↓ Skip to main content

Treating primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: potential of ocrelizumab and review of B-cell therapies

Overview of attention for article published in Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Treating primary-progressive multiple sclerosis: potential of ocrelizumab and review of B-cell therapies
Published in
Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease, February 2017
DOI 10.2147/dnnd.s100096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenny J Feng, Daniel Ontaneda

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy has evolved rapidly with an increased availability of several immunomodulating therapies over the past two decades. Disease-modifying therapies have proven to be effective in treating relapse-remitting MS (RRMS). However, clinical trials involving some of the same agents for secondary-progressive and primary-progressive MS (SPMS and PPMS) have been largely negative. The pathogenesis of progressive MS remains unclear, but B-cells may play a significant role in chronic compartmentalized inflammation, likely contributing to disease progression. Biologics targeted at B-cells, such as rituximab, are effective in treating RRMS. Ocrelizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody to CD20+ B-cells that has shown positive results in PPMS with a significant reduction in disease progression. This review aims to discuss in detail the involvement of B-cells in MS pathogenesis, current progress of currently available and investigational biologics, with focus on ocrelizumab, and future prospects for B-cell therapy in PPMS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 43%
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 14%
Researcher 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 57%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 7%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,934,209
of 9,003,777 outputs
Outputs from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#7
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,410
of 309,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Degenerative Neurological and Neuromuscular Disease
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,003,777 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one scored the same or higher as 32 of them.
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 309,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.