ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2019
The Effectiveness and Value of Lanadelumab and C1 Esterase Inhibitors for Prophylaxis of Hereditary Angioedema Attacks.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling the Complexities of Hereditary Angioedema.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- A multicenter chart review of patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes in hereditary angioedema: unmet need for more effective long-term prophylaxis.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2023Article
- The symptom experience of hereditary angioedema (HAE) patients beyond HAE attacks: literature review and clinician interviews.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022Review
- Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Angioedema: A Literature Review.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2021Review
- Transition to lanadelumab-flyo from three medications for a hereditary angioedema patient with a variant in theClinical case reports · 2021Article
- Lanadelumab: A Review in Hereditary Angioedema.Drugs · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
disclosuresFunding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California, and California Health Care Foundation to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP Anthem, Blue Shield of California, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Cambia Health Solutions, United Healthcare, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, AstraZeneca, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, Health Care Service Corporation, Editas, Alnylam, Regeneron, Mallinkrodt, Biogen, HealthPartners, and Novartis. Agboola, Dreitlein, and Pearson are ICER employees. Lin reports personal fees from ICER, during the conduct of this study, and grants from the National Institutes of Health and the California Department of Insurance, outside the submitted work. Carlson and Lubinga report grants from ICER, during the conduct of this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.