↓ Skip to main content

Dornase alfa for cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Dornase alfa for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001127.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Connie Yang, Mark Chilvers, Mark Montgomery, Sarah J Nolan

Abstract

Dornase alfa is currently used as a mucolytic to treat pulmonary disease (the major cause of morbidity and mortality) in cystic fibrosis. It reduces mucus viscosity in the lungs, promoting improved clearance of secretions. This is an update of a previously published review. To determine whether the use of dornase alfa in cystic fibrosis is associated with improved mortality and morbidity compared to placebo or other medications that improve airway clearance, and to identify any adverse events associated with its use. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and abstracts from conferences. Date of the most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Register: 30 November 2015.Clinicaltrials.gov was also searched to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. Date of most recent search: 28 November 2015. All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing dornase alfa to placebo, standard therapy or other medications that improve airway clearance. Authors independently assessed trials against the inclusion criteria; two authors carried out analysis of methodological quality and data extraction. The searches identified 54 trials, of which 19 (including a total of 2565 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Three additional papers examined the healthcare cost from one of the clinical trials. Fifteen trials compared dornase alfa to placebo or no dornase alfa treatment (2447 participants); two compared daily dornase to hypertonic saline (32 participants); one compared daily dornase alfa with hypertonic saline and alternate day dornase alfa (48 participants); one compared dornase alfa to mannitol and the combination of both drugs (38 participants). Trial duration varied from six days to three years.Compared to placebo, forced expiratory volume at one second improved in the intervention groups, with significant differences at one, three, six months and two years. There was also a significant improvement in lung clearance index at one month. There was a decrease in pulmonary exacerbations compared to placebo in trials of longer duration. The quality of the evidence from placebo-controlled trials was moderate to high for outcomes of lung function and pulmonary exacerbations. Limited, low quality evidence was available for changes in quality of life from baseline. One trial that examined the cost of care, including the cost of dornase alfa, found that the cost savings from dornase alfa offset 18% to 38% of the medication costs.The results for trials comparing dornase alfa to other medications that improve airway clearance (hypertonic saline or mannitol) were mixed, with one trial showing a greater improvement in forced expiratory volume at one second for dornase alfa compared to hypertonic saline, and three trials finding no difference between medications. In the only trial to assess the combination of dornase alfa with another medication compared to dornase alone, there was no benefit seen with the combination of dornase alfa and mannitol. Evidence of dornase alfa compared to other medications was limited and the open-label design of the trials may have induced bias, therefore the quality of the evidence was judged to be low.Dornase alfa did not cause significantly more adverse effects, except voice alteration and rash. There is evidence to show that, compared with placebo, therapy with dornase alfa improves lung function in people with cystic fibrosis in trials lasting one month to two years. There was a decrease in pulmonary exacerbations in trials of six months or longer. Voice alteration and rash appear to be the only adverse events reported with increased frequency in randomised controlled trials. There is not enough evidence to firmly conclude if dornase alfa is superior to hyperosmolar agents in improving lung function.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 4%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 72 80%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Unspecified 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 1%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 72 80%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,403,504
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,084
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,770
of 264,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 264,429 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.