↓ Skip to main content

Clinical pharmacology of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists

Overview of attention for article published in Hormones international journal of endocrinology and metabolism, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Clinical pharmacology of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists
Published in
Hormones international journal of endocrinology and metabolism, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s42000-018-0038-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Sfairopoulos, Stavros Liatis, Stelios Tigas, Evangelos Liberopoulos

Abstract

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are an important asset in the armamentarium for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM). Incretin failure is a critical etiopathogenetic feature of type 2 DM, which, if reversed, results in improved glycaemic control. GLP-1 RAs are injectable peptides that resemble the structure and function of endogenous incretin GLP-1, but as they are not deactivated by the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4), their half-life is prolonged compared with native GLP-1. Based on their ability to activate GLP-1 receptor, GLP-1 RAs are classified as short-acting (exenatide twice-daily and lixisenatide once-daily), and long-acting (liraglutide once-daily and the once-weekly formulations of exenatide extended-release, dulaglutide, and albiglutide). Semaglutide, another long-acting, once-weekly GLP-1 RA, was recently approved by the FDA and EMA. Although all of these agents potently reduce haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), there are unique features and fundamental differences among them related to fasting and postprandial hyperglycaemia reduction, weight loss potency, cardiovascular protection efficacy, and adverse events profile. It is imperative that current evidence be integrated and applied in the context of an individualised patient-centred approach. This should include not only glucose management but also targeting as many as possible of the pathophysiologic mechanisms responsible for type 2 DM development and progression.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 6 9%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 21 31%
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 17 June 2019.
All research outputs
#20,888,253
of 25,663,438 outputs
Outputs from Hormones international journal of endocrinology and metabolism
#340
of 468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,871
of 342,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hormones international journal of endocrinology and metabolism
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,663,438 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 468 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 342,334 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.