| Title |
What are we paying for? A cost-effectiveness analysis of patented denosumab and generic alendronate for postmenopausal osteoporotic women in Australia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-016-0060-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Karnon, Ainul Shakirah Shafie, Nneka Orji, Sofoora Kawsar Usman |
| Abstract |
Zoledronic acid and denosumab were funded by the Australian government for the management of osteoporosis at an equivalent price to alendronate. The price of alendronate has declined by around 65 %, but the price of the other two therapies has remained stable. Using data published since the listing, this paper reports current estimates of the value of denosumab compared to alendronate from an Australian health system perspective. A cohort-based state transition model was developed that predicted changes in bone mineral density (BMD), and calibrated fracture probabilities as a function of BMD, age and previous fracture to estimate differences in costs and QALYs gained over a 10-year time horizon. The base-case incremental cost per QALY gained for denosumab versus alendronate was $246,749. There is a near zero probability that denosumab is cost-effective at a threshold value of $100,000 per QALY gained. If the price of denosumab was reduced by 50 %, the incremental cost per QALY gained falls to $50,068. Current Australian legislation precludes price reviews when comparator therapies come off patent. The presented analysis illustrates a review process, incorporating clinical data collected since the original submission to inform a price at which denosumab would provide value for money. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 26% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 28 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,752,529
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#94
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,433
of 319,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 319,493 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them