English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We (the authors) acknowledge and welcome this letter of clarification from Allen et al. [1]. We would like to justify our use of the alternative (earlier) data, which were presented on the grounds that these were the only publicly available data at the ‘time of writing’ and indeed acceptance of the article for publication [2]. We are grateful to GlaxoSmithKline for highlighting and making available the revised data. The revised data presented appear robust and analytically valid; however, readers of PharmacoEconomics should be aware that the point estimates of the odds ratios remain favourable to the comparator drug, despite the acknowledged lack of statistical significance, which is not surprising given the small sample sizes used for the analysis. Nevertheless, the response data in question had no effect on the manufacturer’s estimation of cost effectiveness, as calculations for the health economic analysis were based on bleed event data, rather than response rates. We would also like to draw readers’ attention to the fact that the appraisal of drugs for chronic immune or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is a fast-moving field, with new information constantly being made available. Therefore, we would recommend readers to use our article as a supplement to and summary of the more detailed information available from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) website [3], and would also like to draw attention to the ongoing NICE review of eltrombopag [4].

pharmacoeconomics

The Authors’ Reply to Allen et al.: “A Comment on Boyers et al.: ‘Eltrombopag for the Treatment of Chronic Immune or Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A NICE Single Technology Appraisal’”