| Title |
Cost-effectiveness analysis of lamivudine, telbivudine, and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil resistance
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s73150 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guiliang Wang, Yan Liu, Ping Qiu, Shu-Feng Zhou, Linfang Xu, Ping Wen, Jianbo Wen, Xianzhong Xiao |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lamivudine (LMV), telbivudine (LdT), and entecavir (ETV) in treatment of chronic hepatitis B with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) resistance. Two hundred and fifty-two patients were recruited and screened for resistance to ADV and randomly assigned into three groups: LMV + ADV, LdT + ADV, and ETV + ADV. The ratio of biochemical response, virological response, seroconversion of hepatitis Be antigen (HBeAg)/hepatitis Be antibody (HBeAb), viral breakthrough, and the cost and effectiveness of treatments were analyzed. A comparison of the results of the ratio of biochemical response, virological response and seroconversion of HBeAg/HBeAb, showed no statistical difference between the three groups, with the economic cost of LMV + ADV the lowest, LdT + ADV the middle, and ETV + ADV the highest. The side effects of the three plans are all rare and tolerable. LMV + ADV is the optimal rescue strategy, and LdT + ADV the alternative selection in the economically less developed regions, while ETV + ADV was used in the economically developed regions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 30% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 16 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,310
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,923
of 281,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#77
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 281,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.