| Title |
Impact of immunosuppressant therapy on new-onset diabetes in liver transplant recipients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s142348 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fu-Chao Liu, Huan-Tang Lin, Jr-Rung Lin, Huang-Ping Yu |
| Abstract |
This nationwide, population-based study aimed to clarify the effects of immunosuppressive regimens on new-onset diabetes after liver transplantation (NODALT). The National Health Insurance database of Taiwan was explored for patients who received liver transplantation without pre-transplant diabetes from 1998 to 2012. Information regarding clinical conditions and immunosuppressant utilization among these patients was analyzed statistically. Of the 2,140 patients included in our study, 189 (8.8%) developed NODALT. The pre-transplant risk factors for NODALT were identified as old age, male sex, hepatitis C, alcoholic hepatitis, and immunosuppressant use of tacrolimus (TAC). All patients used corticosteroids as a baseline immunosuppressant. The immunosuppressant regimen of cyclosporine (CsA)+TAC+mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) contributed most to NODALT (adjusted hazard ratio 7.596) in comparison with the regimens of TAC+MMF and CsA+MMF; this regimen also contributed significantly to higher post-transplant bacteremia, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, renal failure, and mortality rate. In conclusion, our analysis confirmed TAC-based immunosuppression contributes to higher NODALT incidence than CsA-based regimen, and TAC-CsA conversion due to any causes might lead to worse clinical outcomes. Clinicians should make better risk stratifications before prescribing immunosuppressants for liver transplant recipients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 15 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 19% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 51% |
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 21 August 2017.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#611
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,898
of 327,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 327,503 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 50% 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.