| Title |
Switching Between Epoetins: A Practice in Support of Biosimilar Use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BioDrugs, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40259-015-0155-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carmen D’Amore, Roberto Da Cas, Mariangela Rossi, Giuseppe Traversa |
| Abstract |
The acceptability of switching between reference drugs and their biosimilars is often disputed. It is unclear whether this concern is specific to the use of biosimilars or is relevant to the practice of switching between any biological drugs. The objective of this study was to quantify the occurrence of switching between different erythropoiesis-stimulating agents. A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted in the Umbria region (Italy). The study population included all residents who received their first epoetin prescription between 1 July 2011 and 31 December 2014. The Umbria drug prescription database and the regional archive of residents were used to gather information. Switching was defined as any transition between different epoetins (different substances and/or different products of the same substance) in a series of two prescriptions. The probability of switching was described in relationship to the duration of treatment in a survival analysis. Overall, 3258 subjects received prescriptions of epoetins. Among the 2896 patients with at least two prescriptions, 354 (12.2 %) experienced one or more switches. The probability of switching depended on the duration of treatment: approximately 15 % of users switched within 12 months of observation and 25 % switched within 2 years. Switching was not limited to reference and biosimilar epoetins and it affected patent and off-patent epoetins equally. Switching between different epoetins was related to the duration of use and most episodes of switching involved epoetins that have never been contrasted in a comparability exercise. The present level of switching may provide reassurance to physicians when taken together with other sources of comparative evidence. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 29% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,541,834
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BioDrugs
#270
of 661 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,056
of 394,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioDrugs
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 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 661 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 394,366 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.