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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence of biologics monotherapy in a cohort of patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in daily clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12891-016-0959-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erika Catay, Maximiliano Bravo, Javier Rosa, Enrique R. Soriano |
| Abstract |
Real-life registry data reveal approximately one-third of patients taking biologic agents use them as monotherapy, in spite that combination therapy with Disease Modifying Drugs is more efficacious than monotherapy. The aim of our study was to assess the prevalence of biologics monotherapy in a cohort of patients with RA followed at a single center, and to analyze the reasons for monotherapy, including patients with prescriptions that do not take the medication. All patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis, with biologic therapy followed at our Rheumatology Unit were included. Prevalence and reasons for biologics monotherapy was calculated in general, for each biologic course and for each biologic. Prescription data was obtained from the Electronic Medical Record, and drugs acquisition was obtained from the Hospital Administrative database. Drug survival was also calculated and compared between monotherapy and combination therapy. Seventy nine patients with 115 courses of biologic treatments were included. In 40 (35 %, 95 % CI: 26-44 %) of all biologics courses, biologics were initiated as monotherapy. In 27 courses (23 %, 95 % CI: 16-32 %) biologic monotherapy was prescribed by the treating rheumatologists, and in the other 13 (11 %, 95 % CI: 6-18 %) it was initiated as such by decision of the patient regardless of the physician indication. Reasons for prescription of biologic monotherapy by the treating rheumatologists were adverse events with previous DMARDs in 55.5 %, and was not specified in the remaining courses. Only 25 % of biologics' courses were monotherapy from the beginning to the end of the biologic therapy. The overall survival on biologics was 45 % (95 % CI: 35-55 %) at 3 years. There were no statistically differences in biologics survival by modality (monotherapy vs combination) (p = 0.543), course (p = 0.4454), or by biologic drug (p = 0.9612). Almost 1/3 of patients on biologics use them as monotherapy. This is due to physician's preferences in 60 % of the cases, and to patients not compliance with the indication in around 40 % of the cases. Better communications is needed to assure that physicians and patients agree on the prescribed and used medication. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 March 2016.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3,258
of 4,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,953
of 300,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#60
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 300,931 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.