↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical use of blinatumomab for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Clinical use of blinatumomab for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia in adults
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s84261
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kum Ja Lee, Vivian Chow, Ashley Weissman, Sunil Tulpule, Ibrahim Aldoss, Mojtaba Akhtari

Abstract

Adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia have a dismal prognosis with a short median overall survival that can be measured in months. Because most patients will have chemotherapy-resistant disease, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remains the only potentially curative treatment. Despite advances in current management, patients continue to have poor outcomes and lack of durable responses. Thus, new therapies with alternative modes of actions are currently being investigated. Blinatumomab is a novel bispecific T-cell engager that simultaneously binds CD3-positive cytotoxic T-cells and CD19-positive B-cells, resulting in selective lysis of tumor cells. It has shown promising results in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia or those achieving hematologic response with persistent minimum residual disease. Future clinical trials will answer questions regarding its optimal place in the treatment paradigm. Dose-limiting toxicities include immunological toxicities and cytokine release syndrome. However, most patients tolerate the therapy relatively well. This review will focus on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of blinatumomab in the treatment of adult B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia while highlighting its unique drug warnings and toxicity management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 27%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Other 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 18 22%
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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,201
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#22
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.