↓ Skip to main content

Uptake of new antidiabetic medications in three emerging markets: a comparison between Brazil, China and Thailand

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Uptake of new antidiabetic medications in three emerging markets: a comparison between Brazil, China and Thailand
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40545-014-0020-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Y Lu, Isabel Cristina M Emmerick, Peter Stephens, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Anita K Wagner

Abstract

New antidiabetic medications such as insulin analogues and thiazolidinediones have been introduced over the last decade. This study compares the uptake of new agents in three emerging pharmaceutical markets: Brazil, China, and Thailand. Using longitudinal IMS Health sales data, we calculated the quarterly percentage market share for types of insulins and oral hypoglycemic agents from 2002 through 2012 in each country. New oral hypoglycemic agents included: alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and non-sulfonylurea secretagogues. While China had the highest use of insulin cartridges and pens (85.6% in 2010), Brazil was the earliest adopter of insulin analogues and had the greatest use of these products overall (44.6% of the insulin market) in 2010, which then decreased by almost half by 2012. Together, sulfonylureas and metformin dominated the markets in Brazil and Thailand (~89% and ~96% respectively) over the 10-year period. Between 2002 and 2012, there was a shift in use from sulfonylureas to metformin; the market share of newer agents remained 10% or less in both countries. In China, however, market share of new oral agents grew rapidly from 13.1% to 44.4%. While metformin use was relatively stable in China (one-third of the market), sulfonylureas declined substantially over the 10-year period (41.5% to 20.8%). Given large cost differentials between newer and older insulins and among oral hypoglycemic agents, it is important to evaluate uptake of newer products over time. Uptake patterns differed in the study countries, likely due to different medicines policy approaches. Future research should evaluate how trends in use of antidiabetic products align with national clinical practice guidelines and pharmaceutical policies, as well as the impacts of different patterns of use on cost and clinical outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 38%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#7,798,832
of 15,024,604 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#98
of 199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,762
of 217,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,024,604 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 217,151 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them