↓ Skip to main content

Orphan drug policies and use in pediatric nephrology

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Nephrology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
27 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Orphan drug policies and use in pediatric nephrology
Published in
Pediatric Nephrology, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00467-016-3520-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Karpman, Peter Höglund

Abstract

Orphan drugs designed to treat rare diseases are often overpriced per patient. Novel treatments are sometimes even more expensive for patients with ultra-rare diseases, in part due to the limited number of patients. Pharmaceutical companies that develop a patented life-saving drug are in a position to charge a very high price, which, at best, may enable these companies to further develop drugs for use in rare disease. However, is there a limit to how much a life-saving drug should cost annually per patient? Government interventions and regulations may opt to withhold a life-saving drug solely due to its high price and cost-effectiveness. Processes related to drug pricing, reimbursement, and thereby availability, vary between countries, thus having implications on patient care. These processes are discussed, with specific focus on three drugs used in pediatric nephrology: agalsidase beta (for Fabry disease), eculizumab (for atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome), and cysteamine bitartrate (for cystinosis). Access to and costs of orphan drugs have most profound implications for patients, but also for their physicians, hospitals, insurance policies, and society at large, particularly from financial and ethical standpoints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Other 6 16%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 9 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,854,232
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Nephrology
#117
of 4,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,785
of 326,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Nephrology
#2
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 326,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.