↓ Skip to main content

Safety Profile and Costs of Related Adverse Events of Trastuzumab Emtansine for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Compared to Capecitabine Plus Lapatinib…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Drug Investigation, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Safety Profile and Costs of Related Adverse Events of Trastuzumab Emtansine for the Treatment of HER2-Positive Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Compared to Capecitabine Plus Lapatinib from the Perspective of the Canadian Health-Care System
Published in
Clinical Drug Investigation, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40261-015-0302-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Piwko, Catherine Prady, Simon Yunger, Erika Pollex, Aurelie Moser

Abstract

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1, KADCYLA(®)) is an antibody-drug conjugate comprised of the cytotoxic agent DM1 and trastuzumab (HERCEPTIN(®)). The safety profile of T-DM1 in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab and a taxane was investigated in the phase III EMILIA trial. The trial demonstrated clinically and statistically meaningful differences in the safety profile between T-DM1 and capecitabine plus lapatinib (CAP + LAP). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of managing treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) that occurred in ≥2 % of patients and grade 2 AEs that occurred in ≥5 % of patients taking T-DM1 compared with patients taking CAP + LAP based on the EMILIA trial, from the perspective of Canadian public payers. An Excel-based model was utilized to estimate the relevant costs. Clinical data were obtained from the EMILIA trial. Cost information was obtained from the literature, clinical experts, and standard cost sources. The analysis was conducted from the Canadian public-payer perspective and reported in 2014 Canadian dollars (CAD). The management of included treatment-related AEs resulted in higher estimated per-patient costs of CAD6901 for CAP + LAP versus CAD3380 for T-DM1, resulting in savings of CAD3521. From a Canadian perspective, this analysis demonstrated that utilizing T-DM1 for the management of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer results in substantial savings to the public health-care system when considering the costs of treatment-related AEs, due to fewer amount of toxicities compared with CAP + LAP. Results of various sensitivity analyses investigating changes in number and costs of AEs confirmed the findings; however, the magnitude of cost savings varied. Further analyses are necessary to determine whether these cost savings would occur in other countries and health-care systems.

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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#7,186,331
of 23,924,386 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Drug Investigation
#270
of 985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,078
of 266,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Drug Investigation
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,924,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 266,011 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.