1,720,955 research outputs found
Cost per responder of Adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 and ABP 501 versus the originator and methotrexate in chronic plaque psoriasis
Full text linkPharmacoeconomic studies comparing the cost of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and conventional drugs in psoriasis are lacking. To assess the cost per responder of adalimumab biosimilars versus the originator and methotrexate for psoriasis treatment. A cost per responder analysis comparing adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 (Idacio®) and ABP 501 (Amgevita®), and methotrexate to the originator (Humira®) was performed. The incremental cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment based on the perspective of the National Healthcare System and number needed to treat for each therapy. Considering the PASI75 response rate at 16 weeks, the cost per responder for MSB11022 and ABP 501 compared to the originator was € 500 versus 1,831 and € 968 versus 1,949, respectively. For the same endpoint, the cost per responder for subcutaneous or oral methotrexate was € 543 or 34 compared to 2,117 for adalimumab originator. At an indirect comparison among methotrexate, MSB11022 and ABP 501, the costs per PASI75 responder at week 16 were 2%, 26%, 27% and 50% of that of the originator, respectively. The use of biosimilars was confirmed as a valuable pharmacoeconomic strategy to lower healthcare cost in patients with psoriasis.</p
Cost per responder of adalimumab biosimilars versus methotrexate in patients with psoriasis: a real-life experience
No full textPharmacoeconomic studies examining the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab biosimilars versus methotrexate in real-life settings are limited. To assess the cost per responder from the perspective of the National Health System of adalimumab biosimilars versus methotrexate for psoriasis treatment in a real-life setting. A cost-per responder analysis comparing adalimumab biosimilars MSB11022 (Idacio®) and ABP 501 (Amgevita) versus subcutaneous methotrexate was performed. The incremental cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment (including the discounts, as published in the framework agreement of the Veneto region) and the number needed to treat each therapy. The clinical efficacy measures were defined as being on treatment (i.e., retention rate) at weeks 24 and 52. A total of 712 adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis consecutively admitted to the outpatient clinic from January 2021 to December 2022 were included; 160 were treated with ABP 501 (Amgevita), 250 with MSB11022 (Idacio) and 302 with methotrexate. The retention rates of Amgevita, Idacio and methotrexate at week 24 were 86%, 90% and 78%, and 81%, 82% and 63% at week 52, respectively. The cost per responder at week 24 was €674 for Amgevita, €366 for Idacio and €264 for methotrexate, respectively; at week 52, was €1430 for Amgevita® €799 for Idacio® and €652 for methotrexate, respectively. The real-life cost-effectiveness of biosimilar drugs is largely influenced by discount rates. The week 52 cost-effectiveness of Idacio is comparable to subcutaneous methotrexate. The lowering of the cost of biosimilar drugs makes them a more accessible therapeutic option and they also can be introduced earlier in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis.</p
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
