↓ Skip to main content

Pattern of Use of Biosimilar and Originator Somatropin in Italy: A Population-Based Multiple Databases Study During the Years 2009–2014

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Pattern of Use of Biosimilar and Originator Somatropin in Italy: A Population-Based Multiple Databases Study During the Years 2009–2014
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2018.00095
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilaria Marcianò, Ylenia Ingrasciotta, Francesco Giorgianni, Valentina Ientile, Alessandro Chinellato, Daniele Ugo Tari, Rosa Gini, Salvatore Cannavò, Maurizio Pastorello, Salvatore Scondotto, Pasquale Cananzi, Giuseppe Traversa, Francesco Trotta, Valeria Belleudi, Antonio Addis, Gianluca Trifirò

Abstract

Somatropin [recombinant growth hormone (rGH)] is approved in children and adults for several conditions involving growth disturbances and the corresponding biosimilar is available in Italy since 2006. No population-based data are available on the pattern of rGH use in Italian clinical practice. This study aimed at exploring the pattern of biosimilar and originator rGH use in six Italian centers, where different policy interventions promoted biosimilar use. This population-based, drug-utilization study was conducted in the years 2009-2014, using administrative databases of Umbria, Tuscany, and Lazio Regions and Local Health Units of Caserta, Treviso, and Palermo. Naïve rGH users were characterized, and prevalence of use and discontinuation were assessed over time. Among 6,785 patients treated with rGH during the study years, 4,493 (66.2%) were naïve users (males/females = 1.3), mostly affected by GH deficiency. The prevalence of rGH use increased from 2009 to 2010, remaining stable thereafter, but it was heterogeneous across centers (twofold higher prevalence of use in center n.2 than centers n.4 and 1 in 2014). Biosimilar rGH uptake increased over time but was low (7.8% in 2014) and heterogeneous as well. Discontinuation of rGH therapy occurred in 54.0% of naïve users, more frequently in females than males (58.1 vs. 50.9%). During the first year of treatment, discontinuation was frequent (39.9%), but no statistically significant differences were observed in treatment persistence for biosimilar vs. originator rGH (p > 0.05). Geographical heterogeneity in the prevalence of rGH use was observed. Similarly, the biosimilar rGH uptake was low and variable across centers. Post-marketing monitoring is required to continuously monitor the benefit-risk profile of rGH, thus guaranteeing greater savings than only promoting lowest cost rGH.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 26%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,728,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#4,379
of 13,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,406
of 351,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#79
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 351,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.