↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in US

Overview of attention for article published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in US
Published in
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12962-018-0089-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zafar Zafari, Mohsen Sadatsafavi, J. Mark FitzGerald, for the Canadian Respiratory Research Network

Abstract

A significant minority of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA). A number of add-on therapies, including monoclonal antibodies (namely omalizumab) and more recently tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma. A probabilistic Markov model of asthma was created. Total costs (in 2013 US $) and health outcomes of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Future costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at the rate of 3%. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at willingness-to-pay value of $50,000. The 10-year discounted costs and QALYs for standard therapy were $38,432 and 6.79, respectively. The corresponding values for add-on therapy with tiotropium and with omalizumab were $41,535 and 6.88, and $217,847 and 7.17, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of add-on therapy with tiotropium versus standard therapy, and omalizumab versus tiotropium were $34,478/QALY, and $593,643/QALY, respectively. The model outcomes were most sensitive to the costs of omalizumab but were robust against other assumptions. Although omalizumab had the best health outcomes, add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 18 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,434,409
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#222
of 435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,546
of 442,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 442,660 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.