UTILIZATION OF BIOLOGICS IN SASKATCHEWAN

Main Article Content

Shenzhen Yao
Lisa M. Lix
Wenbin Li
Yvonne Shevchuk
Gary Teare
Anne Champagne
Sharyle Fowler
David F. Blackburn

Keywords

biologics, biologic response modifiers, prescription drug utilization, costs

Abstract

Background


Few details are available about the factors driving cost increases of biologic medications.


Objectives


To describe trends in utilization and cost of biologic agents using administrative databases in Saskatchewan, Canada.


Methods


Two analyses were conducted. First, aggregate utilization of biologics based on prescriptions dispensed was measured in each calendar year between 2001 and 2013. Second, a retrospective cohort of new biologic users was created to examine trends in spending between 2001 and 2013. During the first year of biologic therapy, biologic cost was quantified for each specific biologic agent as: (a) total spending; (b) total mil - ligrams dispensed; and (c) estimated unit cost (i.e., total cost in 2013 $CAD divided by total milligrams dispensed during the year). Data analyses were descriptive and all biologic costs were adjusted to 2013 dollars (CAD).


Results


In the first year of biologic availability in Saskatchewan (2001), 133 patients were dispensed at least one biologic agent for a total cost of $0.5 million. In 2013, 2,402 biologic recipients were identified for a total cost of $51.8 million. Almost all of these biologic costs (88.9%) were paid by the provincial government. In 2013, infliximab was the most frequently used agent, accounting for 46.5% of all spending on biolog - ics. Infliximab was also the most expensive agent in 2013 (mean cost $31,340 ± 15,307) and showed the highest increase in the mean yearly cost over time due to greater quantities dispensed.


Conclusion


Biologic utilization will require ongoing monitoring to optimize patient-level and societal-level benefits.

Abstract 132 | PDF Downloads 87

References

1. Bykerk VP, Akhavan P, Hazlewood GS, et al. Canadian Rheumatology Association recommendations for pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis with traditional and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. J Rheumatol 2011;38(11):2287−98.
2. Sadowski DC, Bernstein CN, Bitton A, et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guidelines: The use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha antagonist therapy in Crohn’s disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2009;23(3):185-202.
3. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Prescribed drug spending in Canada, 2013: A focus on public drug programs. Toronto: Author; 2014. Available at: https:// secure.cihi.ca/free_products/Prescribed%20Drug%20 Spending%20in%20Canada_2014_EN.pdf.
4. Government of Saskatchewan. Appendix A, exception drug status program, the Saskatchewan Online Formulary Databases. Regina, SK: Author; Available at: http://formulary.drugplan.health.gov.sk.ca/PDFs/ APPENDIXA.pdf.
5. Strom BL and Kimmel SE (Eds). Textbook of pharmacoepidemiology. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006.
6. Government of Canada Publications. Guide to the income and expenditure accounts. Ottawa: Author; 2008. Available at: http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.505389/ publication.html.
7. Green CJ, Maclure M, Fortin PM, et al. Pharmaceutical policies: effects of restrictions on reimbursement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;(8):CD008654.
8. McCarthy M. US drug costs are rising faster than overall health spending, officials report. BMJ 2016;352:i1485.
9. Kvamme MK, Lie E, Uhlig T, et al. Cost-effectiveness of TNF inhibitors vs synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Markov model study based on two longitudinal observational studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015;54(7):1226-35.