↓ Skip to main content

Economic Evaluation of Pharmacogenetic Tests in Patients Subjected to Renal Transplantation: A Review of Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Economic Evaluation of Pharmacogenetic Tests in Patients Subjected to Renal Transplantation: A Review of Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00189
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nemanja Rancic, Viktorija Dragojevic-Simic, Neven Vavic, Aleksandra Kovacevic, Zoran Segrt, Natasa Djordjevic

Abstract

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice for the patients with end-stage renal failure. Genetic factors, among others, can influence variability in response to immunosuppressive drugs. Nowadays, due to restrictive health resources, the question arises whether routine pharmacogenetic analyses should be done in the renal transplant recipients or not. The aim of this literature review was to present the up-to-date information considering the economic feasibility of pharmacogenetic testing in patients subjected to renal transplantation. The organization United Network for Organ Sharing in the US estimated that total costs per renal transplant concerning these analyses were $334,300 in 2014. Pharmacogenetic testing prior to treatment initiation could be helpful to predict and assess treatment response and the risks for adverse drug reactions. This kind of testing before treatment initiation seems to be one of the most promising applications of pharmacokinetics. Although pharmacogenetic tests were found to be a cost-effective or cost-saving strategy in many cases, some authors represent another opinion. However, if the real costs of renal transplantation are recognized, the application of these tests in the standard daily practice could be considered more realistic, which additionally emphasizes the importance of future studies assessing their cost effectiveness.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 16%
Researcher 3 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,468,369
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,763
of 10,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,295
of 337,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#58
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 337,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.