↓ Skip to main content

Real-world outcomes in hereditary angioedema: first experience from the Icatibant Outcome Survey in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Real-world outcomes in hereditary angioedema: first experience from the Icatibant Outcome Survey in the United Kingdom
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13223-018-0253-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary J. Longhurst, John Dempster, Lorena Lorenzo, Matthew Buckland, Sofia Grigoriadou, Christine Symons, Claire Bethune, Vincent Fabien, Catherine Bangs, Tomaz Garcez

Abstract

Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a potentially life-threatening, bradykinin-mediated disease, often misdiagnosed and under-treated, with long diagnostic delays. There are limited real-world data on best-practice management of HAE in the UK. To characterize the clinical profile, management and outcomes of patients with HAE type I and II from three specialist centres in the UK using data from the Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS; Shire, Zug, Switzerland), an international observational study monitoring safety and effectiveness of icatibant, a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. We performed retrospective analyses of IOS data for patients with HAE type I and II from three centres in the UK and compared UK data with pooled IOS data from 10 countries (48 centres). Analyses included 73 UK and 579 non-UK patients with HAE type I or II. Median diagnostic delay was 6.2 and 5.9 years, respectively. Analysis of data collected from February 2008 to July 2016 included 286 icatibant-treated attacks in 58 UK patients and 2553 icatibant-treated attacks in 436 non-UK patients (median of 3.0 attacks per patient in both groups). More attacks were treated by icatibant self-administration in UK patients (95.8%) than in non-UK patients (86.8%, p < 0.001). Time to icatibant treatment, time to resolution and attack duration were not significantly different in the UK versus non-UK patients. UK patients from the specialist centres studied report similar diagnostic delay and similar icatibant treatment outcomes to their non-UK counterparts. However, improvements in the timely diagnosis of HAE are still required.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01034969.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 1 4%
Lecturer 1 4%
Professor 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 14 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#784
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#264,682
of 340,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 340,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.