↓ Skip to main content

Policy Options for Infliximab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Given Emerging Evidence for Switching

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Policy Options for Infliximab Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Given Emerging Evidence for Switching
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40258-018-0371-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Don Husereau, Brian Feagan, Carl Selya-Hammer

Abstract

Biosimilars are becoming increasingly available internationally as patents expire on the originator biologic drugs they are intended to copy. Although substitution policies seen with generic drugs are being considered as a means to reduce expenditures on biologics, some biosimilars pose particular challenges in that the act of substitution may eventually lead to increased rates of therapeutic failure. As evidence requirements from regulators do not directly address this challenge, switch trials of biosimilars have emerged that may provide further answers. Using infliximab in inflammatory bowel disease as an example, we critically examine emerging evidence from two key switch trials (NOR-SWITCH and NCT020968610) and discuss the clinical and economic implications of these and what policy options may be most reasonable for payers. Options include reimbursing biosimilars for only newly diagnosed patients, using product-listing agreements to manage uncertainty, or using tiered co-payments or other incentives to promote biosimilar use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 22%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 18%
Computer Science 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,814,357
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#166
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,857
of 437,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
#5
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 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 784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 437,329 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.