies. No instruments achieved positive quality ratings across all psychometric criteria. The FSFI, FSDS-R, Sexual Event Diary (SED) and the Sexual Desire Relationship Distress Scale (SDRDS), were the only measures to receive a positive rating for content validity.ConclusionReliable and valid HRQoL measures that include sexual desire and distress are needed to provide a more systematic and comprehensive assessment of HRQoL and treatment benefits in women with HSDD/FSIAD. While inferences about HRQoL are limited due to the lack of uniformity in concepts assessed and limited psychometric evaluation of these measures in women with HSDD/FSIAD, opportunities exist for the development of reliable and validated tools that comprehensively measure the most relevant and important concepts in women with HSDD/FSIAD. Lim-Watson MZ, Hays RD, Kingsberg S, et al. A systematic literature review of health-related quality of life measures for women with Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder. Sex Med Rev 2022;10:23-41

Patient-Reported Outcomes: Instrument Development and Selection Issues

At its most elemental, patient-reported outcomes (PRO) assessment involves asking the patients questions and evaluating their answers. Instrument developers need to be clear about what they want to know, from whom they want to know it and why, whether what they learned is credible, and whether they can interpret what they learned in the context of the research objectives. Because credible instrument development is neither inexpensive nor technically trivial, researchers must first determine that no available measure meets their research objectives. We suggest that the tasks of either reviewing current instruments or developing new ones originate from the same basic premise: PRO assessment requires a well-articulated conceptual framework. Once defined in the context of the research objectives, the conceptual framework needs to be adapted to the population of interest. We discuss how qualitative methods enrich the conceptual framework and facilitate the technical measurement tasks of item development, testing, and reduction. We recognize that PRO assessment stands at a technological crossroads with the increasingly frequent application of “modern” psychometric methods and discuss how innovations such as item banks and computer-adaptive testing will influence PRO instrument development. Although items are the essential building blocks for instruments, scales are the primary unit of analysis for PRO assessment, and we discuss methods for scoring and combining them. Finally, PRO assessment is meaningless if the key figure chooses not to cooperate. We consider how respondent burden influences the quality of PRO assessment