↓ Skip to main content

Immunosuppressive Effects of Opioids—Clinical Relevance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Immunosuppressive Effects of Opioids—Clinical Relevance
Published in
Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, July 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11481-011-9290-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Brack, Heike L. Rittner, Christoph Stein

Abstract

Opioid-induced immunosuppression has been demonstrated in cell culture experiments and in animal models. This is in striking contrast to the paucity of confirmatory studies in humans. This review describes the basic pharmacokinetics and -dynamics of opioid use in patients. It summarizes the major findings on opioid use and infectious complications in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, in patients with acute or chronic non-malignant pain, and in intravenous drug users (IDU). The limitations of studies in each area are discussed. For example, ethical concerns may complicate randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCT) in acute postoperative pain and for a large part of ICU patients. Importantly, most studies in patients with chronic (non-malignant) pain only inadequately report infectious complications in relation to opioid use since their incidence is usually not considered to be drug related. Infectious complications in IDUs are very frequent but cannot easily be distinguished from risk behavior or risk environment. In summary, convincing clinical evidence is lacking that opioids per se increase the rate of infectious complications in most patient categories. From a clinical standpoint, important unresolved issues are i) selection of relevant animal models, ii) opioid selection and discontinuation, and iii) the role of coexisting diseases and concomitant other medications.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 14%
Researcher 12 13%
Other 7 8%
Professor 6 6%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 23 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 September 2014.
All research outputs
#19,702,729
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology
#453
of 583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,437
of 119,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 119,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.