| Title |
Population-based cohort study on comparative effectiveness and safety of biologics in inflammatory bowel disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s150030 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Riccardo Di Domenicantonio, Francesco Trotta, Silvia Cascini, Nera Agabiti, Anna Kohn, Antonio Gasbarrini, Marina Davoli, Antonio Addis |
| Abstract |
The comparison of effectiveness and safety of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha agents for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is relevant for clinical practice and stakeholders. The objective of this study was to compare the risk of abdominal surgery, steroid utilization, and hospitalization for infection in Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) patients newly treated with infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA). A retrospective population-based cohort study was performed using health information systems data from Lazio region, Italy. Patients with CD or UC diagnosis were enrolled at first prescription of IFX or ADA during 2008-2014 (index date). Only new drug users were followed for 2 years from the index date. IFX versus ADA adjusted hazard ratios were calculated applying "intention-to-treat" approach, controlling for several characteristics and stratifying the analysis on steroid use according to previous drug utilization. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to "as-treated" approach, adjusting for propensity score, censoring at switching or discontinuation, and evaluating different lengths of follow-up periods. We enrolled 1,432 IBD patients (42% and 83% exposed to IFX for CD and UC, respectively). In both diseases, treatment effects did not differ in any outcome considered, and sensitivity analyses confirmed the results from the main analysis. In our population-based cohort study, effectiveness and safety data in new users of ADA or IFX with CD or UC were comparable for the outcomes we tested. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 37% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
#12,868,847
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#340
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,593
of 440,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#13
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 440,103 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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.