↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly formulation in East Asian patients with schizophrenia: subgroup analysis of a global, randomized, double-blind, Phase III, noninferiority…

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly formulation in East Asian patients with schizophrenia: subgroup analysis of a global, randomized, double-blind, Phase III, noninferiority study
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s134287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam J Savitz, Haiyan Xu, Srihari Gopal, Isaac Nuamah, Paulien Ravenstijn, David Hough, Maju Mathews, Yu Feng, Lu Yu, Masayoshi Takahashi, Dennis Liu, Gang Wang, Jin-Sang Yoon, Jiahn-Jyh Chen

Abstract

To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of paliperidone palmitate three-monthly (PP3M) formulation in an East Asian population with schizophrenia by subgroup analysis of a double-blind (DB), multicenter, noninferiority study. Of 1,429 patients who entered the open-label (OL) phase, 510 were East Asian (China: 296 [58%], Japan: 175 [34%], South Korea: 19 [4%] and Taiwan: 20 [4%]). In the 17-week OL phase, patients received paliperidone palmitate once-monthly (PP1M) formulation on day 1 (150 mg eq.), day 8 (100 mg eq.) and once-monthly thereafter (50-150 mg eq., flexible). Following the OL phase, patients (n=344 East Asian) entered DB phase and were randomized (1:1) to PP1M (n=174) or PP3M (n=170). Primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients who remained relapse free at the end of the 48-week DB phase, using Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival estimate. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change from DB baseline to endpoint in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Clinical Global Impression Severity, Personal and Social Performance scores and symptomatic remission. Additional assessments included caregiver burden and safety. A total of 285/344 (83%) randomized East Asian patients completed the DB phase. The percentage of patients who had a relapse event was similar on comparing PP3M (17 [10.2%]) to PP1M (20 [11.8%]), and also for Japan (PP3M: 9 [17.6%], PP1M: 13 [23.2%]) and China (PP3M: 6 [5.9%], PP1M: 7 [6.9%]). Mean change from baseline in secondary efficacy parameters was similar to the global population, regardless of treatment. Symptomatic remission was attained by 50% of the treated patients. Caregiver burden was significantly reduced (P<0.001) following treatment with PP3M/PP1M. Frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events in PP3M group during DB phase was greater in the East Asian subgroup (81%) than the global population (68%) and was higher in Japan (92%) than China (75%). Results suggest that PP3M is efficacious in the East Asian subgroup. Although treatment-emergent adverse events were slightly higher in the East Asian subgroup versus the global population, no new safety signals were identified.

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 20%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Psychology 7 11%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 17 26%
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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,901
of 3,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,586
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#45
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 327,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.