↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective cohort study comparing the risk of severe hepatotoxicity in hospitalized patients treated with echinocandins for invasive candidiasis in the presence of confounding by indication

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Retrospective cohort study comparing the risk of severe hepatotoxicity in hospitalized patients treated with echinocandins for invasive candidiasis in the presence of confounding by indication
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12879-018-3333-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis Vekeman, Lisa Weiss, Jalal Aram, Raluca Ionescu-Ittu, Shahrzad Moosavi, Yongling Xiao, Wendy Y. Cheng, Rachel H. Bhak, Margaret Tawadrous, M. Rita Capparella, Philippe Montravers, Mei Sheng Duh

Abstract

To compare the risk of severe hepatotoxicity with anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin in hospitalized adults. This retrospective cohort study combined data from two large US- based hospital electronic medical record databases. Severe hepatotoxicity was a Grade ≥ 3 liver function test (LFT) post-echinocandin initiation. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated for anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin, overall and in patients with normal baseline LFT (Grade 0). Treatments included anidulafungin (n = 1700), caspofungin (n = 4431), or micafungin (n = 6547). The proportions with LFT Grade ≥ 3 pre-echinocandin initiation were: anidulafungin 40.4% versus caspofungin 25.9% (p <  0.001) and micafungin 25.6% (p <  0.001). Rates of severe underlying diseases or comorbidities were: critical care admissions: 75.3% versus 52.6 and 48.6%; and organ failures: 69.4% versus 46.7 and 51.5%. Adjusted IRRs of severe hepatotoxicity for anidulafungin versus caspofungin and micafungin were 1.43 (p = 0.002) and 1.19 (p = 0.183) overall, and 0.88 (P = 0.773) and 0.97 (P = 0.945) for normal baseline LFT, respectively. Accounting for confounders, severe hepatotoxicity risk was not significantly different across echinocandins in this real-world head-to-head study. Anidulafungin was used more frequently in patients with more comorbidities. Those with normal baseline LFT (least susceptible to confounding by indication), showed no elevated hepatotoxicity risk for anidulafungin.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 15 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 15 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,387,213
of 24,829,155 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,004
of 8,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,620
of 340,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#37
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,829,155 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 340,122 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.