↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Tolcapone: review of its pharmacology and use as adjunctive therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
Title
Tolcapone: review of its pharmacology and use as adjunctive therapy in patients with Parkinson's disease
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2009
DOI 10.2147/cia.s3787
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel D Truong

Abstract

Levodopa has been the gold standard therapy for the motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease for more than three decades. Although it remains the most effective treatment, its long-term use is associated with motor fluctuations and dyskinesias that can be disabling for patients and difficult for physicians to manage medically. In the last 10 years, the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitor tolcapone has been studied for its efficacy as an adjunctive treatment to levodopa plus a dopa decarboxylase inhibitor. Adjunctive therapy with tolcapone can significantly reduce the dose of levodopa required. Moreover, treatment with tolcapone significantly reduces wearing off and on-off periods in fluctuating patients and improves 'on' time in patients with stable disease. Tolcapone has assumed a new place in the arsenal of medications for Parkinson's disease. This paper reviews the pharmacology, safety and efficacy of tolcapone in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. After some initial concerns about its safety, tolcapone has been shown to be safe if used and monitored according to guidelines regarding liver function. Tolcapone produces expected dopaminergic side effects, including headache, nausea, insomnia, as well as diarrhea; however, these side effects are generally mild and as a rule do not result in discontinuation of therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 15 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 23 27%
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 31 January 2024.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#818
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,545
of 108,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 108,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.