Rituximab reference vs biosimilar utilization for oncology vs nononcology indications.

OBJECTIVES: Limited data exist on the adoption of rituximab biosimilars vs the reference product by indication. Available data from real-world studies comparing rituximab biosimilar and reference use have focused predominantly on oncology indications. This is the first study to assess the utilization of the 3 US rituximab biosimilars vs the reference product. STUDY DESIGN: Comparative analysis. METHODS: Deidentified real-world data of rituximab, rituximab-abbs, rituximab-pvvr, and rituximab-arrx dispensations between December 31, 2018, and February 1, 2022, were extracted using Trisus Medication Compare (The Craneware Group). The primary outcome was rituximab reference vs biosimilar utilization for oncology vs nononcology indications. Results were stratified by on-label and off-label use and treatment settings. RESULTS: A total of 28,025 encounters were captured for rituximab and its biosimilars across 193 facilities (rituximab: n = 23,395; biosimilars, n = 4631 [rituximab-abbs: n = 2550; rituximab-pvvr, n = 2081; rituximab-arrx: n = 0]). Rituximab reference had higher dispensations for oncology (78.4%) and nononcology (88.3%) indications than its biosimilars (21.6% and 11.7%, respectively; P < .01). The 3-year annual trends from 2019 to 2021 revealed decreased rituximab reference utilization (99.99% to 40.1%) and increased biosimilar use (0.01% to 59.9%). Most oncology dispensations were on label (94.5%), whereas most nononcology dispensations were off label (73.6%; P < .01). A higher proportion of biosimilar use was attributed to on-label indications (67.7%; off-label, 32.2%) compared with rituximab reference (58.0% vs42.0%, respectively; P < .01). Nonacademic settings showed higher biosimilar adoption than academic settings (22.2% vs 10.3%, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence shows an increase in rituximab biosimilar adoption over time, with higher adoption for oncology vs nononcology indications and in nonacademic settings.

Pharmacists' roles in oncology pharmacy services: Results of a global survey.

Background Oncology pharmacists are capable of providing medication therapy management (MTM) because of their level of training, practice experiences, and responsibilities. Very little data exist about their current practice, including changing roles in the multidisciplinary team, overall impact, and effects in the education of patients and healthcare professionals. Methods A 70-item survey about oncology pharmacists' activities in oral chemotherapy programs, MTM, and collaborative practice agreements (CPAs) was deployed using a web survey tool (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA), targeting pharmacist members of American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Hematology/Oncology Practice and Research Network (PRN). The objective of this study was to determine oncology pharmacists' activities in areas of oral chemotherapy programs, MTM, and CPAs. A cross-sectional survey was distributed to the ACCP Hematology/Oncology PRN membership. Investigational Review Board approval was obtained. Results Of the 795 members who were sent the survey, 81 members (10%) responded; 33 respondents (47%) are involved with an oral chemotherapy program; with 42% measuring outcomes of programs. Only six pharmacists (19%) have published or presented their data. A total of 28 (35%) respondents provide MTM services, with almost half (43%) of these MTM services being dictated by CPAs. A small fraction of these pharmacists (21.4%) reported conducting quality assurance evaluations of their MTM services and three pharmacists (10.7%) reported publishing their results. Those pharmacists practicing under CPAs ( n = 28) were surveyed as to activities included in their CPA. The most common activities included adjusting medication, ordering, interpreting, and monitoring lab tests, developing therapeutic plans and educating patients. Reimbursement for providing these services was uncommon: MTM (4%), oral chemotherapy program (6%), and CPA services (11%). Reported obstacles to reimbursement included lack of understanding, administrative assistance, or time with setting up reimbursement models within the institution. Conclusion Many oncology pharmacists are participating in oral chemotherapy programs, MTM, and/or CPAs and perceived barriers were identified. Increased efforts should be directed toward prospectively reporting and assessing the impact these services have on patient care.