↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

New therapies in the management of Niemann-Pick type C disease: clinical utility of miglustat

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
New therapies in the management of Niemann-Pick type C disease: clinical utility of miglustat
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2009
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s5777
Pubmed ID
Authors

James E Wraith, Jackie Imrie

Abstract

Niemann-Pick disease type C (NP-C) is an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by progressive neurological deterioration leading to premature death. The disease is caused by mutations in one of two genes, NPC1 or NPC2, leading to impaired intracellular lipid transport and build-up of lipids in various tissues, particularly the brain. Miglustat (Zavesca(R)), a reversible inhibitor of glycosphingolipid synthesis, has recently been authorized in the European Union, Brazil and South Korea for the treatment of progressive neurological symptoms in adult and pediatric patients, and represents the first specific treatment for NP-C. Here we review current data on the pharmacology, efficacy, safety and tolerability of miglustat in patients with NP-C, based on findings from a prospective clinical trial, preclinical and retrospective studies, and case reports. Findings demonstrated clinically relevant beneficial effects of miglustat on neurological disease progression in adult, juvenile and pediatric patients with NP-C, particularly those diagnosed in late childhood (6-11 years) and in juveniles and adults (12 years and older), compared with those diagnosed in early childhood (younger than 6 years). Miglustat therapy was well-tolerated in all age groups. With the approval of miglustat, treatment of patients with NP-C can now be aimed toward stabilizing neurological disease, which is likely the best attainable therapeutic goal for this disorder.

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 %
Brazil 2 2%
Australia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 7 8%
Other 25 28%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 11%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 16 18%
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 08 December 2015.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#461
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,681
of 108,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 14 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 1,323 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 55% 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 108,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.