↓ Skip to main content

Cost-utility of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for treating Greek patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Cost-utility of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for treating Greek patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12962-016-0056-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgia Kourlaba, John Relakis, Ronan Mahon, Maria Kalogeropoulou, Georgia Pantelopoulou, Olga Kousidou, Nikos Maniadakis

Abstract

To conduct a cost-utility analysis of ranibizumab versus aflibercept for the treatment of patients with visual impairment due to diabetic macular edema (DME) in the Greek setting. A Markov model was adapted to compare the use of ranibizumab 0.5 mg (pro re nata-PRN and treat and extend-T&E) to aflibercept 2 mg (every 8 weeks after five initial doses) in DME. Patients transitioned at a 3-month cycle among nine specified health states (including death) over a lifetime horizon. Transition probabilities, utilities, as well as DME-related mortality were extracted from relevant clinical trials, a network meta-analysis and other published studies. The analysis was conducted from payer perspective and as such only costs reimbursed by the payer were considered (year 2014). The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and the net monetary benefit was the main outcome measures. Τhe use of PRN and T&E ranibizumab regimens were shown to be cost saving comparing to aflibercept (by €2824 and €22, respectively), and more beneficial in terms of QALYs gained (+0.05) and time without visual impairment (0.031 and 0.034 years), thereby dominating aflibercept. Moreover, ranibizumab used as PRN or T&E resulted in a net monetary benefit of €3984 and €1278, respectively. Both PRN and T&E ranibizumab regimens were more beneficial and less costly compared to aflibercept for the management of DME. Hence, ranibizumab seems to be a dominant option for the treatment of visual impairment due to DME in the Greek setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 February 2018.
All research outputs
#3,365,858
of 23,510,717 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#73
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,710
of 302,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,510,717 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 302,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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