↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The past, present, and future of monoclonal antibodies to IL-5 and eosinophilic asthma: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Asthma and Allergy, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
The past, present, and future of monoclonal antibodies to IL-5 and eosinophilic asthma: a review
Published in
Journal of Asthma and Allergy, November 2015
DOI 10.2147/jaa.s74178
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan F Patterson, Larry Borish, Joshua L Kennedy

Abstract

Asthma is a heterogeneous syndrome that might be better described as a constellation of phenotypes or endotypes, each with distinct cellular and molecular mechanisms, rather than as a singular disease. One of these phenotypes is eosinophilic asthma. As the development of eosinophilic inflammation is categorically dependent on the biological activity of Interleukin (IL)-5, IL-5 antagonism became an obvious target for therapy in this phenotype. Early trials of monoclonal antibodies targeting the biological activity of IL-5, including reslizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab, were performed on asthmatics with no concern for evidence of eosinophilia. These trials were largely unsuccessful. However, during these trials, researchers recognized the need to quantify eosinophilia in asthma subjects in order to identify those asthmatics in whom these medications would be more likely to improve symptoms and lung function. Using biomarkers, such as sputum and blood eosinophilia, recent studies of these medications have shown improvements in blood and sputum eosinophilia, forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and quality of life assessments as well as reducing occurrences of exacerbations. Moving forward, better and less invasive biomarkers of eosinophilia are necessary to ensure that the correct patients are chosen to receive these medications to receive maximal benefit.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 13%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 26 29%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 17 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,257,969
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Asthma and Allergy
#94
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,488
of 295,288 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. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 295,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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