Abstract Objectives: To compare income growth over time between employees with RA treated with anti-TNFs and those treated with methotrexate (MTX). Methods: Privately insured employees (aged ≥18) with ≥1 RA diagnosis (ICD-9: 714.0) were identified from a large-scale US employer claims database (1998-2011). Patients were stratified into treatment groups (anti-TNF-treated patients and MTX-monotherapy patients) based on their treatment history. The anti-TNF-treated patients comprised patients who filled ≥1 prescription for anti-TNFs, with or without MTX (index date defined as the date of the first anti-TNF prescription). The MTX-treated patients comprised patients who filled ≥1 prescription for MTX-monotherapy (index date randomly selected). The primary study outcome was the annual income growth rate (US dollars). Patients were followed from their index date to health plan disenrollment or the end of data availability (maximum follow-up of 5 years). The effect of treatment type on income growth was assessed using a multivariable generalized estimating equation model, adjusting for key baseline characteristics. Income growth was compared to that of the general employed population using Social Security data (1998-2011). Results: The regression-adjusted annual growth rate in income for anti-TNF-treated patients (n = 1848) was 2.8% (CI = 1.9-3.6%), significantly greater (p < 0.05) than the 0.6% (CI = -0.2-1.4%) for MTX-monotherapy patients (n = 1866). Compared to the general employed population, income growth was lower (p < 0.05) for MTX-monotherapy patients and comparable for anti-TNF-treated patients. Conclusions: Compared to MTX-monotherapy, anti-TNF treatment is associated with a higher income growth rate among employees with RA. Anti-TNF-treated patients experienced comparable income growth to the general employed population norm.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
4%
Business, Management and Accounting
1
4%
Other
1
4%
Unknown
5
20%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 October 2014.
All research outputs
#24,094,937
of 29,353,077 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Economics
#1,301
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,333
of 273,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Economics
#31
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,353,077 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 273,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
