↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Potential resource and cost saving analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration for rituximab in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and for trastuzumab in breast cancer in 17 Italian hospitals…

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Potential resource and cost saving analysis of subcutaneous versus intravenous administration for rituximab in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and for trastuzumab in breast cancer in 17 Italian hospitals based on a systematic survey
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s97319
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clemente Ponzetti, Monica Canciani, Massimo Farina, Sara Era, Stefan Walzer

Abstract

Subcutaneous versions of different oncology therapies have been available for patients for a few years, yet patient-relevant and hospital benefits have not been assessed in real life. In order to analyze the impact of subcutaneous administrations for rituximab or trastuzumab in comparison to the respective intravenous mode a primary research in Italy was executed. The study's primary objectives were to analyze the resource and cost implications from different perspectives (patient, medical staff) in the real world. The route of administration was discussed and aligned with the participating centers in order to capture all relevant therapy parts. After the successful execution of a pilot study 19 centers in six regions in Italy were recruited to participate. Significant time savings might be achieved with the subcutaneous mode through significantly lower patient preparation time including less time preparing the actual dosing for each individual patient. The total time difference is 3.3 hours with rituximab in hematology (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), which adds up to 23.55 hours for a full course of treatment per patient (overall preparation time: 40.1 hours intravenous [95% confidence interval (CI): ±0.47] vs 16.6 hours subcutaneous [95% CI: ±0.2]). In early breast cancer (trastuzumab), the time saving might be 3.3 hours for the first cycle and the total time saving for patient preparation might be 17.2 hours (overall preparation time: 38.8 hours intravenous [95% CI: ±9.42] vs 21.6 hours subcutaneous [95% CI: ±9.9]). Furthermore, in both settings, the time of medical staff was reduced and could hence be used elsewhere. Finally, in case wastage was experienced with intravenous therapies, there were potential significant reductions in wastage through the subcutaneous administration (93%-100%) with cost savings of €6,057 with rituximab subcutaneous and €28,399 with trastuzumab subcutaneous administration for the full treatment course. There are significant resource and cost savings due to subcutaneous administration with rituximab and trastuzumab in Italy based on a systematic survey. With the availability of a subcutaneous use of rituximab and trastuzumab, hospitals, patients and payers in general still have the current standard of care therapies available in the approved indications for a more efficient use of time and resources.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 24%
Other 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,857,628
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#104
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,199
of 312,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 312,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.