| Title |
Statin Intolerance: Diagnosis and Remedies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-015-0582-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angela Pirillo, Alberico Luigi Catapano |
| Abstract |
Despite the efficacy of statins in reducing cardiovascular events in both primary and secondary prevention, the adherence to statin therapy is not optimal, mainly due to the occurrence of muscular adverse effects. Several risk factors may concur to the development of statin-induced myotoxicity, including patient-related factors (age, sex, and race), statin properties (dose, lipophilicity, and type of metabolism), and the concomitant administration of other drugs. Thus, the management of patients intolerant to statins, particularly those at high or very high cardiovascular risk, involves alternative therapies, including the switch to another statin or the use of intermittent dosage statin regimens, as well as nonstatin lipid lowering drugs (ezetimibe and fibrates) or new hypolipidemic drugs such as PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies, the antisense oligonucleotide against the coding region of human apolipoprotein B mRNA (mipomersen), and microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor lomitapide. Ongoing clinical trials will reveal whether the lipid-lowering effects of alternative therapies to statins can also translate into a cardiovascular benefit. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| India | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 36% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 January 2016.
All research outputs
#5,863,610
of 24,176,645 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#244
of 1,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,112
of 269,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,645 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 269,139 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.