| Title |
Effect of intravenous hydration in patients receiving bisphosphonate therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-014-9994-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Attivi, Gaétan Kosmalski, Claire Zeghmouli, Stéphane Gibaud |
| Abstract |
Background Patients with advanced cancers are at high risk for bone metastases, which accelerate bone resorption and skeletal complications. Therefore, bisphosphonates, which are strong inhibitors of bone resorption, are widely used to prevent pathological fractures, pain and tumour-induced hypercalcaemia. Intravenous infusion of bisphosphonate is associated with dose- and infusion rate-dependent adverse renal effects. Objective The present study investigated the effect of hydration on bisphosphonate efficacy and safety. Settings The 600-bed CHOV Hospital (Neufchâteau, France) and the Université de Lorraine (Nancy, France). Methods Patients who received pamidronate or zoledronic acid treatments were identified: 50 patients [16 of whom were hydrated and 34 of whom were non-hydrated]. Data on serum calcium levels, creatinine clearance and clinical tolerance were collected. Main outcome measure The impact of hydration on these parameters was analysed between day 1 and day 7. Results Bisphosphonate normalized calcaemia and hydration did not induce further reduction of calcium levels. Patient kidneys were significantly preserved by hydration in both groups (median clearance: +6.2 %), whereas dehydrated patients had lower creatinine clearance (median clearance: -1.1 %). Hydration did not influence other clinical or biological parameters tested. Conclusion Hydration plays an important role in the treatment of hypercalcaemia by pamidronate and zoledronic acid: it enhances kidney protection (i.e., creatinine clearance). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 33% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 17% |
| Librarian | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,305,567
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#768
of 1,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,232
of 238,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 238,994 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.