↓ Skip to main content

ADA Deficiency: Evaluation of the Clinical and Laboratory Features and the Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Immunology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
ADA Deficiency: Evaluation of the Clinical and Laboratory Features and the Outcome
Published in
Journal of Clinical Immunology, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10875-018-0496-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deniz Cagdas, Pınar Gur Cetinkaya, Betül Karaatmaca, Saliha Esenboga, Cagman Tan, Togay Yılmaz, Ersin Gümüş, Safa Barış, Barış Kuşkonmaz, Tuba Turul Ozgur, Pawan Bali, Ines Santisteban, Diclehan Orhan, Aysel Yüce, Duygu Cetinkaya, Kaan Boztug, Michael Hershfield, Ozden Sanal, İlhan Tezcan

Abstract

Adenosine deaminase (ADA) deficiency is an autosomal recessive primary immunodeficiency. It results in the intracellular accumulation of toxic metabolites which have effects particularly on lymphocytes and the brain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of 13 ADA-deficient patients. We planned to evaluate their clinical and laboratory findings before and after enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT), and hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy (HSCGT). Measurement of ADA enzyme activity and metabolites and sequencing of the ADA gene were performed in most of the patients with ADA deficiency. One of the patients with late-onset ADA deficiency was diagnosed by the help of primary immunodeficiency panel screening. Ten out of 13 patients were diagnosed as SCID, while 3 out of 13 were diagnosed as delayed-/late-onset ADA deficiency. Late-onset ADA deficiency patients had clinical and laboratory findings of combined immunodeficiency (CID). Eight patients with ADA-SCID were found to have higher levels of ADA metabolite (dAXP%) (62.1% (34.6-71.9)) than 3 patients with delayed-/late-onset ADA deficiency (6.9% (2.1-8.9). All but one patient with SCID had T-B-NK- phenotype, one had T-B-NK+ phenotype. Genetic defect was documented in 11 patients. Four out of 11 patients had compound heterozygous defects. Three out of 4 patients with compound heterozygous defects had delayed-onset/late-onset ADA deficiency. Seven out of 11 patients with SCID had homozygous defects. Five out of 7 had the same homozygous indel frameshift mutation (c.955-959delGAAGA) showing a founder effect. There were two novel splice site defects: one (IVS10+2T>C) was heterozygous in a patient with late-onset ADA deficiency, and the other was homozygous (IVS2delT+2) in a SCID patient. Other defects were missense defects. Nine out of 13 patients were put on pegylated ADA ERT. Four out of six patients were transplanted without using a conditioning regimen. HSCGT was performed to one of the patients. The genetic diagnosis of SCID is utmost important. There is a chance to give ERT before the definitive therapy if the patient with SCID/CID has ADA deficiency. Although ERT was insufficient to restore a normal immune function in ADA-SCID patients, it was useful to improve and stabilize the clinical status before curative therapy (aHSCT/HSCGT). Enzyme replacement therapy was successful in patients with late-/delayed-onset ADA deficiency who presented with the features of combined immunodeficiency. Gastrointestinal polyposis in a patient with late-onset ADA deficiency may be an association or a coincidental finding. Intermittent neurodevelopmental evaluation especially for hearing impairment should be performed in most of the ADA-deficient patients. This may alleviate the speech delay and cognitive abnormalities which may be observed in the follow-up.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#14,982,922
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#954
of 1,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,533
of 327,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Immunology
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.