↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma and Allergy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Innovative treatments for severe refractory asthma: how to choose the right option for the right patient?
Published in
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, August 2017
DOI 10.2147/jaa.s144100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Menzella, Carla Galeone, Francesca Bertolini, Claudia Castagnetti, Nicola Facciolongo

Abstract

The increasing understanding of the molecular biology and the etiopathogenetic mechanisms of asthma helps in identification of numerous phenotypes and endotypes, particularly for severe refractory asthma. For a decade, the only available biologic therapy that met the unmet needs of a specific group of patients with severe uncontrolled allergic asthma has been omalizumab. Recently, new biologic therapies with different mechanisms of action and targets have been approved for marketing, such as mepolizumab. Other promising drugs will be available in the coming years, such as reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and lebrikizumab. Moreover, since 2010, bronchial thermoplasty has been successfully introduced for a limited number of patients. This is a nonpharmacologic endoscopic procedure which is considered a promising therapy, even though several aspects still need to be clarified. Despite the increasing availability of new therapies, one of the major problems of each treatment is still the identification of the most suitable patients. This sudden abundance of therapeutic options, sometimes partially overlapping with each other, increases the importance to identify new biomarkers useful to guide the clinician in selecting the most appropriate patients and treatments, without forgetting the drug-economic aspects seen in elevated direct cost of new therapies. The aim of this review is, therefore, to update the clinician on the state of the art of therapies available for refractory asthma and, above all, to give useful directions that will help understand the different choices that sometimes partially overlap and to dispel the possible doubts that still exist.

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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Other 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,519,165
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#260
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,467
of 328,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 328,005 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them