↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of initiating extrafine-particle versus fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids as asthma therapy in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Effectiveness of initiating extrafine-particle versus fine-particle inhaled corticosteroids as asthma therapy in the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12890-016-0234-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thys van der Molen, Dirkje S. Postma, Richard J. Martin, Ron M. C. Herings, Jetty A. Overbeek, Victoria Thomas, Cristiana Miglio, Richard Dekhuijzen, Nicolas Roche, Theresa Guilbert, Elliot Israel, Wim van Aalderen, Elizabeth V. Hillyer, Simon van Rysewyk, David B. Price

Abstract

Most randomised clinical trials typically exclude a significant proportion of asthma patients, including those at higher risk of adverse events, with comorbidities, obesity, poor inhaler technique and adherence, or smokers. However, these patients might differentially benefit from extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). This matched cohort, database study, compared the effectiveness of extrafine-particle with fine-particle ICS in a real-life population initiating ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Data were from the Pharmo Database Network, comprising pharmacy and hospital discharge records, representative of 20 % of the Dutch population. The study population included patients aged 12 - 60, with a General Practice-recorded diagnosis for asthma (International Classification of Primary Care code R96), when available, ≥2 prescriptions for asthma therapy at any time in their recorded history, and receiving first prescription of ICS therapy as either extrafine-particle (ciclesonide or hydrofluoroalkane beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]) or fine-particle ICS (fluticasone propionate or non-extrafine-particle-BDP). Patients were matched (1:1) on relevant demographic and clinical characteristics over 1-year baseline. Primary outcomes were severe exacerbation rates, risk domain asthma control and overall asthma control during the year following first ICS prescription. Secondary outcomes, treatment stability and being prescribed higher versus lower category of short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) dose, were compared over a 1-year outcome period using conditional logistic regression models. Following matching, 1399 patients were selected in each treatment cohort (median age: 43 years; males: 34 %). Median (interquartile range) initial ICS doses (fluticasone-equivalents in μg) were 160 (160 - 320) for extrafine-particle versus 500 (250 - 500) for fine-particle ICS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for residual confounders, matched patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had significantly lower rates of exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio [95 % CI], 0.59 [0.47-0.73]), and significantly higher odds of achieving asthma control and treatment stability in the year following initiation than those prescribed fine-particle ICS, and this occurred at lower prescribed doses. Patients prescribed extrafine-particle ICS had lower odds of being prescribed higher doses of SABA (0.50 [0.44-0.57]). In this historical, matched study, extrafine-particle ICS was associated with better odds of asthma control than fine-particle ICS in patients prescribed their first ICS therapy in the Netherlands. Of importance, this was reached at significantly lower prescribed dose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Other 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,747,092
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#800
of 1,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,427
of 328,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#16
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,972 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 328,178 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 41 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 63% of its contemporaries.