↓ Skip to main content

Cardiovascular Risk Management and Hepatitis C: Combining Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacokinetics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Cardiovascular Risk Management and Hepatitis C: Combining Drugs
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40262-018-0710-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elise J. Smolders, Peter J. G. ter Horst, Sharon Wolters, David M. Burger

Abstract

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are known victims (substrate) and perpetrators (cause) of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). These DAAs are used for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections and are highly effective drugs. Drugs used for cardiovascular risk management are frequently used by HCV-infected patients, whom also are treated with DAAs. Therefore, the aim of this review was to describe DDIs between cardiovascular drugs (CVDs) and DAAs. An extensive literature search was performed containing search terms for the marketed DAAs and CVDs (β-blocking agents, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II antagonists, renin inhibitors, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, statins/ezetimibe, fibrates, platelet aggregation inhibitors, vitamin K antagonists, heparins, direct Xa inhibitors, nitrates, amiodarone, and digoxin). In particular, the drug labels from the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration were used. A main finding of this review is that CVDs are mostly victims of DDIs with DAAs. Therefore, when possible, monitoring of pharmacodynamics is recommended when coadministering these drugs with DAAs. Nevertheless, it is sometimes better to discontinue a drug on a temporary basis (statins, ezetimide). The DAAs are victims of DDIs in combination with bisoprolol, carvedilol, labetalol, verapamil, and gemfibrozil. Despite there are many DDIs predicted in this review, most of these DDIs can be managed by monitoring the efficacy and toxicity of the victim drug or by switching to another CVD/DAA.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 45%
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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#15,546,615
of 23,105,443 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#1,207
of 1,498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,764
of 341,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacokinetics
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,105,443 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 1,498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 341,808 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.