↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Adherence to tobramycin inhaled powder vs inhaled solution in patients with cystic fibrosis: analysis of US insurance claims data

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Adherence to tobramycin inhaled powder vs inhaled solution in patients with cystic fibrosis: analysis of US insurance claims data
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s134759
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamal Hamed, Valentino Conti, Hengfeng Tian, Emil Loefroth

Abstract

Tobramycin inhalation powder (TIP), the first dry-powder inhaled antibiotic for pulmonary Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, is associated with reduced treatment burden, increased patient satisfaction, and higher self-reported adherence for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. We compared adherence in CF patients newly treated with TIP with those newly treated with the traditional tobramycin inhalation solution (TIS), using US insurance claims data. From the Truven MarketScan(®) database, we identified CF patients chronically infected with P. aeruginosa who had been prescribed TIP between May 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014, or TIS between September 1, 2010 to April 30, 2012 with at least 12 months of continuous medical and pharmacy benefits prior to and following prescription. TIP and TIS adherence levels were assessed. A total of 145 eligible patients were identified for the TIP cohort and 306 for the TIS cohort. Significant differences in age distribution (25.0 vs 21.9 years for TIP vs TIS, respectively, P=0.017), type of health plan (P=0.014), employment status (72.4% vs 63.4% of TIP vs TIS patients in full-time employment, P=0.008), and some comorbidities were observed between the two cohorts. Although a univariate analysis found no significant differences between TIP and TIS (odds ratio [OR] 1.411, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.949-2.098), TIP was moderately associated with higher adherence levels compared with TIS in a multivariable analysis, once various demographic and clinical characteristics were adjusted for. These included geographic location (OR: 1.566, CI: 1.016-2.413) and certain comorbidities. This study of US patient data supports previous findings that TIP is associated with better adherence compared with TIS; however, further studies will be required to fully elucidate differences in adherence between TIP and TIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Chemistry 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#641
of 1,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,602
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#20
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 323,961 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.