| Title |
Cost per responder of TNF-α therapies in Germany
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-013-2332-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christian Gissel, Holger Repp |
| Abstract |
Tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) inhibitors ranked highest in German pharmaceutical expenditure in 2011. Their most important application is the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our objective is to analyze cost per responder of TNF-α inhibitors for RA from the German Statutory Health Insurance funds' perspective. We aim to conduct the analysis based on randomized comparative effectiveness studies of the relevant treatments for the German setting. For inclusion of effectiveness studies, we require results in terms of response rates as defined by European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) or American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. We identify conventional triple therapy as the relevant comparator. We calculate cost per responder based on German direct medical costs. Direct clinical comparisons could be identified for both etanercept and infliximab compared to triple therapy. For infliximab, cost per responder was 216,392 euros for ACR50 and 432,784 euros for ACR70 responses. For etanercept, cost per ACR70 responder was 321,527 euros. Cost was lower for response defined by EULAR criteria, but data was only available for infliximab. Cost per responder is overestimated by 40% due to inclusion of taxes and mandatory rebates in German drugs' list prices. Our analysis shows specific requirements for cost-effectiveness analysis in Germany. Cost per responder for TNF-α treatment in the German setting is more than double the cost estimated in a similar analysis for the USA, which measured against placebo. The difference in results shows the critical role of the correct comparator for a specific setting. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 33% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
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 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,445,571
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,137
of 2,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,870
of 197,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 197,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.