ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2026
Financial reimbursement incentives in the use of biosimilars for rheumatoid arthritis in Japan.
Article in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biosimilars present a significant opportunity for cost savings. However, the uptake of biosimilars has been inconsistent across different regions and drugs, highlighting the need for effective policy interventions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of Japan's reimbursement incentive policy on the utilisation of etanercept and infliximab biosimilars among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis using data extracted from the JMDC claims database in Japan. Participants included those prescribed either the brand-name biologics or their biosimilars. The primary outcome was the proportional use of biosimilars relative to the total use of both biosimilars and originator drugs. Results: The ITS analysis demonstrated varied responses to the reimbursement policy across the two biosimilars. For infliximab, although the policy did not result in a significant level change (0.14%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.83, 3.11), there was a positive but nonsignificant slope change of 0.21% per month (95% CI: -0.13, 0.55). In contrast, for etanercept, the policy led to a significant level change, with an immediate increase in use by 13.48% (95% CI: 7.82, 19.14). However, the slope change showed a significant decrease by -1.09% per month (95% CI: -1.50, -0.68). Conclusion: The results indicate that while the reimbursement policy was associated with a short-term increase in the uptake of etanercept biosimilars, it had limited impact on infliximab biosimilars. This variation suggests that financial incentives alone may not be sufficient to enhance biosimilar adoption and that policies must consider drug-specific and healthcare setting-specific factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.