↓ Skip to main content

Current and future antimicrobial treatment of gonorrhoea – the rapidly evolving Neisseria gonorrhoeae continues to challenge

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
228 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
384 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
Current and future antimicrobial treatment of gonorrhoea – the rapidly evolving Neisseria gonorrhoeae continues to challenge
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1029-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Magnus Unemo

Abstract

Neisseria gonorrhoeae has developed antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to all drugs previously and currently recommended for empirical monotherapy of gonorrhoea. In vitro resistance, including high-level, to the last option ceftriaxone and sporadic failures to treat pharyngeal gonorrhoea with ceftriaxone have emerged. In response, empirical dual antimicrobial therapy (ceftriaxone 250-1000 mg plus azithromycin 1-2 g) has been introduced in several particularly high-income regions or countries. These treatment regimens appear currently effective and should be considered in all settings where local quality assured AMR data do not support other therapeutic options. However, the dual antimicrobial regimens, implemented in limited geographic regions, will not entirely prevent resistance emergence and, unfortunately, most likely it is only a matter of when, and not if, treatment failures with also these dual antimicrobial regimens will emerge. Accordingly, novel affordable antimicrobials for monotherapy or at least inclusion in new dual treatment regimens, which might need to be considered for all newly developed antimicrobials, are essential. Several of the recently developed antimicrobials deserve increased attention for potential future treatment of gonorrhoea. In vitro activity studies examining collections of geographically, temporally and genetically diverse gonococcal isolates, including multidrug-resistant strains particularly with resistance to ceftriaxone and azithromycin, are important. Furthermore, understanding of effects and biological fitness of current and emerging (in vitro induced/selected and in vivo emerged) genetic resistance mechanisms for these antimicrobials, prediction of resistance emergence, time-kill curve analysis to evaluate antibacterial activity, appropriate mice experiments, and correlates between genetic and phenotypic laboratory parameters, and clinical treatment outcomes, would also be valuable. Subsequently, appropriately designed, randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating efficacy, ideal dose, toxicity, adverse effects, cost, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics data for anogenital and, importantly, also pharyngeal gonorrhoea, i.e. because treatment failures initially emerge at this anatomical site. Finally, in the future treatment at first health care visit will ideally be individually-tailored, i.e. by novel rapid phenotypic AMR tests and/or genetic point of care AMR tests, including detection of gonococci, which will improve the management and public health control of gonorrhoea and AMR. Nevertheless, now is certainly the right time to readdress the challenges of developing a gonococcal vaccine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 384 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 381 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 69 18%
Student > Master 46 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 11%
Researcher 38 10%
Other 24 6%
Other 60 16%
Unknown 105 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 50 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 29 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 3%
Other 42 11%
Unknown 119 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,723,720
of 25,382,035 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#440
of 8,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,282
of 275,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#9
of 148 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 275,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 148 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.