↓ Skip to main content

Drug therapy for patients with systolic heart failure after the PARADIGM-HF trial: in need of a new paradigm of LCZ696 implementation in clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Drug therapy for patients with systolic heart failure after the PARADIGM-HF trial: in need of a new paradigm of LCZ696 implementation in clinical practice
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0272-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerasimos Filippatos, Dimitrios Farmakis, John Parissis, John Lekakis

Abstract

Heart failure represents a primary cause of morbidity and mortality in older people and despite significant therapeutic advances, it is still characterized by important unmet needs, thus remaining a challenging field of clinical research. The recent PARADIGM-HF trial compared the novel compound LCZ696, a combination of the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, versus the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in 8,442 patients with symptomatic chronic systolic heart failure. LCZ696 led to a 20% reduction in the rate of death or hospitalization for heart failure and a 16% reduction in the rate of all-cause death compared to enalapril at 3.5 years of follow-up. Despite those impressive results, the clinical application of this novel agent that requires the substitution of a cornerstone of current heart failure therapy, the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, should follow careful steps as imposed by the study design, the recruited population and the outcome in specific patient subgroups. Further insights into the effects of LCZ696 will be provided by the ongoing PARAGON-HF trial in patients with diastolic heart failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 42 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Professor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,567,255
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,674
of 3,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,784
of 257,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#55
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 257,588 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.