| Title |
Biological therapy of traditional therapy-resistant adult-onset Still’s disease: an evidence-based review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s155488 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sha Zhou, Jianjun Qiao, Juan Bai, Yinhua Wu, Hong Fang |
| Abstract |
Biotherapy is becoming increasingly important in the treatment of adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biological therapy for AOSD resistant to traditional therapy. Database of Library of Congress, the PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection were used to retrieve relevant articles published in English language until March 2017. Only studies published in English language were included, and the additional references quoted in these articles were also checked. Articles concerning the efficacy and safety of all the biotherapies in refractory AOSD were evaluated. There were 112 articles available in total; 422 AOSD patients were given at least one biologic. We found that 293 patients (69.43%) had received TNF-α blocking agents (infiliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab), 194 patients (45.97%) were treated with IL-1 receptor antagonists (anakinra, rilonacept, and canakinumab), 163 patients (38.63%) were given IL-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab), and 24 patients (5.69%) received rituximab and abatacept. The efficacy of biological therapy and overall tolerance of biological therapy for refractory AOSD were good. Thirty two of 271 patients given anti-TNF-α therapies (11.81%), 116 patients receiving IL-1 inhibitors (65.54%), 124 patients receiving tocilizumab (76.07%), and 13 patients given other biological therapies (36.11%) achieved remission. Side effects of biologic therapy were infections such as urinary tract infections and soft tissue abscess. Our findings suggest that anakinra and tocilizumab may be good choices for the treatment of refractory AOSD considering the effectiveness and safety. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 52% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
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 16 March 2023.
All research outputs
#8,264,793
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#434
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,402
of 449,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 32 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 449,550 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 71% of its contemporaries.