↓ Skip to main content

Optimum Use of Acute Treatments for Hereditary Angioedema: Evidence-Based Expert Consensus

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Optimum Use of Acute Treatments for Hereditary Angioedema: Evidence-Based Expert Consensus
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2017.00245
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hilary Longhurst

Abstract

Acute treatment of hereditary angioedema due to C1 inhibitor deficiency has become available in the last 10 years and has greatly improved patients' quality of life. Two plasma-derived C1 inhibitors (Berinert and Cinryze), a recombinant C1 inhibitor (Ruconest/Conestat alpha), a kallikrein inhibitor (Ecallantide), and a bradykinin B2 receptor inhibitor (Icatibant) are all effective. Durably good response is maintained over repeated treatments and several years. All currently available prophylactic agents are associated with breakthrough attacks, therefore an acute treatment plan is essential for every patient. Experience has shown that higher doses of C1 inhibitor than previously recommended may be desirable, although only recombinant C1 inhibitor has been subject to full dose-response evaluation. Treatment of early symptoms of an attack, with any licensed therapy, results in milder symptoms, more rapid resolution and shorter duration of attack, compared with later treatment. All therapies have been shown to be well-tolerated, with low risk of serious adverse events. Plasma-derived C1 inhibitors have a reassuring safety record regarding lack of transmission of virus or other infection. Thrombosis has been reported in association with plasma-derived C1 inhibitor in some case series. Ruconest was associated with anaphylaxis in a single rabbit-allergic volunteer, but no further anaphylaxis has been reported in those not allergic to rabbits despite, in a few cases, prior IgE sensitization to rabbit or milk protein. Icatibant is associated with high incidence of local reactions but not with systemic effects. Ecallantide may cause anaphylactoid reactions and is given under supervision. For children and pregnant women, plasma-derived C1 inhibitor has the best evidence of safety and currently remains first-line treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 18 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,976,242
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,577
of 5,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,747
of 332,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#45
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
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 332,696 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.