| Title |
Randomized double-blind clinical trial of combined treatment with megestrol acetate plus celecoxib versus megestrol acetate alone in cachexia-anorexia syndrome induced by GI cancers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4047-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bizhan Kouchaki, Ghasem Janbabai, Abbas Alipour, Shahram Ala, Samaneh Borhani, Ebrahim Salehifar |
| Abstract |
Previous studies reported promising efficacy for celecoxib in the treatment of cancer cachexia. We designed this study to test the hypothesis that combination therapy with megestrol acetate (MA) plus celecoxib is superior to MA alone. Ninety eligible gastrointestinal cancer patients randomly received either MA 320 mg/day plus placebo (arm1) or MA 320 mg/day plus celecoxib 200 mg/day (arm2). Patients were evaluated at baseline, then 1 and 2 months after starting interventions. The primary outcome was body weight. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, grip strength, appetite score, performance status, plasma albumin, CRP, IL-6, and Glasgow Prognostic Score. Patients were comparable at baseline. Sixty patients were assessable for the first month and 33 patients for the second month. After 2 months, patients in arm1 (MA + placebo) and arm2 (MA + celecoxib) experienced 4.0 ± 3.4 and 2.2 ± 3.6Kg of weight gain respectively (P = 0.163). Changes relative to baseline were statistically significant in both arms of the study (P = 0.001). Regarding secondary outcomes, comparisons between groups did not show any statistically significant difference, but within-group changes were significant in both arms of the study. Since both MA alone and MA plus celecoxib are associated with improvement of cachexia in GI cancer patients, this study failed to show that adding celecoxib (200 mg/day) to megestrol (320 mg/day) could enhance anti-cachexic effects of megestrol. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 23 | 23% |
| Unknown | 28 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#4,225,012
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#973
of 4,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,515
of 446,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#28
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 446,086 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 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 62% of its contemporaries.