↓ Skip to main content

Lumacaftor–Ivacaftor in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Homozygous for Phe508del CFTR

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
42 X users
patent
27 patents
facebook
15 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1237 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1071 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Lumacaftor–Ivacaftor in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis Homozygous for Phe508del CFTR
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1409547
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire E Wainwright, J Stuart Elborn, Bonnie W Ramsey, Gautham Marigowda, Xiaohong Huang, Marco Cipolli, Carla Colombo, Jane C Davies, Kris De Boeck, Patrick A Flume, Michael W Konstan, Susanna A McColley, Karen McCoy, Edward F McKone, Anne Munck, Felix Ratjen, Steven M Rowe, David Waltz, Michael P Boyle

Abstract

Background Cystic fibrosis is a life-limiting disease that is caused by defective or deficient cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) protein activity. Phe508del is the most common CFTR mutation. Methods We conducted two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that were designed to assess the effects of lumacaftor (VX-809), a CFTR corrector, in combination with ivacaftor (VX-770), a CFTR potentiator, in patients 12 years of age or older who had cystic fibrosis and were homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned to receive either lumacaftor (600 mg once daily or 400 mg every 12 hours) in combination with ivacaftor (250 mg every 12 hours) or matched placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the absolute change from baseline in the percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at week 24. Results A total of 1108 patients underwent randomization and received study drug. The mean baseline FEV1 was 61% of the predicted value. In both studies, there were significant improvements in the primary end point in both lumacaftor-ivacaftor dose groups; the difference between active treatment and placebo with respect to the mean absolute improvement in the percentage of predicted FEV1 ranged from 2.6 to 4.0 percentage points (P<0.001), which corresponded to a mean relative treatment difference of 4.3 to 6.7% (P<0.001). Pooled analyses showed that the rate of pulmonary exacerbations was 30 to 39% lower in the lumacaftor-ivacaftor groups than in the placebo group; the rate of events leading to hospitalization or the use of intravenous antibiotics was lower in the lumacaftor-ivacaftor groups as well. The incidence of adverse events was generally similar in the lumacaftor-ivacaftor and placebo groups. The rate of discontinuation due to an adverse event was 4.2% among patients who received lumacaftor-ivacaftor versus 1.6% among those who received placebo. Conclusions These data show that lumacaftor in combination with ivacaftor provided a benefit for patients with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and others; TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01807923 and NCT01807949 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 1,071 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 1052 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 191 18%
Student > Master 144 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 140 13%
Researcher 108 10%
Other 87 8%
Other 166 15%
Unknown 235 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 316 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 165 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 109 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 59 6%
Chemistry 31 3%
Other 121 11%
Unknown 270 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 145. 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 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#283,845
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#4,808
of 32,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,933
of 279,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#59
of 351 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,472 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 279,163 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 351 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.