↓ Skip to main content

Inosine pranobex is safe and effective for the treatment of subjects with confirmed acute respiratory viral infections: analysis and subgroup analysis from a Phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Inosine pranobex is safe and effective for the treatment of subjects with confirmed acute respiratory viral infections: analysis and subgroup analysis from a Phase 4, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1965-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiří Beran, Eva Šalapová, Marian Špajdel, on behalf of the Isoprinosine Study (EWO ISO-2014/1) Team

Abstract

Inosine pranobex (Isoprinosine®) is an immunomodulatory drug approved in several countries for the treatment of viral infections. This study compared the efficacy and safety of inosine pranobex versus placebo in subjects with clinically diagnosed influenza-like illness, including subjects with laboratory-confirmed acute respiratory viral infections. Subgroup analyses evaluated the efficacy of inosine pranobex compared to placebo in otherwise healthy (without related ongoing disease) subjects that were less than 50 years of age and healthy subjects that were at least 50 years of age. The effect of body mass index (BMI) was evaluated in subjects less than 50 years of age. A total of 463 subjects were randomly assigned to receive inosine pranobex (n = 231) or placebo (n = 232) in this Phase 4, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to resolution of all influenza-like symptoms present at baseline to none. Safety was evaluated through analysis of adverse events, vital signs, and physical examinations. The difference in time to resolution of all influenza-like symptoms between treatment groups was not statistically significant but showed a faster improvement in subjects in the inosine pranobex group versus those in the placebo group - Hazard Ratio = 1.175; (95 % CI: 0.806-1.714). P-value = 0.324. In the subgroup analysis for subjects less than 50 years of age, statistically significant differences in time to resolution of influenza-like symptoms that favoured the inosine pranobex group over the placebo group were observed in those without related ongoing disease and those who were non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m(2)). The differences between the inosine pranobex and placebo groups in subjects at least 50 years of age without related ongoing disease and in subjects less than 50 years of age who were obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m(2)) were not statistically significant. Inosine pranobex was generally well tolerated, and no deaths were reported. The study results indicate the safety of inosine pranobex for the treatment of subjects with confirmed acute respiratory viral infections and confirm the efficacy of inosine pranobex versus placebo in healthy non-obese subjects less than 50 years of age with clinically diagnosed influenza-like illnesses. EWO-ISO-2014/1, EudraCT 2014-001863-11 ; Date of registration: 29 APR 2014; Detail information web link: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2014-001863-11/results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 26 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 25 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 23 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,482,992
of 25,478,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#361
of 8,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,491
of 318,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#9
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,478,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 318,846 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 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 96% of its contemporaries.