↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Retrospective analysis of drug utilization, health care resource use, and costs associated with IFN therapy for adjuvant treatment of malignant melanoma.

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Retrospective analysis of drug utilization, health care resource use, and costs associated with IFN therapy for adjuvant treatment of malignant melanoma.
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s78704
Pubmed ID
Authors

Srividya Kotapati, Ying Zhang, James Shaw, T. Kim Le

Abstract

This study examines real-world drug utilization patterns, health care resource use, and costs among patients receiving adjuvant treatment with IFN versus patients receiving no treatment ("observation") for malignant melanoma following surgery. A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims from Truven Health Analytics (MarketScan(®)) to identify all adjuvant melanoma patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed between June 2007 and June 2011 who had a lymph node dissection (ie, index surgery) and were treated with IFN or subsequently observed. Health care resource use and costs of services were converted to 2012 US dollars and were evaluated and compared using multivariable regression. Of 1,999 eligible subjects with melanoma surgery claims, 179 (9.0%) were treated with IFN and 1,820 (91.0%) were observed. The median duration (days) and number of doses of IFN therapy were 73 and 36, respectively. Among IFN-treated patients, only 10.6% completed ≥80% of maintenance therapy. The total average cost for patients treated with IFN was US$60,755±$3,972 (n=179); significantly higher than for patients undergoing observation ($31,641±$2,471; P<0.0001). Similar trends were observed when evaluating total cost components, including melanoma-related and non-melanoma-related medical costs. Among the melanoma-related medical costs, outpatient services, including office visits and laboratory testing, represented between 33% and 53% of total costs and demonstrated the largest difference between IFN-treated and observation patients. Outpatient service costs for IFN-treated patients were $32,414±$2,498, over three times greater than those for observation patients ($10,556±$1,128; P<0.0001). The majority of adjuvant melanoma patients in this study was treated with observation versus IFN treatment. Among those who attempted IFN treatment, most could not complete the recommended course of therapy. Health care costs were significantly greater for patients treated with IFN, with the greatest differences being for melanoma-related medical cost components. These findings illustrate the significant economic burden borne by adjuvant melanoma patients and their health insurers.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 8%
Canada 1 8%
Unknown 10 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 25%
Other 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 17%
Unspecified 2 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Decision Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%

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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,982,345
of 6,334,604 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#141
of 220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,166
of 195,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,334,604 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 195,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.