↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Lanthanum carbonate for the control of hyperphosphatemia in chronic renal failure patients: a new oral powder formulation – safety, efficacy, and patient adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
Lanthanum carbonate for the control of hyperphosphatemia in chronic renal failure patients: a new oral powder formulation – safety, efficacy, and patient adherence
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2013
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s31694
Pubmed ID
Authors

MªJesús Lloret, César Ruiz-García, Iara DaSilva, Mónica Furlano, Yaima Barreiro, José Ballarín, Jordi Bover

Abstract

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with very high mortality rates, mainly of cardiovascular origin. The retention of phosphate (P) and increased fibroblast growth factor-23 levels are common, even at early stages of CKD, due to disturbances in normal P homeostasis. Later, hyperphosphatemia appears, which has also been strongly associated with high mortality rates linked to P-mediated cardiovascular and procalcifying effects. Treatment guidelines for these patients continue to be poorly implemented, at least partially due to the lack of adherence to a P-restricted diet and P-binder therapy. Calcium-free P binders, such as lanthanum carbonate, have been associated with a decreased progression of vascular calcification, rendering them an important therapeutic alternative for these high cardiovascular risk CKD patients. Lanthanum carbonate has typically been available as chewable tablets, and the new presentation as an oral powder may provide a useful alternative in the therapeutic armamentarium. This powder is a tasteless, odorless, and colorless semisolid compound miscible with food. In a recent study in healthy individuals, the safety and efficacy of this novel form were evaluated, and it was concluded that it is well tolerated and pharmacodynamically equivalent to the chewable form. In the long run, individualization of preferences and treatments seems an achievable goal prior to final demonstration of improvements in hard outcomes in wide clinical trials in CKD patients.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 31%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 54%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
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 06 November 2013.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#1,293
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,151
of 226,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 226,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.