↓ Skip to main content

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of arimoclomol in rapidly progressive SOD1 ALS

Overview of attention for article published in Neurology, January 2018
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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of arimoclomol in rapidly progressive SOD1 ALS
Published in
Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.1212/wnl.0000000000004960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Benatar, Joanne Wuu, Peter M Andersen, Nazem Atassi, William David, Merit Cudkowicz, David Schoenfeld

Abstract

To examine the safety and tolerability as well as the preliminary efficacy of arimoclomol, a heat shock protein co-inducer that promotes nascent protein folding, in patients with rapidly progressive SOD1 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which patients with rapidly progressive SOD1-mutant ALS were randomized 1:1 to receive arimoclomol 200 mg tid or matching placebo for up to 12 months. Study procedures were performed using a mix of in-person and remote assessments. Primary outcome was safety and tolerability. Secondary outcome was efficacy, with survival as the principal measure. Additional efficacy measures were the rates of decline of the Revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) and percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 6 seconds (FEV6), and the Combined Assessment of Function and Survival (CAFS). Thirty-eight participants were randomized. Thirty-six (19 placebo, 17 arimoclomol) were included in the prespecified intent-to-treat analysis. Apart from respiratory function, groups were generally well-balanced at baseline. Adverse events occurred infrequently, and were usually mild and deemed unlikely or not related to study drug. Adjusting for riluzole and baseline ALSFRS-R, survival favored arimoclomol with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-1.80). ALSFRS-R and FEV6 declined more slowly in the arimoclomol group, with treatment differences of 0.5 point/month (95% CI -0.63 to 1.63) and 1.24 percent predicted/month (95% CI -2.77 to 5.25), respectively, and the CAFS similarly favored arimoclomol. This study provides Class II evidence that arimoclomol is safe and well-tolerated at a dosage of 200 mg tid for up to 12 months. Although not powered for therapeutic effect, the consistency of results across the range of prespecified efficacy outcome measures suggests a possible therapeutic benefit of arimoclomol. NCT00706147. This study provides Class II evidence that arimoclomol is safe and well-tolerated at a dosage of 200 mg tid for up to 12 months. The study lacked the precision to conclude, or to exclude, an important therapeutic benefit of arimoclomol.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 172 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 60 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Neuroscience 25 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 68 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,212,113
of 25,022,483 outputs
Outputs from Neurology
#9,134
of 20,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,996
of 452,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurology
#113
of 224 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,022,483 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 452,748 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 224 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.