↓ Skip to main content

Payers' Views of the Changes Arising through the Possible Adoption of Adaptive Pathways

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Payers' Views of the Changes Arising through the Possible Adoption of Adaptive Pathways
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2016.00305
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Ermisch, Anna Bucsics, Patricia Vella Bonanno, Francis Arickx, Alexander Bybau, Tomasz Bochenek, Marc van de Casteele, Eduardo Diogene, Jurij Fürst, Kristina Garuolienė, Martin van der Graaff, Jolanta Gulbinovič, Alan Haycox, Jan Jones, Roberta Joppi, Ott Laius, Irene Langner, Antony P. Martin, Vanda Markovic-Pekovic, Laura McCullagh, Einar Magnusson, Ellen Nilsen, Gisbert Selke, Catherine Sermet, Steven Simoens, Robert Sauermann, Ad Schuurman, Ricardo Ramos, Vera Vlahovic-Palcevski, Corinne Zara, Brian Godman

Abstract

Payers are a major stakeholder in any considerations and initiatives concerning adaptive licensing of new medicinal products, also referred to as Medicines Adaptive Pathways to patients (MAPPs). Firstly, the scope and necessity of MAPPs need further scrutiny, especially with regard to the definition of unmet need. Conditional approval pathways already exist for new medicines for seriously debilitating or life-threatening diseases and only a limited number of new medicines are innovative. Secondly, MAPPs will result in new medicines on the market with limited evidence about their effectiveness and safety. Additional data are to be collected after approval. Consequently, adaptive pathways may increase the risk of exposing patients to ineffective or unsafe medicines. We have already seen medicines approved conventionally that subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe amongst a wider, more co-morbid population as well as medicines that could have been considered for approval under MAPPs but subsequently proved ineffective or unsafe in Phase III trials and were never licensed. Thirdly, MAPPs also put high demands on payers. Routine collection of patient level data is difficult with high transaction costs. It is not clear who will fund these. Other challenges for payers include shifts in the risk governance framework, implications for evaluation and HTA, increased complexity of setting prices, difficulty with ensuring equity in the allocation of resources, definition of responsibility and liability and implementation of stratified use. Exit strategies also need to be agreed in advance, including price reductions, rebates, or reimbursement withdrawals when price premiums are not justified. These issues and concerns will be discussed in detail including potential ways forward.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 32 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 36 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#3,702,227
of 25,183,822 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,964
of 19,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,220
of 330,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#35
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,183,822 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 330,203 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.