↓ Skip to main content

Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs - Real World Outcomes, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate Observational Cohort Safety Studies: Reviewing Evidence from Databases on Two Continents
Published in
Drugs - Real World Outcomes, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40801-015-0057-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kourtney J. Davis, David Hinds, Stephen P. Motsko, Earl Goehring, Judith K. Jones

Abstract

Our objective was to highlight the importance of database selection in observational research and to determine the incidence of corticosteroid-related events in patients exposed to fluticasone propionate intranasal spray (FPNS) compared with other intranasal steroids (INS). After a feasibility study using an electronic medical record database in the UK (1990-2002), a retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large administrative claims database in the USA from 1994 to 2002 comparing the incidence and rate ratios of steroid-related events among intermittent, sub-chronic, and chronic FPNS use and other INS use episodes. Most patients used INS intermittently; power was low to evaluate risk associated with chronic use. Significantly elevated adjusted rate ratios were observed in the US study comparing FPNS with other INS for hypercorticism, sinusitis, abscess, and empyema, as well as a significantly decreased rate ratio for cataracts. The US claims database provided greater granularity on covariates and markers of severity to improve control of confounding for this study and time period, but neither database was able to assess the indication for prescription and the UK study could not address the use of INS without a prescription. The FPNS results were consistent with the risk profile for INS and did not raise any new safety signals at the time of study conduct, which is consistent with the current safety profile. We were not able to discern the extent of potential off-label use of FPNS or other INS. Differences in the available data and healthcare systems highlight important considerations for database selection in the feasibility phase to assess the precision and limitations prior to formal risk evaluation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Student > Master 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%
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 14 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,451,892
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Drugs - Real World Outcomes
#144
of 180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,409
of 297,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs - Real World Outcomes
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 297,906 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.