↓ Skip to main content

Immunological Mechanism of Action and Clinical Profile of Disease-Modifying Treatments in Multiple Sclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in CNS Drugs, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Immunological Mechanism of Action and Clinical Profile of Disease-Modifying Treatments in Multiple Sclerosis
Published in
CNS Drugs, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40263-014-0160-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Renaud A. Du Pasquier, Daniel D. Pinschewer, Doron Merkler

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a life-long, potentially debilitating disease of the central nervous system (CNS). MS is considered to be an immune-mediated disease, and the presence of autoreactive peripheral lymphocytes in CNS compartments is believed to be critical in the process of demyelination and tissue damage in MS. Although MS is not currently a curable disease, several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are now available, or are in development. These DMTs are all thought to primarily suppress autoimmune activity within the CNS. Each therapy has its own mechanism of action (MoA) and, as a consequence, each has a different efficacy and safety profile. Neurologists can now select therapies on a more individual, patient-tailored basis, with the aim of maximizing potential for long-term efficacy without interruptions in treatment. The MoA and clinical profile of MS therapies are important considerations when making that choice or when switching therapies due to suboptimal disease response. This article therefore reviews the known and putative immunological MoAs alongside a summary of the clinical profile of therapies approved for relapsing forms of MS, and those in late-stage development, based on published data from pivotal randomized, controlled trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 15%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 24 22%
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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,332,045
of 24,991,957 outputs
Outputs from CNS Drugs
#1,244
of 1,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,246
of 232,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CNS Drugs
#20
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,991,957 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 232,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.