Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Originator intravenous rituximab is an important rheumatology treatment but is costly, and administration requires several hours. Because biosimilar rituximab may cost less and subcutaneous rituximab requires a shorter visit, both may reduce costs and increase treatment capacity (infusions per year). METHODS: We implemented time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), a method to assess costs and opportunities to increase capacity, throughout the care pathway for 26 patients receiving a total of 30 rituximab infusions. Using the TDABC estimates, we created a base case, which included provider time, salaries, infusion rates and times, and drug formulation, to simulate an induction cycle (two infusions). We varied these parameters in sensitivity analyses and assessed the impact of infusion rates and formulation (biosimilar vs. subcutaneous) on capacity before and after assuming a fixed budget. RESULTS: The base-case cost was $19 452; more than 90% was due to drug cost. In sensitivity analyses, varying projected biosimilar cost led to the greatest cost savings ($8,988 per cycle). Faster infusion rates and subcutaneous rituximab increased annual capacity (300% and 800%, respectively). With a fixed budget, subcutaneous rituximab led to a relative increase in capacity over biosimilar rituximab except when biosimilar cost savings relative to originator rituximab exceeded 40%; faster biosimilar infusion rates did not meaningfully affect these findings. CONCLUSION: Using TDABC, we demonstrate that rituximab cost is the primary driver of treatment cost, but capacity is largely driven by treatment time. Subcutaneous rituximab leads to higher capacity than biosimilar rituximab across a range of plausible costs; its use in rheumatology should be studied.