↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Costs of adverse events associated with erlotinib or afatinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Costs of adverse events associated with erlotinib or afatinib in first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-positive non-small cell lung cancer
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, December 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s121093
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dolores Isla, Javier De Castro, Oscar Juan, Santiago Grau, Javier Orofino, Rocío Gordo, Carlos Rubio-Terrés, Darío Rubio-Rodríguez

Abstract

Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) are an established treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutation. According to published meta-analyses, no significant efficacy differences have been demonstrated between erlotinib and afatinib. However, the incidence of EGFR-TKI-related adverse events (AEs) was lower with erlotinib. This study compares the cost of management of the AEs associated with these two drugs from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). The frequency of AEs was established from a recently published meta-analysis. In Spain, the daily cost of both drugs can be considered similar; as a result, only the costs of management of the AEs were considered. Costs and resource utilization in the management of the AEs were estimated by a panel of Spanish oncologists and from studies previously carried out in Spain. A probabilistic analysis was performed based on a Monte Carlo simulation. The model generated 1,000 simulations. The total cost per patient treated with erlotinib and afatinib was €657.44 and €1,272.15, respectively. With erlotinib, the cost per patient and per AE of grades ≤2 and ≥3 was €550.86 and €106.58, respectively, whereas the cost with afatinib was €980.63 and €291.52, respectively. The reduction in the number of AEs with erlotinib could avoid a mean cost for the NHS of €614.71 (95% CI: €342.57-881.29) per patient. In advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients, first-line treatment with erlotinib could reduce health care costs for the NHS, due to a decrease in the AE rate compared with afatinib. In long-term treatments, the avoidance of complications and the lowering of costs associated with the management of AEs are relevant factors that contribute to the sustainability of the health system.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Master 3 5%
Professor 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 27 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Psychology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 25 42%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,618,954
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#198
of 524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,627
of 417,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 417,694 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 50% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.