↓ Skip to main content

Early clinical experiences with nintedanib in three UK tertiary interstitial lung disease centres

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Early clinical experiences with nintedanib in three UK tertiary interstitial lung disease centres
Published in
Clinical and Translational Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40169-017-0172-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Toellner, G. Hughes, W. Beswick, M. G. Crooks, C. Donaldson, I. Forrest, S. P. Hart, C. Leonard, M. Major, A. J. Simpson, N. Chaudhuri

Abstract

Nintedanib has been shown to slow disease progression in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). It was approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in January 2016 for IPF patients with a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 50-80% in the United Kingdom (UK). To report real world data about our early clinical experience using nintedanib in 187 patients with a multi-disciplinary (MDT) diagnosis of IPF in a manufacturer funded patient in need scheme (three UK centres) prior to NICE approval. All patients with a MDT diagnosis of IPF from December 2014 to January 2016 commenced on nintedanib were included. Demographic details, adverse events (AEs) and where available lung function results were retrospectively collected from clinical letters. 187 patients (76% males) with a median age of 72 years (49-89) were treated with nintedanib. The average pre-treatment FVC was 81.1 ± 19.8% and diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide was 43.9 ± 15% (n = 82). Fifty percent of patients started nintedanib because they were ineligible for pirfenidone due to an FVC > 80%. The median treatment course was 8 ± 4 months. The majority of patients experienced 1-3 AEs with nintedanib (52%, n = 97). The most frequent AEs were diarrhoea (50%), nausea (36%), reduced appetite (24%), tiredness (20%) and gastro-oesophageal reflux (18%). The majority of AEs resulted in no change in treatment (64%, n = 461). 21% (n = 150) of AEs resulted in a dose reduction and 13% (n = 94) necessitated discontinuation of treatment. 1 in 5 patients discontinued treatment either temporarily or on a permanent basis during the monitoring period. In a select cohort of patients, a statistically significant greater proportion of patients remained stable or improved and a lower proportion declined, as depicted by FVC changes of > 5% after nintedanib commencement (P < 0.05 using Chi squared test). Nintedanib is well tolerated and has an acceptable safety profile. Only 8% of those reporting diarrhoea discontinued treatment either on a temporary or permanent basis. There were no signals with respect to increased cardiovascular morbidity or major bleeding risk. This is in keeping with the INPULSIS clinical trial findings but in a real world cohort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Mathematics 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,541,990
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#373
of 1,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,659
of 340,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 340,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.