↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporosis in Chinese postmenopausal women: impact of medication persistence and adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporosis in Chinese postmenopausal women: impact of medication persistence and adherence
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s100175
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mingsheng Chen, Lei Si, Tania M Winzenberg, Jieruo Gu, Qicheng Jiang, Andrew J Palmer

Abstract

Raloxifene treatment of osteoporotic fractures is clinically effective, but economic evidence in support of raloxifene reimbursement is lacking in the People's Republic of China. We aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene in the treatment of osteoporotic fractures using an osteoporosis health economic model. We also assessed the impact of medication persistence and adherence on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of raloxifene. We used a previously developed and validated osteoporosis state-transition microsimulation model to compare treatment with raloxifene with current practices of osteoporotic fracture treatment (conventional treatment) from the health care payer's perspective. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis with microsimulations was conducted. The impact of medication persistence and adherence on clinical outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of raloxifene was addressed in sensitivity analyses. The simulated patients used in the model's initial state were 65-year-old postmenopausal Chinese women with osteoporosis (but without previous fractures), simulated using a 1-year cycle length until all patients had died. Costs were presented in 2015 US dollars (USD), and costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% annually. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at USD 20,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Treatment with raloxifene improved clinical effectiveness by 0.006 QALY, with additional costs of USD 221 compared with conventional treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 36,891 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness decision did not change in most of the one-way sensitivity analyses. With full raloxifene persistence and adherence, average effectiveness improved compared with the real-world scenario, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was USD 40,948 per QALY gained compared with conventional treatment. Given the willingness-to-pay threshold, raloxifene treatment was not cost-effective for treatment of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal Chinese women. Medication persistence and adherence had a great impact on clinical- and cost-effectiveness, and therefore should be incorporated in future pharmacoeconomic studies of osteoporosis interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 28%
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 2 7%
Librarian 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 28%
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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,928,462
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#778
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,292
of 312,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#30
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 312,692 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 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.