↓ Skip to main content

The assessment of new drugs for asthma and COPD: a Delphi study examining the perspectives of Italian payers and clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
The assessment of new drugs for asthma and COPD: a Delphi study examining the perspectives of Italian payers and clinicians
Published in
Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40248-016-0038-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Sommariva, Aureliano P. Finch, Claudio Jommi

Abstract

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are disorders of the lungs characterized by airflow obstruction, inflammation and tissue remodeling. Management of patients with these diseases is complex and the improvement of diagnostic-therapeutic strategies represents a critical challenge for the healthcare system. In this context, investigating the criteria and information needed for an appropriate and effective evaluation of incoming treatment options is crucial to ensure that clinicians and policy-makers are provided with the best available evidence to make decisions aimed at improving patient outcomes. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the degree of agreement among Health Technology Assessment (HTA) experts on issues crucial to the evaluation of new drugs for asthma and COPD and to appropriately manage the clinical pathway for patients. This research was conducted using an e-Delphi technique organized in three subsequent rounds and involving a panel of ten experts (six regional and local payers and four clinicians). Panelists were asked to comment in written form on a set of statements, explaining qualitatively the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the assertions. Statements were subsequently modified and resubmitted for assessment. Panelists expressed their opinions during each round and, after round III, a consensus document was finalized. The degree of consensus was high among experts and concerned five main topics: (a) the need to address current unmet needs of patients with asthma or COPD, (b) the importance of further studies and real-life information in the evaluation of treatments, (c) existing evidence and evidence needed to assess drugs, (d) critical issues in obtaining a positive evaluation from regional and local authorities for new treatments to be included in regional formularies and to have an important place in therapeutic categories, and (e) the major obstacles to the appropriate administration of drugs and management of patients. The final document highlights that no proof of difference among drugs exists, that evidence on final endpoints (and particularly on mortality) should be strengthened and that actions regarding risk factors, appropriate diagnosis, patient staging and adherence to therapy are particularly important for a better clinical management.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Other 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 20%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 9 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#269
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#347,103
of 405,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. 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 405,724 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 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.