↓ Skip to main content

Cost analysis of glatiramer acetate versus interferon-β for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in patients with spasticity: the Escala study

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, October 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Cost analysis of glatiramer acetate versus interferon-β for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in patients with spasticity: the Escala study
Published in
Health Economics Review, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0066-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rainel Sánchez-de la Rosa, Laura García-Bujalance, José Meca-Lallana

Abstract

The Escala Study evidenced that the administration of glatiramer acetate for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis improved the spasticity of patients previously treated with interferon-β. However, whether such an improvement was translated into cost savings remained unclear. We therefore conducted a cost analysis of glatiramer acetate versus interferon-β in these patients with multiple sclerosis and spasticity. This cost analysis encompassed data from the observational Escala Study, which included patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and spasticity whose treatment had been switched from interferon-β to glatiramer acetate. Costs prior to starting glatiramer acetate (interferon-β period) were compared to the subsequent six months on glatiramer acetate (glatiramer acetate period). The analysis was carried out following the recommendations for conducting pharmacoeconomic studies and from the Spanish National Health System perspective. Costs associated with multiple sclerosis treatment, spasticity treatment and relapse management were expressed in 2014 euros (€); a 7.5 % discount was applied-when needed-as stipulated in Spanish law. The management of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, spasticity and relapses accounted for a 6-month cost per patient of 7,078.02€ when using interferon-β and 4,671.31€ when using glatiramer acetate. Switching from interferon-β to glatiramer acetate therefore represented a cost saving of 2,406.72€ per patient in favour of glatiramer acetate, which resulted from savings in treatment costs, relapse management and spasticity treatment of 1,890.02€, 430.48€ and 86.21€, respectively. The ratio of the costs during interferon-β was 1.5 times the costs during glatiramer acetate; thus, a fixed budget of 5,000,000€ would enable 1,070 patients to be treated with glatiramer acetate and only 706 patients with interferon-β. The treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis with glatiramer acetate entailed cost savings when compared to interferon-β in patients with spasticity, which not only resulted from its lower costs of therapy and relapse management but also from its favourable effect on reducing spasticity. Thus, glatiramer acetate may be regarded as a more efficient alternative than interferon-β from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 7 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,564,511
of 25,425,223 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#63
of 502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,035
of 292,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,425,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 292,454 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.