↓ Skip to main content

Differential effects of cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil on cellular and serological parameters in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Overview of attention for article published in Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Differential effects of cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil on cellular and serological parameters in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus
Published in
Arthritis Research & Therapy, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13075-015-0603-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Till Fassbinder, Ute Saunders, Eva Mickholz, Elisabeth Jung, Heidemarie Becker, Bernhard Schlüter, Annett Marita Jacobi

Abstract

Disease activity and therapy show an impact on cellular and serological parameters in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). This study was performed to compare the influence of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and cyclophosphamide (CYC) therapy on these parameters in patients with flaring, organ-threatening disease. SLE patients currently receiving CYC (n = 20), MMF (n = 25) or no immunosuppressive drugs (n = 22) were compared using a cross-sectional design. Median disease activity and daily corticosteroid dose were similar in these treatment groups. Concurrent medication, organ manifestations, and disease activity were recorded, and cellular and serological parameters were determined by routine diagnostic tests or flow cytometric analysis. In addition follow-up data were obtained from different sets of patients (CYC n = 24; MMF n = 23). Although both drugs showed a significant effect on disease activity and circulating B cell subsets, only MMF reduced circulating plasmablasts and plasma cells as well as circulating free light chains within three months of induction therapy. Neither MMF nor CYC were able to reduce circulating memory B cells. MMF lowered IgA levels more markedly than CYC. We did not observe a significant difference in the reduction of IgG levels or anti-dsDNA antibodies comparing patients receiving MMF or CYC. In contrast to MMF, induction therapy with CYC was associated with a significant increase of circulating CD8+ effector T cells and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (PDCs) after three months. The results indicate differences between MMF and CYC with regard to the mechanism of action. MMF, but not CYC treatment leads to a fast and enduring reduction of surrogate markers of B cell activation, such as circulating plasmablasts, plasma cells and free light chains but a comparable rate of hypogammaglobulinemia.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,614,063
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#818
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,327
of 279,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#15
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 279,377 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.