↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Guideline development for the management of gout: role of combination therapy with a focus on lesinurad

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Guideline development for the management of gout: role of combination therapy with a focus on lesinurad
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, October 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s97959
Pubmed ID
Authors

Graeme Jones, Elena Panova, Richard Day

Abstract

The aim of this review was to summarize the evidence for combination therapy to achieve serum urate (SUA) target levels in gout. Within this overarching aim, a second aim was to evaluate the evidence for a new uricosuric agent lesinurad, which inhibits urate transport in the kidney. In summary, this review indicates that there are a number of ways to approach patients who do not achieve a target serum urate with allopurinol (APL) monotherapy. These include higher doses of APL up to 600-800 mg/d, switching to febuxostat, or adding in a uricosuric. For the latter option, controlled supporting evidence is available for benzbromarone, probenecid, and lesinurad. All options appear similar in terms of success rates, so the choice of option comes down to physician and patient choice, cost, experience, and strength of the evidence base. Increasing the dose of APL is the cheapest option, while febuxostat is consistently superior to standard doses of APL. The strongest evidence for the uricosuric option is available for lesinurad as trials of other agents are either nonexistent or based on small single-centre trials. It is suggested that guidelines should be expanded to consider all of these evidence-based options in the not-uncommon occurrence of APL inadequate response.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 29%
Other 4 24%
Student > Postgraduate 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 35%
Chemistry 3 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#5,271,264
of 25,756,911 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#343
of 2,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,895
of 332,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,756,911 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 332,326 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 74% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.