↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of efficacy and safety of oral agents for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of efficacy and safety of oral agents for the treatment of relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s137572
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Guarnera, Placido Bramanti, Emanuela Mazzon

Abstract

In the therapeutic scenario of disease-modifying therapies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, the introduction of oral agents, starting in 2010 with fingolimod, has been a huge step forward in therapeutic options due to the easier administration route. Three oral drugs fingolimod, teriflunomide, and dimethyl fumarate, which are clinically approved for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, are reviewed in this work. Results of Phase III clinical trials and their extension studies showed that the three oral agents significantly reduced the annualized relapse rate - a superior efficacy compared to placebo. Fingolimod 0.5 mg consistently reduced clinical relapses and brain volume loss. In all Phase III studies, teriflunomide 14 mg dose showed a reduction in the risk of disability accumulation. Regarding safety profile, fingolimod had more safety issues than the other two agents. For this reason, it should be strictly monitored for risks of infections, cancers, and certain transitory effects such as irregular cardiac function, decreased lymphocyte count, and a higher level of liver enzymes. Adverse effects of teriflunomide are well characterized and can be considered manageable. The main risks marked with dimethyl fumarate were flushing and gastrointestinal events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 12%
Neuroscience 8 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 24 29%
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 23 September 2019.
All research outputs
#8,264,793
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#580
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,940
of 326,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#15
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 326,871 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 61% of its contemporaries.