↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal IgE Immunoadsorption in Allergic Asthma: Safety and Efficacy

Overview of attention for article published in EBioMedicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
15 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Extracorporeal IgE Immunoadsorption in Allergic Asthma: Safety and Efficacy
Published in
EBioMedicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.02.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Lupinek, Kurt Derfler, Silvia Lee, Thomas Prikoszovich, Oliver Movadat, Eva Wollmann, Carolin Cornelius, Milena Weber, Renate Fröschl, Regina Selb, Katharina Blatt, Dubravka Smiljkovic, Volker Schoder, René Cervenka, Thomas Plaichner, Gottfried Stegfellner, Hans Huber, Rainer Henning, Justyna Kozik-Jaromin, Thomas Perkmann, Verena Niederberger, Ventzislav Petkov, Peter Valent, Adelheid Gauly, Hans Peter Leinenbach, Ingrid Uhlenbusch-Koerwer, Rudolf Valenta

Abstract

Prevention of IgE-binding to cellular IgE-receptors by anti-IgE (Omalizumab) is clinically effective in allergic asthma, but limited by IgE threshold-levels. To overcome this limitation, we developed a single-use IgE immunoadsorber column (IgEnio). IgEnio is based on a recombinant, IgE-specific antibody fragment and can be used for the specific extracorporeal desorption of IgE. To study safety and efficacy of IgEnio regarding the selective depletion of IgE in a randomized, open-label, controlled pilot trial in patients with allergic asthma and to investigate if IgEnio can bind IgE-Omalizumab immune complexes. Fifteen subjects were enrolled and randomly assigned to the treatment group (n=10) or to the control group (n=5). Immunoadsorption was done by veno-venous approach, processing the twofold calculated plasma volume during each treatment. A minimum average IgE-depletion of 50% after the last cycle in the intention-to-treat population was defined as primary endpoint. Safety of the treatment was studied as secondary endpoint. In addition, possible changes in allergen-specific sensitivity were investigated, as well as clinical effects by peak flow measurement and symptom-recording. The depletion of IgE-Omalizumab immune complexes was studied in vitro. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02096237) and conducted from December 2013 to July 2014. IgE immunoadsorption with IgEnio selectively depleted 86.2% (±5.1% SD) of IgE until the end of the last cycle (p<0.0001). Removal of pollen allergen-specific IgE was associated with a reduction of allergen-specific basophil-sensitivity and prevented increases of allergen-specific skin-sensitivity and clinical symptoms during pollen seasons. IgEnio also depleted IgE-Omalizumab immune complexes in vitro. The therapy under investigation was safe and well-tolerated. During a total of 81 aphereses, 2 severe adverse events (SAE) were recorded, one of which, an episode of acute dyspnea, possibly was related to the treatment and resolved after administration of antihistamines and corticosteroids. This pilot study indicates that IgE immunoadsorption with IgEnio may be used to treat patients with pollen-induced allergic asthma. Furthermore, the treatment could render allergic patients with highly elevated IgE-levels eligible for the administration of Omalizumab and facilitate the desorption of IgE-Omalizumab complexes. This study was funded by Fresenius Medical Care Deutschland GmbH, Bad Homburg, Germany.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 18%
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 19 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 19 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 July 2021.
All research outputs
#1,124,676
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from EBioMedicine
#532
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,741
of 430,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EBioMedicine
#13
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 430,378 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.