↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacokinetics of Standard- and Reduced-Dose Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin in Patients with Septic Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation during Continuous Hemodiafiltration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Pharmacokinetics of Standard- and Reduced-Dose Recombinant Human Soluble Thrombomodulin in Patients with Septic Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation during Continuous Hemodiafiltration
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eizo Watanabe, Shingo Yamazaki, Daisuke Setoguchi, Tomohito Sadahiro, Yoshihisa Tateishi, Tatsuya Suzuki, Itsuko Ishii, Shigeto Oda

Abstract

Recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (rTM) is reportedly excreted by the kidneys; therefore, the recommended dose for patients with renal impairment is one-third of the standard dose. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether this reduced dose of rTM achieves effective drug concentrations that are comparable to those of the standard dose in treating sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) during continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF). Eight patients in an intensive care unit were randomized to receive either reduced-dose (0.02 mg/kg, n = 4) or standard-dose (0.06 mg/kg, n = 4) rTM. We evaluated the effect of standard dose in comparison to that of reduced dose on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of rTM for the sepsis-induced DIC patients receiving CHDF. Patients received rTM during a 30-min infusion for six consecutive days. PK parameters of rTM were analyzed using the one-compartment model. The elimination half-life, clearance (T1/2), and distribution volume of sTM were similar between the reduced and standard doses. The maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of sTM were approximately 2.5 times higher with standard-dose daily infusions than that with reduced-dose drip infusions (p = 0.041 and 0.062, respectively). The time when the blood concentration of sTM was >500 ng/mL, i.e., the holding time, was significantly longer with standard-dose infusions than those with reduced dose (p = 0.039). rTM displayed dose-dependent PK behavior at clinically relevant doses. During CHDF, effective blood concentration of rTM was not achieved with the reduced dose, and rTM was found to not bioaccumulate. Therefore, this pilot study suggests that reducing the rTM dose is unnecessary, even in sepsis-induced DIC patients who require CHDF. However, we need to perform a definitive study to determine the dosage of rTM for the case.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 30%
Lecturer 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Social Sciences 1 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 July 2023.
All research outputs
#6,922,647
of 24,169,085 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,684
of 6,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,473
of 314,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#14
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,169,085 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,476 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 314,486 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.