↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rapamycin and rapalogs for tuberous sclerosis complex

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
220 Mendeley
Title
Rapamycin and rapalogs for tuberous sclerosis complex
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011272.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teguh H Sasongko, Nur Farrah Dila Ismail, ZAMH Zabidi-Hussin

Abstract

Previous studies have shown potential benefits of rapamycin or rapalogs for treating people with tuberous sclerosis complex. Although everolimus (a rapalog) is currently approved by the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) and the EMA (European Medicines Agency) for tuberous sclerosis complex-associated renal angiomyolipoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma, applications for other manifestations of tuberous sclerosis complex have not yet been established. A systematic review is necessary to establish the clinical value of rapamycin or rapalogs for various manifestations in tuberous sclerosis complex. To determine the effectiveness of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex for decreasing tumour size and other manifestations and to assess the safety of rapamycin or rapalogs in relation to their adverse effects. Relevant studies were identified by authors from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, and clinicaltrials.gov. Relevant resources were also searched by the authors, such as conference proceedings and abstract books of conferences, from e.g. the Tuberous Sclerosis Complex International Research Conferences, other tuberous sclerosis complex-related conferences and the Human Genome Meeting. We did not restrict the searches by language as long as English translations were available for non-English reports.Date of the last searches: 14 March 2016. Randomized or quasi-randomized studies of rapamycin or rapalogs in people with tuberous sclerosis complex. Data were independently extracted by two authors using standard acquisition forms. The data collection was verified by one author. The risk of bias of each study was independently assessed by two authors and verified by one author. Three placebo-controlled studies with a total of 263 participants (age range 0.8 to 61 years old, 122 males and 141 females, with variable lengths of study duration) were included in the review. We found high-quality evidence except for response to skin lesions which was judged to be low quality due to the risk of attrition bias. Overall, there are 175 participants in the treatment arm (rapamycin or everolimus) and 88 in the placebo arm. Participants all had tuberous sclerosis complex as proven by consensus diagnostic criteria as a minimum. The quality in the description of the study methods was mixed, although we assessed most domains as having a low risk of bias. Blinding of treatment arms was successfully carried out in all of the studies. However, two studies did not report allocation concealment. Two of the included studies were funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.Two studies (235 participants) used oral (systemic) administration of everolimus (rapalog). These studies reported response to tumour size in terms of the number of individuals with a reduction in the total volume of tumours to 50% or more relative to baseline. Significantly more participants in the treatment arm (two studies, 162 participants, high quality evidence) achieved a 50% reduction in renal angiomyolipoma size, risk ratio 24.69 (95% confidence interval 3.51 to 173.41) (P = 0.001). For the sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma, our analysis of one study (117 participants, high quality evidence) showed significantly more participants in the treatment arm achieved a 50% reduction in tumour size, risk ratio 27.85 (95% confidence interval 1.74 to 444.82) (P = 0.02). The proportion of participants who showed a skin response from the two included studies analysed was significantly increased in the treatment arms, risk ratio 5.78 (95% confidence interval 2.30 to 14.52) (P = 0.0002) (two studies, 224 participants, high quality evidence). In one study (117 participants), the median change of seizure frequency was -2.9 in 24 hours (95% confidence interval -4.0 to -1.0) in the treatment group versus -4.1 in 24 hour (95% confidence interval -10.9 to 5.8) in the placebo group. In one study, one out of 79 participants in the treatment group versus three of 39 in placebo group had increased blood creatinine levels, while the median percentage change of forced expiratory volume at one second in the treatment arm was -1% compared to -4% in the placebo arm. In one study (117 participants, high quality evidence), we found that those participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events compared to those who did not, risk ratio 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.96 - 1.20) (P = 0.24). However, as seen from two studies (235 participants, high quality evidence), the treatment itself led to significantly more adverse events resulting in withdrawal, interruption of treatment, or reduction in dose level, risk ratio 3.14 (95% confidence interval 1.82 to 5.42) (P < 0.0001).One study (28 participants) used topical (skin) administration of rapamycin. This study reported response to skin lesions in terms of participants' perception towards their skin appearance following the treatment. There was a tendency of an improvement in the participants' perception of their skin appearance, although not significant, risk ratio 1.81 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 4.06, low quality evidence) (P = 0.15). This study reported that there were no serious adverse events related to the study product and there was no detectable systemic absorption of the rapamycin during the study period. We found evidence that oral everolimus significantly increased the proportion of people who achieved a 50% reduction in the size of sub-ependymal giant cell astrocytoma and renal angiomyolipoma. Although we were unable to ascertain the relationship between the reported adverse events and the treatment, participants who received treatment had a similar risk of experiencing adverse events as compared to those who did not receive treatment. Nevertheless, the treatment itself significantly increased the risk of having dose reduction, interruption or withdrawal. This supports ongoing clinical applications of oral everolimus for renal angiomyolipoma and subependymal giant cell astrocytoma. Although oral everolimus showed beneficial effect on skin lesions, topical rapamycin only showed a non-significant tendency of improvement. Efficacy on skin lesions should be further established in future research. The beneficial effects of rapamycin or rapalogs on tuberous sclerosis complex should be further studied on other manifestations of the condition.

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 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 219 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 17%
Student > Master 34 15%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 37 17%
Unknown 56 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 62 28%

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 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,753,211
of 16,065,915 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,416
of 11,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,030
of 261,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,065,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 261,663 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.