↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced oral bioavailability of vancomycin in rats treated with long-term parenteral nutrition

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Enhanced oral bioavailability of vancomycin in rats treated with long-term parenteral nutrition
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1228-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keizo Fukushima, Akira Okada, Yoriko Hayashi, Hideki Ichikawa, Asako Nishimura, Nobuhito Shibata, Nobuyuki Sugioka

Abstract

Long-term parenteral nutrition (PN) can induce intestinal atrophy, leading to a loss of epithelial integrity in the small intestines. This change may alter the intestinal permeability of vancomycin (VCM), a non-absorbable antibiotic. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of PN on the pharmacokinetics of VCM in rats. VCM was intravenously (5 mg/kg) or intraduodenally (20 mg/kg) administered to control and PN rats, which were prepared by administration of PN for 9 days. After intravenous administration, there were no significant differences in any of the VCM pharmacokinetic parameters between the control and PN rats. However, after intraduodenal administration, the maximum concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve of VCM in PN rats was approximately 2.4- and 2.6-fold higher, respectively, than in the control rats; the calculated bioavailability was approximately 0.5 and 1.3 % in control and PN rats, respectively. These results indicated that PN administration did not affect VCM disposition, but enhanced VCM absorption; however, the enhanced oral VCM bioavailability was statistically, not clinically, significant. Therefore, while long-term PN administration may play a role in the enhancement of VCM bioavailability, this effect may be negligible without any complications.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 44%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
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 28 August 2015.
All research outputs
#18,423,683
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,260
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,069
of 266,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#83
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 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 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 266,223 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.