↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Rectal budesonide and mesalamine formulations in active ulcerative proctosigmoiditis: efficacy, tolerance, and treatment approach

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Rectal budesonide and mesalamine formulations in active ulcerative proctosigmoiditis: efficacy, tolerance, and treatment approach
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s80237
Pubmed ID
Authors

George P Christophi, Arvind Rengarajan, Matthew A Ciorba

Abstract

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an immune-mediated disease of the colon that is characterized by diffuse and continuous inflammation contiguous from the rectum. Half of UC patients have inflammation limited to the distal colon (proctitis or proctosigmoiditis) that primarily causes symptoms of bloody diarrhea and urgency. Mild-to-moderate distal UC can be effectively treated with topical formulations (rectal suppositories, enemas, or foam) of mesalamine or steroids to reduce mucosal inflammation and alleviate symptoms. Enemas or foam formulations adequately reach up to the splenic flexure, have a minimal side-effect profile, and induce remission alone or in combination with systemic immunosuppressive therapy. Herein, we compare the efficacy, cost, patient tolerance, and side-effect profiles of steroid and mesalamine rectal formulations in distal UC. Patients with distal mild-to-moderate UC have a remission rate of approximately 75% (NNT =2) after treatment for 6 weeks with mesalamine enemas. Rectal budesonide foam induces remission in 41.2% of patients with mild-to-moderate active distal UC compared to 24% of patient treated with placebo (NNT =5). However, rectal budesonide has better patient tolerance profile compared to enema formulations. Despite its favorable efficacy, safety, and cost profiles, patients and physicians significantly underuse topical treatments for treating distal colitis. This necessitates improved patient education and physician familiarity regarding the indications, effectiveness, and potential financial and tolerability barriers in using rectal formulations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Other 12 12%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 25 26%
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 15 June 2022.
All research outputs
#6,752,694
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#98
of 306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,420
of 298,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 306 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 298,147 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.