| Title |
Economic Evaluation of Third-Line Treatment with Alemtuzumab for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Drug Investigation, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00044011-200727110-00002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
W. Guy Scott, Helen M. Scott |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study was to compare the potential economic efficiency of third-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) with alemtuzumab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The target population for this study were patients with CLL who were able to tolerate third-line treatment with either FCR or alemtuzumab. The perspective used was that of the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (PHARMAC)/District Health Board. Health outcomes considered were survival time from commencement of treatment and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Average costs and outcomes and incremental cost per patient treated, per survival month and per QALY gained, were calculated. All costs were presented in 2006 New Zealand dollars. Base-case direct medical costs for alemtuzumab per treatment regimen per patient were $NZ15 303 lower than those for FCR. The average direct medical cost per survival month gained for alemtuzumab was $NZ3144 and for FCR was $NZ4101, and the average direct medical cost per QALY gained was $NZ46,016 and for FCR was $NZ60,012. Third-line treatment of eligible patients with alemtuzumab was found to be $NZ15,303 less costly than FCR per patient. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 33% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 29% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 13% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
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 30 September 2014.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,368,786 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Drug Investigation
#318
of 1,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,825
of 186,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Drug Investigation
#94
of 344 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,368,786 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,035 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 186,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 344 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.