| Title |
A Review of Exenatide: Optimizing Glycemic Control and Associated Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Type 2 Diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Diabetes Therapy, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13300-012-0003-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zin Z. Htike, Kamlesh Khunti, Melanie Davies |
| Abstract |
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a well-recognized risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. With an increasing prevalence of obesity, this risk has increased further. Management of T2DM in obese patients is particularly challenging as treatment with the majority of glucose-lowering agents results in weight gain. Thus, the development of a therapeutic option which could improve glycemic control without weight gain or hypoglycemia, such as the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog exenatide, is a welcome addition to the currently available therapies in the management of T2DM. With recognition and better understanding of the role of incretin hormones in T2DM, exenatide was developed and introduced into clinical practice in 2005. Both randomized controlled trials and retrospective observational studies have shown that treatment with exenatide not only improves glycemic control, with a low risk of hypoglycemia, but also results in concurrent weight loss and the additional benefit of improvement in cardiovascular risk factors. This article will provide an overview of both short- and long-acting exenatide in the management of T2DM and associated cardiovascular risk factors. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 8 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
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 12 June 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Diabetes Therapy
#708
of 1,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,513
of 158,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diabetes Therapy
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 158,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.