↓ Skip to main content

Cost utility analysis of the SQ® HDM SLIT‐tablet in house dust mite allergic asthma patients in a German setting

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
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.
Title
Cost utility analysis of the SQ® HDM SLIT‐tablet in house dust mite allergic asthma patients in a German setting
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13601-016-0127-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. Hahn-Pedersen, M. Worm, W. Green, J. Nørgaard Andreasen, M. Taylor

Abstract

Asthma affects an estimated 300 million people worldwide with the condition associated with significant healthcare utilisation costs and a large impact on patient quality of life. The SQ(®) HDM SLIT-tablet (ACARIZAX(®), Hørsholm, Denmark) is a sublingually administered allergy immunotherapy tablet for house dust mite allergic asthma and allergic rhinitis and has recently been licensed in Europe. To assess the cost-effectiveness of ACARIZAX plus pharmacotherapy versus placebo plus pharmacotherapy in patients with house dust mite allergic asthma that is uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids, in a German setting. Eligible patients should also have symptoms of mild to severe allergic rhinitis. A cost utility analysis was undertaken, based on the results of a European phase III randomised controlled trial, in which ACARIZAX was compared with placebo with both treatment groups also receiving pharmacotherapy in the form of inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting β2-agonists. Cost and quality-adjusted life years from the trial were extrapolated over a nine year time horizon and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculated to compare treatment options. ACARIZAX plus pharmacotherapy was estimated to generate 6.16 quality-adjusted life years per patient at a cost of €5658, compared with 5.50 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a cost of €2985 for placebo plus pharmacotherapy. This equated to an incremental cost of €2673, incremental QALYs of 0.66 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4041. The ICER was, therefore, substantially lower than the €40,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY adopted for the analysis. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicate the results are most sensitive to the utility score of ACARIZAX patients during years 2 and 3 of treatment. This analysis indicates that ACARIZAX plus pharmacotherapy is cost-effective compared with placebo plus pharmacotherapy for house dust mite allergic asthma patients in Germany. If a disease-modifying effect can be proven the results of this analysis may underestimate the true benefits of ACARIZAX.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Lecturer 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,374,019
of 26,071,599 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#515
of 777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,841
of 348,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,071,599 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 348,117 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.