↓ Skip to main content

A Retrospective Study of Ranibizumab Treatment Regimens for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) in Australia and the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
A Retrospective Study of Ranibizumab Treatment Regimens for Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration (nAMD) in Australia and the United Kingdom
Published in
Advances in Therapy, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12325-017-0483-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert L. Johnston, Hans-Joachim Carius, Adrian Skelly, Alberto Ferreira, Fran Milnes, Paul Mitchell

Abstract

Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is the leading cause of vision loss among persons aged 65 years and older. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment is the recommended standard of care. The current study compares the effectiveness of ranibizumab in routine clinical practice in two countries that generally apply two different treatment regimens, treat-and-extend (T&E) in Australia or pro re nata (PRN) in the UK. This retrospective, comparative, non-randomised cohort study is based on patients' data from electronic medical record (EMR) databases in Australia and the UK. Treatment regimens were defined based on location, with Australia as a proxy for analysing T&E and UK as a proxy for analysing PRN. The study included patients with a diagnosis of nAMD who started treatment with ranibizumab between January 2009 and July 2014. A total of 647 eyes of 570 patients in Australia and 3187 eyes of 2755 patients in the UK with complete 12-months follow-up were analysed. Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between the two cohorts. After 1 year of treatment, T&E-treated eyes achieved higher mean (±SE) visual acuity (VA) gains (5.00 ± 0.54 letters [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.93-6.06]) than PRN-treated eyes [3.04 ± 0.24 letters (95% CI 2.57-3.51); difference in means 2.07 ± 0.69 (95% CI 0.73-3.41), p < 0.001]. Non-inferiority of T&E compared to PRN was concluded based on the change in mean visual acuity gains at 12 months. Over the 12-month follow-up, T&E-treated eyes received a higher mean [±standard deviation (SD)] number of injections (9.29 ± 2.43) than PRN-treated eyes (6.04 ± 2.19) (p < 0.0001). Australian patients had a lower mean (±SD) number of total clinic visits (10.29 ± 2.90) than UK patients (11.47 ± 2.93) (p < 0.0001). The higher injection frequency in the T&E cohort may account for the trend toward improved vision. Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 February 2017.
All research outputs
#15,440,760
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#1,326
of 2,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,725
of 420,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#22
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 420,224 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.