↓ Skip to main content

Immunosuppressive agents for treating IgA nephropathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Immunosuppressive agents for treating IgA nephropathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003965.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariacristina Vecchio, Bibiana Bonerba, Suetonia C Palmer, Jonathan C Craig, Marinella Ruospo, Joshua A Samuels, Donald A Molony, Francesco Paolo Schena, Giovanni FM Strippoli

Abstract

IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common glomerulonephritis world-wide and a cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in 15% to 20% of patients within 10 years and in 30% to 40% of patients within 20 years from the onset of disease. This is an update of a review first published in 2003. To determine the benefits and harms of immunosuppression for the treatment of IgAN. For this review update we searched the Specialised Register to 19 February 2015 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of treatment for IgAN in adults and children and that compared immunosuppressive agents with placebo, no treatment, or other immunosuppressive or non-immunosuppressive agents. Two authors independently assessed study risk of bias and extracted data for population characteristics, interventions and outcomes including mortality, infection, hospitalisation, ESKD requiring renal replacement therapy (dialysis or kidney transplantation), doubling of serum creatinine, remission of proteinuria, and end of treatment urinary protein excretion, serum creatinine, and glomerular filtration rate.Estimates of treatment effect and hazards were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. Treatment effects were expressed as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We included 32 studies comprising 1781 participants. Risk of bias within the included studies was generally high: 22 studies (69%) did not describe the method used to generate the randomisation sequence; 24 (75%) did not describe the methods used to conceal allocation; performance bias was not reported or high in 30 studies (94%); detection bias was unclear in 31 studies (97%); attrition bias was low in 14 studies (44%), unclear in eight (25%) and high in 12 studies (38%); reporting bias was low in 21 studies (67%) and high in 10 studies (31%); and four studies received industry funding or were terminated early (13%).Steroids lowered risks of progression to ESKD (6 studies, 341 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.80), and doubling of serum creatinine (6 studies, 341 participants: RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69), lowered urinary protein excretion (6 studies, 263 participants: MD -0.49 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.25); and preserved glomerular filtration rate (4 studies, 138 participants: MD 17.87 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 95% CI 4.93 to 30.82) compared to no treatment or placebo. Combining steroids plus renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitors lowered the risk of progression to ESKD (2 studies, 160 participants: RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.59) and reduced urinary protein excretion (1 study, 38 participants: MD -0.20 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.14) compared with RAS inhibitors or steroids alone. Cytotoxic agents (azathioprine) plus steroid regimens plus dipyridamole increased remission of proteinuria (1 study, 78 participants: RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.52) compared to steroids alone but had uncertain effects on other outcomes.Mycophenolate mofetil plus RAS inhibitors lowered the risk of progression to ESKD (1 study, 40 participants: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.90), improved remission of proteinuria (1 study, 40 participants: RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.39) and reduced urinary protein excretion (1 study, 40 participants: MD -1.26 g/24 h, 95% CI -1.46 to -1.06). Effects of other immunosuppressive regimens (including cyclosporin, leflunomide) were inconclusive primarily due to insufficient data from the individual studies. Subgroup analyses to determine the impact of patient characteristics on treatment effectiveness were not possible. The optimal management of IgAN remains uncertain although corticosteroid therapy may lower the risks of kidney disease progression and need for dialysis or transplantation. Evidence for treatment effects of immunosuppressive agents on mortality, infection, and cancer is generally sparse or low-quality and insufficient to guide clinical practice. Available RCTs are few, small, have high risk of bias - particularly selective reporting - and generally do not systematically identify treatment-related harms. Subgroup analyses to identify specific patient characteristics that might predict better response to therapy were not possible. Larger placebo-controlled studies of corticosteroid therapy or mycophenolate mofetil which are sufficiently powered to evaluate patient-relevant end points including adverse events and that examine the optimal duration of treatment are now required in populations with IgAN with a range of kidney function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Psychology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 40 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 14 April 2019.
All research outputs
#4,620,492
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,806
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,197
of 275,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 275,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.