↓ Skip to main content

Exploring efficacy and safety of oral Pirfenidone for progressive, non-IPF lung fibrosis (RELIEF) - a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multi-center, phase II trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Exploring efficacy and safety of oral Pirfenidone for progressive, non-IPF lung fibrosis (RELIEF) - a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multi-center, phase II trial
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0462-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jürgen Behr, Petra Neuser, Antje Prasse, Michael Kreuter, Klaus Rabe, Carmen Schade-Brittinger, Jasmin Wagner, Andreas Günther

Abstract

Pirfenidone is currently approved in the EU for the treatment of mild to moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and offers a beneficial risk-benefit profile. However, there are several other, progressive fibrotic lung diseases, in which conventional anti-inflammatory therapy is not sufficiently effective and antifibrotic therapies may offer a novel treatment option. We designed a study protocol for inclusion of patients with progressive fibrotic lung disease despite conventional anti-inflammatory therapy (EudraCT 2014-000861-32). The study population comprises patients with collagen-vascular disease-associated lung fibrosis (CVD-LF), fibrotic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (fNSIP), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (cHP), and asbestos-related lung fibrosis (ALF). Disease progression needs to be proven by slope calculation of at least three Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) values obtained within 6-24 months prior to inclusion, documenting an annualized decline in percent predicted FVC of 5% (absolute) or more despite appropriate conventional therapy. Absolute change in percent predicted FVC from baseline - analyzed using a rank analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model - will serve as efficacy-related primary study endpoint. There is an urgent unmet clinical need for effective therapies for patients with a progressive fibrotic lung disease other than IPF. The current study protocol is unique with respect to selecting patients with different disease entities of lung fibrosis which have, however, essential pathophysiological characteristics in common. Moreover, by selecting patients with evidence of disease progression despite conventional therapy, the protocol ensures that a cohort of interstitial lung disease (ILD) patients with a high unmet medical need is targeted and it may allow a sufficiently high event rate for evaluation of treatment responses. DRKS00009822 (registration date: January 13th 2016).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 14%
Other 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 38 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 49 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#5,599,425
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#375
of 1,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,349
of 315,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 315,600 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.