| Title |
Second line use of Fingolimod is as effective as Natalizumab in a German out-patient RRMS-cohort
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-013-7082-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Braune, M. Lang, A. Bergmann, NTC Study Group |
| Abstract |
Although Fingolimod is registered as a second-line drug in relapsing-remittend multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Europe there are no clinical studies available comparing Fingolimod (FTY) and Natalizumab (N). This observational cohort-study used health data routinely collected in outpatient neurology practices throughout Germany completing a treatment period of 12 months included 237 patients starting on N and 190 patients on FTY because of failure of the first-line treatment. Mean relapse rate drastically decreased in both treatment groups within three months of therapy in a similar degree and remained on a low level. Both treatment groups saw a similar proportion of patients with unchanged and improved EDSS (80.53 % in FTY, 79.32 % in N). There was no statistically significant difference between the proportion of patients being relapse free (75.79 % in FTY, 71.73 % in N), progression free (87.39 % in FTY, 82.70 % in N) or relapse and progression free (71.05 % in FTY, 62.03 % in N) at 12 months in both strata. Clinical efficacy of FTY and N in RRMS second-line-therapy was similar during the first 12 months of treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 5% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 62 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 13 | 20% |
| Unknown | 19 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 23 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,230,862
of 22,719,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#398
of 4,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,685
of 197,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#4
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,719,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,455 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 197,012 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.