↓ Skip to main content

In vivo情報からのCYPの阻害及び誘導による薬物相互作用の定量的予測と臨床現場での応用—Pharmacokinetic Interaction Significance Classification System(PISCS)の提案

Overview of attention for article published in Yakugaku Zasshi = Journal of Pharmaceutical Society of Japan, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
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.
Title
In vivo情報からのCYPの阻害及び誘導による薬物相互作用の定量的予測と臨床現場での応用—Pharmacokinetic Interaction Significance Classification System(PISCS)の提案
Published in
Yakugaku Zasshi = Journal of Pharmaceutical Society of Japan, March 2018
DOI 10.1248/yakushi.17-00191-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshiyuki Ohno

Abstract

 Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can affect the clearance of various drugs from the body; however, these effects are difficult to sufficiently evaluate in clinical studies. This article outlines our approach to improving methods for evaluating and providing drug information relative to the effects of DDIs. In a previous study, total exposure changes to many substrate drugs of CYP caused by the co-administration of inhibitor or inducer drugs were successfully predicted using in vivo data. There are two parameters for the prediction: the contribution ratio of the enzyme to oral clearance for substrates (CR), and either the inhibition ratio for inhibitors (IR) or the increase in clearance of substrates produced by induction (IC). To apply these predictions in daily pharmacotherapy, the clinical significance of any pharmacokinetic changes must be carefully evaluated. We constructed a pharmacokinetic interaction significance classification system (PISCS) in which the clinical significance of DDIs was considered in a systematic manner, according to pharmacokinetic changes. The PISCS suggests that many current 'alert' classifications are potentially inappropriate, especially for drug combinations in which pharmacokinetics have not yet been evaluated. It is expected that PISCS would contribute to constructing a reliable system to alert pharmacists, physicians and consumers of a broad range of pharmacokinetic DDIs in order to more safely manage daily clinical practices.

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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Researcher 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 25%
Unknown 1 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 27 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Yakugaku Zasshi = Journal of Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
#1,421
of 1,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,031
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Yakugaku Zasshi = Journal of Pharmaceutical Society of Japan
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,958 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 344,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.