↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Persistence, switch rates, drug consumption and costs of biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study in Italy

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Persistence, switch rates, drug consumption and costs of biological treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study in Italy
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s108730
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Degli Esposti, Ennio Giulio Favalli, Diego Sangiorgi, Roberta Di Turi, Giuseppina Farina, Marco Gambera, Roberto Ravasio

Abstract

The aim of this analysis was to provide an estimate of drug utilization indicators (persistence, switch rate and drug consumption) on biologics and the corresponding costs (drugs, admissions and specialist care) incurred by the Italian National Health Service in the management of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We conducted an observational retrospective cohort analysis using the administrative databases of three local health units. We considered all patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of RA and at least one biologic drug prescription between January 2010 and December 2012 (recruitment period). Persistence was defined as maintenance over the last 3 months of the follow-up period of the same biological therapy administered at the index date. A switch was defined as the presence of a biological therapy other than that administered at the index date during the last 3 months of the follow-up period. Hospital admissions (with a diagnosis of RA or other RA-related diagnoses), specialist outpatient services, instrumental diagnostics and pharmaceutical consumption were assessed. The drug utilization analysis took into account only biologics with at least 90 patients on treatment at baseline (adalimumab n=144, etanercept n=236 and infliximab n=94). In each year, etanercept showed better persistence with initial treatment than adalimumab or infliximab. Etanercept was characterized by the lowest number of patients increasing the initial drug consumption (2.6%) and by the highest number of patients reducing the initial drug consumption (10.5%). The mean cost of treatment for a patient persisting with the initial treatment was €12,388 (€14,182 for adalimumab, €12,103 for etanercept and €11,002 for infliximab). The treatment costs for patients switching from initial treatment during the first year of follow-up were higher than for patients who did not switch (€12,710 vs. €11,332). Persistence, switch rate and drug consumption seem to directly influence treatment costs. In subjects not persisting with initial treatment, other health care costs were approximately three times higher than for persistent patients. This difference could suggest a positive effect on the quality of life for persistent patients. Etanercept showed the highest persistence with treatment.

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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 17 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 19 37%
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 26 December 2016.
All research outputs
#20,110,957
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#385
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,126
of 417,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#9
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 417,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.