↓ Skip to main content

Immunogenicity of Anti-TNF-α Biotherapies: I. Individualized Medicine Based on Immunopharmacological Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in immunology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Immunogenicity of Anti-TNF-α Biotherapies: I. Individualized Medicine Based on Immunopharmacological Evidence
Published in
Frontiers in immunology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Klaus Bendtzen

Abstract

Specific inhibition of the cytokine, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF), has revolutionized the treatment of patients with several autoimmune diseases, and genetically engineered anti-TNF antibody constructs now constitute a heavy medicinal expenditure in many countries. Unfortunately, up to 30% of patients do not respond and about 50% of those who do loose response with time. Furthermore, safety may be compromised by immunogenicity with the induction of anti-drug-antibodies (ADA). Assessment of drug pharmacokinetics and ADA is increasingly recognized as a requirement for safe and rational use of protein drugs. The use of therapeutic strategies based on anti-TNF drug levels and ADA rather than dose-escalation has also proven to be cost-effective, as this allows individualized patient-tailored strategies rather than the current universal approach to loss of response. The objective of the present article - and the accompanying article - is to discuss the reasons for recommending assessments of circulating drug and ADA levels in patients treated with anti-TNF biopharmaceuticals and to detail some of the methodological issues that obscure cost-effective and safer therapies.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 22 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 24 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,259,353
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in immunology
#10,109
of 31,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,318
of 279,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in immunology
#52
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 279,938 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.