↓ Skip to main content

Selexipag for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, December 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
797 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
615 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
Selexipag for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, December 2015
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1503184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olivier Sitbon, Richard Channick, Kelly M Chin, Aline Frey, Sean Gaine, Nazzareno Galiè, Hossein-Ardeschir Ghofrani, Marius M Hoeper, Irene M Lang, Ralph Preiss, Lewis J Rubin, Lilla Di Scala, Victor Tapson, Igor Adzerikho, Jinming Liu, Olga Moiseeva, Xiaofeng Zeng, Gérald Simonneau, Vallerie V McLaughlin

Abstract

In a phase 2 trial, selexipag, an oral selective IP prostacyclin-receptor agonist, was shown to be beneficial in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. In this event-driven, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 1156 patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension to receive placebo or selexipag in individualized doses (maximum dose, 1600 μg twice daily). Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were not receiving treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension or if they were receiving a stable dose of an endothelin-receptor antagonist, a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, or both. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or a complication related to pulmonary arterial hypertension up to the end of the treatment period (defined for each patient as 7 days after the date of the last intake of selexipag or placebo). A primary end-point event occurred in 397 patients--41.6% of those in the placebo group and 27.0% of those in the selexipag group (hazard ratio in the selexipag group as compared with the placebo group, 0.60; 99% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.78; P<0.001). Disease progression and hospitalization accounted for 81.9% of the events. The effect of selexipag with respect to the primary end point was similar in the subgroup of patients who were not receiving treatment for the disease at baseline and in the subgroup of patients who were already receiving treatment at baseline (including those who were receiving a combination of two therapies). By the end of the study, 105 patients in the placebo group and 100 patients in the selexipag group had died from any cause. Overall, 7.1% of patients in the placebo group and 14.3% of patients in the selexipag group discontinued their assigned regimen prematurely because of adverse events. The most common adverse events in the selexipag group were consistent with the known side effects of prostacyclin, including headache, diarrhea, nausea, and jaw pain. Among patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension, the risk of the primary composite end point of death or a complication related to pulmonary arterial hypertension was significantly lower with selexipag than with placebo. There was no significant difference in mortality between the two study groups. (Funded by Actelion Pharmaceuticals; GRIPHON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01106014.).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 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 615 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 607 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 85 14%
Researcher 74 12%
Student > Bachelor 50 8%
Student > Master 48 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 7%
Other 143 23%
Unknown 170 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 259 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 52 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 1%
Other 40 7%
Unknown 206 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 202. 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 09 January 2024.
All research outputs
#193,536
of 25,371,292 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#3,789
of 32,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,074
of 403,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#70
of 358 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 121.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 403,675 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 358 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.