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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Access criteria for anti-TNF agents in spondyloarthritis: influence on comparative 1-year cost-effectiveness estimates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-017-0081-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Harvard, Daphne Guh, Nick Bansback, Pascal Richette, Alain Saraux, Bruno Fautrel, Aslam Anis |
| Abstract |
Anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents are an effective, but costly, treatment for spondyloarthritis (SpA). Worldwide, multiple sets of access criteria aim to restrict anti-TNF therapy to patients with specific clinical characteristics, yet the influence of access criteria on anti-TNF cost-effectiveness is unknown. Our objective was to use data from the DESIR cohort, a prospective study of early SpA patients in France, to determine whether the French anti-TNF access criteria are the most cost-effective in that setting relative to other potential restrictions. We used data from the DESIR cohort to create five study populations of patients meeting anti-TNF access criteria from Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom, and Hong Kong, respectively. For each study population, we calculated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year of patients treated and not treated with anti-TNF therapy. To control for differences between anti-TNF users and non-users, we used linear regression models to derive adjusted mean costs and QALYs. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) representing the incremental cost per additional QALY gained by treating with an anti-TNF within each of the five study populations, using bootstrapping to explore the range of uncertainty in costs and QALYs. A series of sensitivity analyses was conducted, including one to simulate the effect of a 24-week stopping rule for anti-TNF non-responders. Anti-TNF access criteria from France were satisfied by the largest proportion of DESIR patients (27.8%), followed by Germany (25.1%), Canada (23.8%), the UK (12.1%) and Hong Kong (8.6%). Confidence intervals around incremental costs and QALYs in the basecase analysis were overlapping, indicating that anti-TNF cost-effectiveness estimates derived from each subset were similar. In the sensitivity analysis that examined the effect of excluding costs accumulated past 24 weeks by anti-TNF non-responders, the incremental cost per QALY was reduced by approximately 25% relative to the basecase analysis (France: €857,992 vs. €1,105,859; Canada: € 626,459 vs. €818,186; Germany: € 422,568 vs. €545,808); UK €578,899 vs. €766,217; Hong Kong €335,418 vs. €456,850). Anti-TNF cost-effectiveness is strongly affected by treatment continuation among non-responders. Access criteria could improve anti-TNF cost-effectiveness by defining patients likely to respond. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 31% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,446,373
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#400
of 431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,707
of 315,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.