You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Ibrutinib for Treating Relapsed or Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PharmacoEconomics, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40273-018-0713-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Tappenden, Emma Simpson, Jean Hamilton, Daniel Pollard, Mark Clowes, Eva Kaltenthaler, David Meiklejohn, Nick Morley |
| Abstract |
As part of its Single Technology Appraisal process, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of ibrutinib (Janssen) to submit evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ibrutinib for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The School of Health and Related Research Technology Assessment Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence contained within the company's submission to NICE. The clinical effectiveness evidence for ibrutinib included one randomised controlled trial comparing ibrutinib and temsirolimus and two single-arm studies. The company's indirect comparison of ibrutinib versus rituximab plus chemotherapy (R-chemo) produced a hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) of 0.28. The ERG's random effects network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that the treatment effect on PFS was highly uncertain (HR 0.27; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.06-1.26). The company's Markov model assessed the cost effectiveness of ibrutinib versus R-chemo for the treatment of R/R MCL from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Based on a re-run of the company's model by the ERG, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ibrutinib versus R-chemo [including the company's original patient access scheme (PAS)] was expected to be £76,014 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ERG had several concerns regarding the company's model structure and the evidence used to inform its parameters. The ERG's preferred analysis, which used the ERG's NMA and the observed Kaplan-Meier curve for time to ibrutinib discontinuation and excluded long-term disutilities for R-chemo, produced ICERs of £63,340 per QALY gained for the overall R/R MCL population and of £44,711 per QALY gained for patients with one prior treatment. Following an updated PAS and consideration of evidence from a later data-cut of the RAY trial, the appraisal committee concluded that the most plausible ICER for the one prior treatment subgroup was likely to be lower than the company's estimate of £49,848 per QALY gained. The company's ICER for the overall R/R MCL population was higher, at £62,650 per QALY gained. The committee recommended ibrutinib as an option for treating R/R MCL in adults only if they have received only one previous line of therapy and the company provides ibrutinib with the discount agreed in the commercial access agreement with NHS England. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 46 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#14,272,319
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#1,467
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,835
of 341,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#21
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 341,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.