↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Role of biologics in severe eosinophilic asthma – focus on reslizumab

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Role of biologics in severe eosinophilic asthma – focus on reslizumab
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s111862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Girolamo Pelaia, Alessandro Vatrella, Maria Teresa Busceti, Luca Gallelli, Mariaimmacolata Preianò, Nicola Lombardo, Rosa Terracciano, Rosario Maselli

Abstract

Within the context of the heterogeneous phenotypic stratification of asthmatic population, many patients are characterized by moderate-to-severe eosinophilic asthma, not adequately controlled by relatively high dosages of inhaled and even oral corticosteroids. Therefore, these subjects can obtain significant therapeutic benefits by additional biologic treatments targeting interleukin-5 (IL-5), given the key pathogenic role played by this cytokine in maturation, activation, proliferation, and survival of eosinophils. In particular, reslizumab is a humanized anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody that has been found to be an effective and safe add-on therapy, capable of decreasing asthma exacerbations and significantly improving disease control and lung function in patients experiencing persistent allergic or nonallergic eosinophilic asthma, despite the regular use of moderate-to-high doses of inhaled corticosteroids. These important therapeutic effects of reslizumab, demonstrated by several controlled clinical trials, have led to the recent approval by US Food and Drug Administration of its use, together with other antiasthma medications, for the maintenance treatment of patients suffering from severe uncontrolled asthma.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 September 2022.
All research outputs
#7,959,659
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#410
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,222
of 367,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#14
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th 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 67% 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 367,266 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 72% of its contemporaries.