鼓励使用阿达木单抗生物仿制药的两种经济激励措施的比较:法国一项贴近临床医生的实验结果。

IF 2 Q2 ECONOMICS
PharmacoEconomics Open Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7
Marion Tano, Pascal Paubel, Matthieu Ribault, Albane Degrassat-Théas
{"title":"鼓励使用阿达木单抗生物仿制药的两种经济激励措施的比较:法国一项贴近临床医生的实验结果。","authors":"Marion Tano, Pascal Paubel, Matthieu Ribault, Albane Degrassat-Théas","doi":"10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>General 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":19770,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics Open","volume":" ","pages":"897-909"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.\",\"authors\":\"Marion Tano, Pascal Paubel, Matthieu Ribault, Albane Degrassat-Théas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 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.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>General 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"897-909\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499575/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PharmacoEconomics Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-024-00505-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2018 年,法国政府推出了两项相互排斥的财政激励措施,以增加依那西普和格列卫胰岛素生物仿制药的使用。一般情况下,社区药房根据医院处方每配发一种生物仿制药,就会将参比产品与其生物仿制药之间差价的 20% 转给医院。实验方案在医院选择后,将 30% 的差价转给临床处方单位。阿达木单抗在其首个生物类似药上市后,于 2019 年被纳入这些激励措施:这项回顾性观察研究旨在比较 19 个月后的一般激励措施和实验激励措施,以评估直接激励临床单位使用阿达木单抗生物仿制药的影响:利用2017年11月至2020年10月期间的IQVIA Xponent数据,将社区药房每月配发的阿达木单抗盒数与相应医院的处方联系起来。根据医院之前使用依那西普实验病例的经验,在激励组和亚组之间比较了阿达木单抗生物仿制药的月平均使用率:普通案例医院的生物仿制药平均吸收率(16.7% vs 23.2%,p = 0.029)明显低于实验案例医院。实验病例的 40 家医院中有 23 家和普通病例的 91 家医院中有 10 家已经参加过 etanercept 实验。在阿达木单抗普通病例组中,有过阿达木单抗使用经验的医院对生物仿制药的吸收率更高,但无统计学意义(p = 0.086):这项研究证实,对接近医生的人进行激励能更有效地提高生物仿制药的使用率。结论:这项研究证实,对接近医生的人进行激励对提高生物仿制药的使用率更为有效。研究还表明,以前的激励经验对生物仿制药的渗透率有积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Two Financial Incentives to Encourage the Use of Adalimumab Biosimilars: Results of a French Experiment Close to Clinicians.

Background: In 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.

Objective: This 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.

Method: The 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.

Results: General 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).

Conclusions: This 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics - Open focuses on applied research on the economic implications and health outcomes associated with drugs, devices and other healthcare interventions. The journal includes, but is not limited to, the following research areas:Economic analysis of healthcare interventionsHealth outcomes researchCost-of-illness studiesQuality-of-life studiesAdditional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in PharmacoEconomics -Open may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信