↓ Skip to main content

Are Biologic Treatments a Potential Approach to Wear- and Corrosion-related Problems?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Are Biologic Treatments a Potential Approach to Wear- and Corrosion-related Problems?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11999-014-3765-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Lane Smith, Edward M. Schwarz

Abstract

WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Biological treatments, defined as any nonsurgical intervention whose primary mechanism of action is reducing the host response to wear and/or corrosion products, have long been postulated as solutions for osteolysis and aseptic loosening of total joint arthroplasties. Despite extensive research on drugs that target the inflammatory, osteoclastic, and osteogenic responses to wear debris, no biological treatment has emerged as an approved therapy. We review the extensive preclinical research and modest clinical research to date, which has led to the central conclusion that the osteoclast is the primary target. We also allude to the significant changes in health care, unabated safety concerns about chronic immunosuppressive/antiinflammatory therapies, industry's complete lack of interest in developing an intervention for this condition, and the practical issues that have narrowly focused the possibilities for a biologic treatment for wear debris-induced osteolysis. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Based on the conclusions from research, and the economic, regulatory, and practical issues that limit the future directions toward the development of a biologic treatment, there are a few rational approaches that warrant investigation. These largely focus on FDA-approved osteoporosis therapies that target the osteoclast (bisphosphonates and anti-RANK ligand) and recombinant parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) prophylactic treatment to increase osseous integration of the prosthesis to overcome high-risk susceptibility to aseptic loosening. The other roadblock that must be overcome if there is to be an approved biologic therapy to prevent the progression of periprosthetic osteolysis and aseptic loosening is the development of radiological measures that can quantify a significant drug effect in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. We review the progress of volumetric quantification of osteolysis in animal studies and clinical pilots. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Accepting the aforementioned rigid boundaries, we describe the emergence of repurposing FDA-approved drugs for new indications and public (National Institutes of Health, FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private (universities and drug and device manufactures) partnerships as the future roadmap for clinical translation. In the case of biologic treatments for wear debris-induced osteolysis, this will involve combined federal and industry funding of multicenter clinical trials that will be run by thought leaders at large medical centers.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Other 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 6 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Psychology 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 5 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,304
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,583
of 242,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#83
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 242,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.