↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Bias within economic evaluations – the impact of considering the future entry of lower-cost generics on currently estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of a new drug

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Bias within economic evaluations – the impact of considering the future entry of lower-cost generics on currently estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of a new drug
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s90386
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason R Guertin, Dominic Mitchell, Farzad Ali, Jacques LeLorier

Abstract

Most economic evaluation models compare a new patented drug (NPRx) to a generic comparator. Drug costs within these models are usually limited to the retail cost of both drugs at the time of model conception. However, the retail cost of the NPRx is expected to drop once generic versions of this molecule are introduced following the expiration of the NPRx's patent. The objective of this study was to examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model's time horizon. We examined the impact of this parameter with the use of two approaches: 1) a mathematical proof identifying its impact on the NPRx's ICER; and 2) applying this parameter to a previously published economic model comparing a NPRx to a generic comparator and identifying what would have been the NPRx's ICER had this model considered this parameter. As expected, both the mathematical proof and the application to the previously published economic model showed that considering the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model's time horizon lowers the NPRx's ICER. The timing of the future entry of lower-cost generic molecules, their relative price compared to that of the patented version, and the discount rate applied to future costs all influenced the results. An ICER estimated within economic evaluations comparing NPRx to generic comparators which ignore the future introduction of lower-cost generic versions of the NPRx within the model's time horizon will tend to be overestimated. Inclusion of this parameter should be considered within future economic evaluations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 5%
Unknown 19 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Other 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 25%
Social Sciences 3 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#268
of 531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,330
of 286,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 286,873 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.