↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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-effectiveness of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis in the United Kingdom
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10198-017-0879-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele R. Wilson, Annika Bergman, Helene Chevrou-Severac, Ross Selby, Michael Smyth, Matthew C. Kerrigan

Abstract

To examine the clinical and economic impact of vedolizumab compared with infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) in the United Kingdom (UK). A decision analytic model in Microsoft Excel was used to compare vedolizumab with other biologic treatments (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) for the treatment of biologic-naïve patients with UC in the UK. Efficacy data were obtained from a network meta-analysis using placebo as the common comparator. Other inputs (e.g., unit costs, adverse-event disutilities, probability of surgery, mortality) were obtained from published literature. Costs were presented in 2012/2013 British pounds. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3.5% per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were presented for vedolizumab compared with other biologics. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty. The model predicted that anti-tumour necrosis factor-naïve patients on vedolizumab would accrue more QALY than patients on other biologics. The incremental results suggest that vedolizumab is a cost-effective treatment compared with adalimumab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £22,735/QALY) and dominant compared with infliximab and golimumab. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to treatment response and transition probabilities. However, vedolizumab is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters. Our model predicted that treatment with vedolizumab improves QALY, increases time in remission and response, and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with all other biologics for biologic-naïve patients with moderately to severely active UC.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,208,166
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#479
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,723
of 321,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#18
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 321,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.