| Title |
Efficacy of fingolimod is superior to injectable disease modifying therapies in second-line therapy of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-015-7970-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Braune, M. Lang, A. Bergmann, NeuroTransData Study Group |
| Abstract |
Although fingolimod is registered in Europe for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) if earlier disease modifying therapy (DMT) has failed, no data regarding its efficacy in this patient group are available. This observational cohort study of the NeuroTransData network includes German RRMS outpatients with failure of earlier therapy with injectable DMT (iDMT), therefore switching to either another iDMT (n = 133) or to fingolimod (n = 300). Statistical comparison of clinical baseline characteristics showed more severely affected patients in the fingolimod group. A propensity-score matched group comparison was performed (n = 99 in each group) covering more than 2-year observation time. Fingolimod showed statistically significant superior efficacy in comparison to iDMT regarding annualized relapse rate (0.21 versus 0.33 per year), time-to-relapse and likelihood of relapse (iDMT hazard ratio 1.7), proportion and likelihood of patients with EDSS progression (15.10 versus 31.00 %; iDMT hazard ratio 1.7), persistence on medication and likelihood of discontinuation (iDMT hazard ratio 3.0). Significantly more patients were free of relapse and EDSS progression with fingolimod than with their second iDMT (64.4 versus 46.5 %, p < 0.03). This real-life evidence in German RRMS outpatients support data from controlled clinical studies and can quantitatively support clinical decision finding processes if iDMT therapy fails in RRMS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 32% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,415,069
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#457
of 4,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,000
of 388,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#5
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,478 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 89% 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 388,741 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 90% of its contemporaries.