| Title |
Effectiveness and baseline factors associated to fingolimod response in a real-world study on multiple sclerosis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-018-8791-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. Esposito, L. Ferrè, F. Clarelli, M. A. Rocca, G. Sferruzza, L. Storelli, M. Radaelli, F. Sangalli, L. Moiola, B. Colombo, F. Martinelli Boneschi, G. Comi, M. Filippi, V. Martinelli |
| Abstract |
Treatment choice in multiple sclerosis (MS) is crucial for optimizing risk-benefit profile. To assess fingolimod (FTY) effectiveness and identify baseline features associated to disease activity in a large Italian cohort of Relapsing-Remitting (RR) MS patients. Three-hundred sixty-seven RRMS patients starting FTY treatment at San Raffaele Hospital (Milan-Italy) underwent clinical and MRI evaluations for 2 years. Treatment response was assessed considering the proportion of patients with no evidence of disease activity (NEDA) and recording the time to first relapse. Primary analyses were performed stratifying for Natalizumab (NTZ) treatment in the year before (NO_NTZ vs NTZ group), to account for post-NTZ reactivation. Almost half of patients were NEDA after 2 years, 53.4% in the NO_NTZ group and 36.2% in the NTZ group. Despite an opposite trend during the first 6-12 months, at 2-year follow-up the two groups were comparable for relapses and number of new/enlarging T2 and Gd-enhancing lesions. Baseline parameters of higher disease activity (ARR, Gd enhancing lesions and age at onset) were associated with increased likelihood of failing NEDA criteria or with shorter time to relapse (p < 0.05). Our data strengthen FTY effectiveness in everyday clinical practice, even in patients switching from NTZ treatment. Baseline parameters of inflammatory activity are the most important prognostic factors for mid-term disease reactivation also during second-line treatment with FTY, providing hints on how to select therapies towards a more personalized management. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 28 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,921,850
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,144
of 4,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,901
of 456,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#58
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 456,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.