↓ Skip to main content

Long-term outcomes of daily oral vs. pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide in a non-trial setting in ANCA-associated vasculitis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Rheumatology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Long-term outcomes of daily oral vs. pulsed intravenous cyclophosphamide in a non-trial setting in ANCA-associated vasculitis
Published in
Clinical Rheumatology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10067-017-3944-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan La-Crette, Jeremy Royle, Peter C Lanyon, Alastair Ferraro, Amanda Butler, Fiona A Pearce

Abstract

We aimed to compare risk of death, relapse, neutropenia and infection requiring hospital admission between unselected ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) patients according to whether cyclophosphamide induction was by daily oral (PO) or pulse intravenous (IV) route. We identified all newly diagnosed AAV patients treated with PO or IV cyclophosphamide between March 2007 and June 2013. We used Cox and logistic regression models to compare mortality, relapse and adverse events and adjusted these for age, renal function and other significant confounders. Fifty-seven patients received PO and 57 received IV cyclophosphamide. One-year survival was 86.0% in PO and 98.2% in IV patients; all-time adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PO compared to that of IV cyclophosphamide was 1.8 (95% CI 0.3-10.6, P = 0.54). One-year relapse-free survival was 80.7% in PO compared to 87.3% in IV patients, all-time adjusted HR 3.8 (0.2-846, P = 0.37). During the first 12 months, neutropenia of ≤ 0.5 × 109/L occurred in 9 (16%) PO and 0 (0%) IV cyclophosphamide patients (P = 0.003). The number of patients admitted with one or more infections was 16 (28%) in the PO group and 9 (16%) in the IV group, adjusted OR 2.2 (0.6-8.6, P = 0.23). We observed an increased risk of neutropenia, a trend towards increased risk of death and an admission with infection with PO cyclophosphamide. This adds certainty to previous studies, indicating that PO administration induces greater marrow toxicity. Infection-related admissions within 12 months of starting cyclophosphamide were higher than those in clinical trials, possibly reflecting the unselected nature of this cohort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#7,068,056
of 24,580,204 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,085
of 3,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,775
of 449,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#20
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,580,204 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 449,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 66% of its contemporaries.