↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy for treating patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy for treating patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007851.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter C Gøtzsche, Helle Krogh Johansen

Abstract

Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency is an inherited disorder that can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). People who smoke are more seriously affected and have a greater risk of dying from the disease. Therefore, the primary treatment is to help people give up smoking. There are now also preparations available that contain alpha-1 antitrypsin, but it is uncertain what their clinical effect is. To review the benefits and harms of augmentation therapy with intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin in patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to 25 March 2016. We included randomised trials of augmentation therapy with alpha-1 antitrypsin compared with placebo or no treatment. The two review authors independently selected trials, extracted outcome data and assessed the risk of bias. We included three trials (283 participants in the analyses) that ran for two to three years. All participants were ex- or never-smokers and had genetic variants that carried a high risk of developing COPD. Only one trial reported mortality data (one person of 93 died in the treatment group and three of 87 died in the placebo group). There was no information on harms in the oldest trial. Another trial reported serious adverse events in 10 participants in the treatment group and 18 participants in the placebo group. In the most recent trial, serious adverse events occurred in 28 participants in each group. None of the trials reported mean number of lung infections or hospital admissions. In the two trials that reported exacerbations, there were more exacerbations in the treatment group than in the placebo group, but the results of both trials included the possibility of no difference. Quality of life was similar in the two groups. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) deteriorated more in participants in the treatment group than in the placebo group but the confidence interval (CI) included no difference (standardised mean difference -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.05; P = 0.12). For carbon monoxide diffusion, the difference was -0.11 mmol/minute/kPa (95% CI -0.35 to 0.12; P = 0.34). Lung density measured by computer tomography (CT) scan deteriorated significantly less in the treatment group than in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 0.86 g/L, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.42; P = 0.002). Several secondary outcomes were unreported in the largest and most recent trial whose authors had numerous financial conflicts of interest. This review update added one new study and 143 new participants, but the conclusions remain unchanged. Due to sparse data, we could not arrive at a conclusion about the impact of augmentation therapy on mortality, exacerbations, lung infections, hospital admission and quality of life, and there was uncertainty about possible harms. Therefore, it is our opinion that augmentation therapy with alpha-1 antitrypsin cannot be recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Librarian 9 9%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 18 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,922,878
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,326
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,943
of 264,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 264,391 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 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.