| Title |
Mean cost per number needed to treat with tocilizumab plus methotrexate versus abatacept plus methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients previously treated with methotrexate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s141610 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maurizio Benucci, Roberto Ravasio, Arianna Damiani |
| Abstract |
Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are particularly recommended for use in patients who are poor responders, are intolerant to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cDMARDs), or in whom continued treatment with cDMARDs is deemed inappropriate. We estimated the efficacy and treatment costs associated with the use of tocilizumab (TCZ) plus methotrexate (Mtx) versus abatacept (ABT) plus Mtx in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in patients previously treated with Mtx. Clinical data from a Technology Appraisal Guidance published in January 2016 by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were used. Pharmacoeconomic comparison between biological agents was carried out to estimate the respective cost for the number needed to treat (NNT) compared to cDMARDs using both American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria. A 6-month period was considered. Direct medical costs including pharmacological therapy, administration, and monitoring were considered. Using both ACR and EULAR criteria, TCZ subcutaneously (sc) or intravenously (iv) had a lower NNT (higher efficacy) compared to ABT (iv/sc). The most significant differences in favor of TCZ were observed using EULAR criteria. Related to the level of efficacy observed, TCZ (iv/sc) had a lower cost for NNT with both ACR and EULAR criteria compared to ABT (iv/sc). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. TCZ (iv/sc) represents a more cost-effective option than ABT (iv/sc) in the treatment of RA in patients previously treated with Mtx. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 15% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 15% |
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 03 August 2017.
All research outputs
#3,796,273
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#86
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,445
of 327,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 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 524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. 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 327,369 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.