Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 11, 2025

In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Rituximab reference vs biosimilar utilization for oncology vs nononcology indications
Bonnie A Labdi1, Rim A Elbeshbeshy, Michelle Winkler
1MJH Life Sciences, 2 Clarke Dr, Ste 100, Cranbury, NJ 08512.
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.
More Related Videos
06:37Using Reference Reagents to Confirm Robustness of Cytokine Release Assays for the Prediction of Monoclonal Antibody Safety
Published on: September 15, 2023
09:34Dynamic Imaging of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells with [18F]Tetrafluoroborate Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography
Published on: February 17, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Targeted Cancer Therapies
There are several types of targeted therapies against...
Drugs for Treatment of Crohn's Disease in IBD Using Biologic Agents: Anti-TNF
Tumor Immunotherapy
Bioequivalence: Overview