| Title |
Cost-effectiveness modeling of abatacept versus other biologic agents in DMARDS and anti-TNF inadequate responders for the management of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, December 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-008-1060-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anthony Russell, Ariel Beresniak, Louis Bessette, Boulos Haraoui, Proton Rahman, Carter Thorne, Ross Maclean, Danielle Dupont |
| Abstract |
To assess the cost-effectiveness of abatacept compared to different biologic treatment strategies for moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis based on current medical practices in Canada. A model was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of various biologic treatments over a 2-year time horizon, using two effectiveness endpoints: "low disease activity state" (LDAS) and "remission". Abatacept, as first biologic agent after an inadequate response to DMARDs, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (29.4% versus 15.6%) and remission (14.8% versus 5.2%), and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p<0.001). Abatacept, as second biologic agent after an inadequate response to one anti-TNF agent, provides greater treatment success rate for achieving LDAS (17.1% versus 10.2%) and remission (7.4% versus 3.9%) and appears significantly more cost-effective compared to the sequential use of anti-TNF agents (p<0.001). Abatacept is a cost-effective strategy in patients with an inadequate response to DMARDs or to one anti-TNF agent. |
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% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 33% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 46% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
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
#7,412,246
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,134
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,522
of 154,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 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 2,977 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 154,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.