↓ Skip to main content

Piracetam and Piracetam-Like Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 3,464)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
patent
33 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
27 Wikipedia pages
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
218 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
349 Mendeley
Title
Piracetam and Piracetam-Like Drugs
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/11319230-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrei G. Malykh, M. Reza Sadaie

Abstract

There is an increasing interest in nootropic drugs for the treatment of CNS disorders. Since the last meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of piracetam, more information has accumulated. The primary objective of this systematic survey is to evaluate the clinical outcomes as well as the scientific literature relating to the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, mechanism of action, dosing, toxicology and adverse effects of marketed and investigational drugs. The major focus of the literature search was on articles demonstrating evidence-based clinical investigations during the past 10 years for the following therapeutic categories of CNS disorders: (i) cognition/memory; (ii) epilepsy and seizure; (iii) neurodegenerative diseases; (iv) stroke/ischaemia; and (v) stress and anxiety. In this article, piracetam-like compounds are divided into three subgroups based on their chemical structures, known efficacy and intended clinical uses. Subgroup 1 drugs include piracetam, oxiracetam, aniracetam, pramiracetam and phenylpiracetam, which have been used in humans and some of which are available as dietary supplements. Of these, oxiracetam and aniracetam are no longer in clinical use. Pramiracetam reportedly improved cognitive deficits associated with traumatic brain injuries. Although piracetam exhibited no long-term benefits for the treatment of mild cognitive impairments, recent studies demonstrated its neuroprotective effect when used during coronary bypass surgery. It was also effective in the treatment of cognitive disorders of cerebrovascular and traumatic origins; however, its overall effect on lowering depression and anxiety was higher than improving memory. As add-on therapy, it appears to benefit individuals with myoclonus epilepsy and tardive dyskinesia. Phenylpiracetam is more potent than piracetam and is used for a wider range of indications. In combination with a vasodilator drug, piracetam appeared to have an additive beneficial effect on various cognitive disabilities. Subgroup 2 drugs include levetiracetam, seletracetam and brivaracetam, which demonstrate antiepileptic activity, although their cognitive effects are unclear. Subgroup 3 includes piracetam derivatives with unknown clinical efficacies, and of these nefiracetam failed to improve cognition in post-stroke patients and rolipram is currently in clinical trials as an antidepressant. The remaining compounds of this subgroup are at various preclinical stages of research. The modes of action of piracetam and most of its derivatives remain an enigma. Differential effects on subtypes of glutamate receptors, but not the GABAergic actions, have been implicated. Piracetam seems to activate calcium influx into neuronal cells; however, this function is questionable in the light of findings that a persistent calcium inflow may have deleterious impact on neuronal cells. Although subgroup 2 compounds act via binding to another neuronal receptor (synaptic vesicle 2A), some of the subgroup 3 compounds, such as nefiracetam, are similar to those of subgroup 1. Based on calculations of the efficacy rates, our assessments indicate notable improvements in clinical outcomes with some of these agents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 349 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 335 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 62 18%
Researcher 54 15%
Student > Master 43 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 11%
Other 25 7%
Other 64 18%
Unknown 61 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 12%
Psychology 38 11%
Neuroscience 26 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 5%
Other 62 18%
Unknown 74 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 112. 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 18 November 2023.
All research outputs
#372,892
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#32
of 3,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,844
of 189,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#7
of 1,461 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 189,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,461 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.