↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions between 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and statins: factors determining interaction strength and relevant clinical risk management

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 1,005)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions between 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and statins: factors determining interaction strength and relevant clinical risk management
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, December 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s55512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Quan Zhou, Yi-Ting Zhou, Lu-Shan Yu, Su Zeng, Yu-Wen Huang, Hui-Min Xu

Abstract

Coadministration of 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs) with statins (or 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A [HMG-CoA] reductase inhibitors) is common for patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertension. To reduce the risk of myopathy, in 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Safety Communication set a new dose limitation for simvastatin, for patients taking simvastatin concomitantly with amlodipine. However, there is no such dose limitation for atorvastatin for patients receiving amlodipine. The combination pill formulation of amlodipine/atorvastatin is available on the market. There been no systematic review of the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) profile of DHP-CCBs with statins, the underlying mechanisms for DDIs of different degree, or the corresponding management of clinical risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 74 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 21 28%
Unknown 3 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Chemistry 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 6 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 15 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,209,277
of 14,105,901 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#44
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,018
of 256,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,105,901 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 256,259 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 29 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 93% of its contemporaries.