↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the efficacy of azathioprine and rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
158 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the efficacy of azathioprine and rituximab in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Journal of Neurology, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00415-017-8590-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zahra Nikoo, Shervin Badihian, Vahid Shaygannejad, Nasrin Asgari, Fereshteh Ashtari

Abstract

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) often follows a relapsing course. As disability in NMOSD is attack-related, effective treatments are needed. We aimed to compare the efficacy of azathioprine (AZA) and rituximab (RIT) as maintenance therapy in NMOSD patients. An open, randomized clinical trial was conducted during September 2015 to December 2016, in Isfahan, Iran. Initially, 100 NMOSD patients were approached, 86 entered the study, and 68 cases completed the trial. All patients had a relapsing-remitting course with expanded disability extended scale (EDSS) ≤7 (median 2.75, range = 0-7). Patients were randomized into two groups, which did not differ according to age, gender distribution, and disease duration. In the AZA group, 35 patients [20 aquaporin-4 (AQP4)-IgG positive] were started on 50 mg/day oral AZA and increased to 2-3 mg/kg/day (with oral prednisolone as adjunctive therapy). In the RIT group, 33 patients (13 aquaporin-4-IgG positive) received 1 g intravenous rituximab and repeated 2 weeks later and then every 6 months. Annualized relapse rate (ARR) was measured as the primary outcome and EDSS as the secondary outcome after 12 months of intervention. The mean ARR [standard deviation (SD)] in the AZA group decreased from 1 (0.38) to 0.51 (0.55) (P value <0.001) and in the RIT group decreased from 1.30 (0.68) to 0.21 (0.42) (P value <0.001). ARR after intervention minus ARR before intervention [mean (SD)] was 1.09 (0.72) in RIT group and 0.49 (0.59) in AZA group (P value <0.001). EDSS after intervention minus EDSS before intervention [mean (SD)] was 0.98 (1.14) in RIT group and 0.44 (0.54) in AZA group (P value <0.001). Nineteen patients (54.3%) in AZA group and 26 patients (78.8%) in RIT group became relapse-free after intervention (P value = 0.033). AZA and RIT can both effectively decrease ARR and EDSS in NMOSD patients. RIT was significantly more effective than AZA treatment. Trial Registration Name of registry: clinicaltrials.gov; ID: NCT03002038; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03002038 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Other 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 34 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 37%
Neuroscience 15 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 41 34%
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 15 June 2021.
All research outputs
#4,149,754
of 22,914,829 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#974
of 4,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,398
of 316,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#5
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,914,829 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 4,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 316,840 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 76% 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.