↓ Skip to main content

Real-world effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod compared with self-injectable drugs in non-responders and in treatment-naïve patients with multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Real-world effectiveness of natalizumab and fingolimod compared with self-injectable drugs in non-responders and in treatment-naïve patients with multiple sclerosis
Published in
Journal of Neurology, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00415-016-8343-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Prosperini, Francesco Saccà, Cinzia Cordioli, Antonio Cortese, Fabio Buttari, Simona Pontecorvo, Assunta Bianco, Serena Ruggieri, Shalom Haggiag, Vincenzo Brescia Morra, Ruggero Capra, Diego Centonze, Giancarlo Di Battista, Elisabetta Ferraro, Ada Francia, Simonetta Galgani, Claudio Gasperini, Enrico Millefiorini, Massimiliano Mirabella, Carlo Pozzilli

Abstract

In this independent, multicentre post-marketing study we directly compared the effectiveness of natalizumab (NTZ), fingolimod (FNG) and self-injectable drugs (INJ), in non-responders to first immunomodulating treatment and in highly active treatment-naïve patients with multiple sclerosis. As main outcome measure we considered the proportions of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3), defined as absence of relapses, disability worsening and radiological activity. A total of 567 non-responders to interferon beta (IFNB) or glatiramer acetate (GA) [dataset A] and 216 highly active treatment-naïves [dataset B] were followed up to 24 months from the beginning of NTZ, FNG or INJ, i.e. switching from IFNB to GA or viceversa (in the case of non-responders) or starting high-dose IFNB (in the case of highly active treatment-naïves). Propensity score matching in a 1:1:1 ratio was used to select only patients with similar baseline characteristics, retaining 330 and 120 patients in dataset A and B, respectively. In dataset A, the 24-month proportion with NEDA-3 was greater in both NTZ group (67%) and FNG group (42%) than in INJ group (35%) (p ≤ 0.016); however, NTZ was superior to FNG in promoting the attainment of NEDA-3 status (p = 0.034). In dataset B, the 24-month proportion with NEDA-3 was greater in NTZ group (75%) and FNG group (67%) than in INJ group (40%), but the small cohort sizes most likely prevented the detection of any statistically significant difference. Our study provides real-world evidence that NTZ was more effective than both FNG and INJ in non-responders, while it could seem that, in highly active treatment-naïves, NTZ was as effective as FNG and both were superior to INJ.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 31 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 35%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Unspecified 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 32 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,654,983
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,131
of 4,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,449
of 426,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#24
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 426,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.