↓ Skip to main content

A Review of the Economics of Treating Clostridium difficile Infection

Overview of attention for article published in PharmacoEconomics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
11 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
A Review of the Economics of Treating Clostridium difficile Infection
Published in
PharmacoEconomics, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40273-014-0161-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kari A. Mergenhagen, Amy L. Wojciechowski, Joseph A. Paladino

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a costly result of antibiotic use, responsible for an estimated 14,000 deaths annually in the USA according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Annual costs attributable to CDI are in excess of $US 1 billion. This review summarizes appropriate utilization of prevention and treatment methods for CDI that have the potential to reduce the economic and humanistic costs of the disease. Some cost-effective strategies to prevent CDI include screening and isolation of hospital admissions based on C. difficile carriage to reduce transmission in the inpatient setting, and probiotics, which are potentially efficacious in preventing CDI in the appropriate patient population. The most extensively studied agents for treatment of CDI are metronidazole, vancomycin, and fidaxomicin. Most economic comparisons between metronidazole and vancomycin favor vancomycin, especially with the emergence of metronidazole-resistant C. difficile strains. Metronidazole can only be recommended for mild disease. Moderate to severe CDI should be treated with vancomycin, preferably the compounded oral solution, which provides the most cost-effective therapeutic option. Fidaxomicin offers a clinically effective and potentially cost-effective alternative for treating moderate CDI in patients who do not have the NAP1/BI/027 strain of C. difficile. Probiotics and fecal microbiota transplant have variable efficacy and the US FDA does not currently regulate the content; the potential economic advantages of these treatment modalities are currently unknown.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 16%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 17 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#5,459,222
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from PharmacoEconomics
#601
of 1,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,319
of 227,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PharmacoEconomics
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,816 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 227,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.