↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical efficacy and safety of evolocumab for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Clinical efficacy and safety of evolocumab for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, April 2016
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s82387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Courtney A Henry, Ronald A Lyon, Hua Ling

Abstract

Multiple categories of medications have been developed to manage lipid profiles and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with heart disease. However, currently marketed medications have not solved the problems associated with preventing and treating cardiovascular diseases completely. A substantial population of patients cannot take advantage of statin therapy due to statin intolerance, heart failure, or kidney hemodialysis, suggesting a need for additional effective agents to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) was discovered in 2003 and subsequently emerged as a novel target for LDL-C-lowering therapy. Evolocumab is a fully human monoclonal immunoglobulin G2 (IgG2) directed against human PCSK9. By inactivating PCSK9, evolocumab upregulates LDL receptors causing increased catabolism of LDL-C and the consequent reduction of LDL-C levels in blood. Overall, evolocumab has had notable efficacy, with LDL-C reduction ranging from 53% to 75% in monotherapy and combination therapies, and is associated with minor adverse effects. However, studies regarding the ability of evolocumab to reduce mortality as well as long-term safety concerns are limited. The fact that the drug was introduced at a cost much higher than the existing medications and shows a low incremental mortality benefit suggests that many payers will consider evolocumab to have an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Engineering 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#541
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,049
of 314,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.