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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Randomized Study Evaluating Oral Fusidic Acid (CEM-102) in Combination With Oral Rifampin Compared With Standard-of-Care Antibiotics for Treatment of Prosthetic Joint Infections: A Newly Identified Drug–Drug Interaction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/cid/ciw665 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard Pushkin, Maria D. Iglesias-Ussel, Kara Keedy, Chris MacLauchlin, Diane R. Mould, Richard Berkowitz, Stephan Kreuzer, Rabih Darouiche, David Oldach, Prabha Fernandes |
| Abstract |
Fusidic acid (FA) has been used for decades for bone infection, including prosthetic joint infection (PJI), often in combination with rifampin (RIF). An FA/RIF pharmacokinetic interaction has not previously been described. In a phase 2 open-label randomized study, we evaluated oral FA/RIF versus standard of care (SOC) IV antibiotics for treatment of hip or knee PJI. Outcome assessment occurred at re-implantation (week 12) for subjects with 2-stage exchange; and after 3 or 6 months of treatment for subjects with hip or knee debride and retain strategies, respectively. Fourteen subjects were randomized 1:1 to FA/RIF or SOC. Pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained for six subjects randomized to FA/RIF. FA concentrations were lower than anticipated in all subjects during the first week of therapy, and at Weeks 4 and 6, blood levels continued to decline. By Week 6, FA exposures were 40-45% lower than expected. The Sponsor elected to terminate this study due to a clearly illustrated DDI between FA and RIF, which lowered FA levels to a degree that could influence subject outcomes. Optimization of FA exposure if used in combination with RIF should be a topic of future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
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 09 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,314,992
of 22,912,409 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#7,731
of 15,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,261
of 322,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#83
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,912,409 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 322,641 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.