↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of denosumab in two cases with multiple-system atrophy and osteoporosis

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3 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
Efficacy of denosumab in two cases with multiple-system atrophy and osteoporosis
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s162574
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masashi Uehara, Yukio Nakamura, Jun Takahashi, Takako Suzuki, Hiroyuki Kato

Abstract

Multiple-system atrophy (MSA) is an α-synucleinopathy with a very aggressive course and poor prognosis, which lacks efficient treatment. Thus, MSA represents a serious health and social problem. Progressive stridor and acute laryngeal obstruction likely occur in MSA; however, little is known about the bone metabolism or efficacy of bone absorption drugs, such as denosumab, in osteoporosis with MSA. Two male patients with osteoporosis in MSA presented to our institution (at 54 and 68 years of age). Denosumab was started after the diagnosis of osteoporosis in MSA, and the therapy was continued for 18-24 months. Lumbar and hip bone mineral density showed a 3.5% and 0.6% increase at 24 months or a 10.3% and 3.2% increase at 18 months, respectively. Bone turnover markers were also improved in the two cases during follow-up. No fractures or other complications were recorded during the observation period. This is the first study describing osteoporosis in two patients with MSA being treated by osteoporotic treatment. Based on our findings, it can be concluded that denosumab may be an effective therapy for osteoporosis in MSA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 3 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 67%
Researcher 1 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 67%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 33%

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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#10,437,004
of 13,087,494 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#783
of 955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,509
of 270,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,087,494 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 955 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 270,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.