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 |
Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12962-018-0101-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dhvani Shah, Maurice Driessen, Nancy Risebrough, Timothy Baker, Ian Naya, Andrew Briggs, Afisi S. Ismaila |
| Abstract |
Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model. Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses. For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 18% |
| Professor | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 25% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 14% |
| Psychology | 3 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 10 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,127,411
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#132
of 431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,329
of 326,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 326,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.