↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany

Overview of attention for article published in Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for rheumatoid arthritis in Germany
Published in
Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00393-016-0071-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Gissel, G. Götz, H. Repp

Abstract

In Germany, the clinical use of TNF-α inhibitors in the therapy of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) grew from 2 % of treated patients in 2000 to 20 % in 2008. In 2012, adalimumab was the bestselling drug in the statutory health insurance system with net expenditure of € 581 mio. We aim to analyze the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for the treatment of RA in Germany. We set up an individual patient sampling lifetime model to simulate 10,000 hypothetical patients. The patients' functional status improves according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria. In each 6‑month cycle, treatment might be discontinued due to loss of efficacy or adverse events. In the base case, patients gain 7.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with conventional synthetic therapy and 9.92 QALYs if adalimumab combination therapy is added to the treatment algorithm. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) is € 24,492 based on German list prices. After deducting mandatory rebates and taxes, the ICUR is € 17,277, comparing favorably to analyses in other countries. Adalimumab combination therapy lowers indirect costs from € 162,698 to € 134,363. The ICUR based on total costs is € 14,550 (€ 7,335 after deducting taxes and rebates). Sensitivity analysis shows that adalimumab combination therapy becomes a dominant treatment option for younger baseline populations, i. e. adalimumab is both more effective and less expensive for baseline age 30 due to savings in indirect costs. Our complex probabilistic model shows that estimation of cost-effectiveness for RA relies on the incorporation of indirect costs and a sufficiently long simulation horizon to capture the complete range of possible outcomes and the associated long-term benefits of biological treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 18%
Student > Master 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Unknown 5 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Computer Science 1 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie
#306
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,567
of 301,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 301,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.