↓ Skip to main content

Health technology assessment of new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: impact of disease prevalence and cost

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Health technology assessment of new drugs for rare disorders in Canada: impact of disease prevalence and cost
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13023-017-0611-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel S. B. Rawson

Abstract

Authors from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) presented an analysis of submissions to the Common Drug Review (CDR) between 2004 and February 3, 2016 for drugs for rare disorders (disorders with a prevalence of <50 per 100,000). The aim of this analysis was to examine the same CDR submissions to evaluate whether the negative reimbursement recommendation rate, clinical evidence of efficacy and statements concerning the drug's cost in the CDR reports varied with the prevalence of the disorder treated by the drug grouped into three decreasing categories: <50 to >10, ≤10 to >1, and ≤1 per 100,000. As the prevalence of the treated disorder decreased, the median daily cost of the drug, the negative recommendation rate and the proportion of submissions with statements in the CDR reports highlighting the cost of the drug increased, while the proportion of submissions with acceptable evidence of clinical efficacy decreased. Moreover, although the CADTH authors reported that only two submissions received a negative recommendation due to a "lack of cost-effectiveness/high cost," high cost was mentioned in the CDR reports of 15 drugs with negative recommendations, all for disorders with a prevalence of ≤10 per 100,000. The aggregated analysis of CDR submissions for drugs for disorders with wide ranging prevalence rates concealed information of concern to patients. The negative reimbursement recommendation rate and the significance of cost in the CDR assessments increased as the prevalence of the treated disorder decreased. Since 2012, the manner in which high cost drugs for rare disorders have been dealt with by the CDR has changed. Cost has ceased to be a factor in negative recommendations but is included in criteria accompanying positive recommendations. This trend is associated with the integration of the CDR process with the system for price negotiation between public drug plans and pharmaceutical companies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#5,487,601
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#669
of 2,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,819
of 309,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#20
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.