↓ Skip to main content

University of Southern Denmark

Safety and Usage of C1-Inhibitor in Hereditary Angioedema: Berinert Registry Data

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Safety and Usage of C1-Inhibitor in Hereditary Angioedema: Berinert Registry Data
Published in
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jaip.2016.04.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc A. Riedl, Anette Bygum, William Lumry, Markus Magerl, Jonathan A. Bernstein, Paula Busse, Timothy Craig, Michael M. Frank, Jonathan Edelman, Debora Williams-Herman, Henrike Feuersenger, Mikhail Rojavin, Berinert Registry investigators, Jacob Offenberger, Robyn Levy, David Hurewitz, H. Henry Li, Ralph Shapiro, Jonathan Bernstein, Timothy Craig, Aaron Davis, Jeffrey Rosch, James Fox, Gerti Janss, James Baker, Flint Packer, Art Vegh, Michael Frank, Ellen Sher, Paula Busse, James H. Wedner, Marc Riedl, William Lumry, David Amrol, Richard Gower, Glenn Silber, Jay Portnoy, Kenneth Paris, Amy Darter, Nayla Mumneh, Andrej Petrov, Lynda Schneider, Inmaculada Martinez-Saguer, Petra Staubach-Renz, Marcus Maurer, Murat Bas, Emel Aygören-Pürsün, Anette Bygum, Walter Wuillemin

Abstract

The plasma-derived, highly purified, nanofiltered C1-inhibitor concentrate (Berinert; "pnfC1-INH") is approved in the United States for treating hereditary angioedema (HAE) attacks and in many European countries for attack treatment and short-term prophylaxis. The objective of this study was to describe safety and usage patterns of pnfC1-INH. A multicenter, observational, registry was conducted between 2010 and 2014 at 30 United States and 7 European sites to obtain both prospective (occurring after enrollment) and retrospective (occurring before enrollment) safety and usage data on subjects receiving pnfC1-INH for any reason. Of 343 enrolled patients, 318 received 1 or more doses of pnfC1-INH for HAE attacks (11,848 infusions) or for prophylaxis (3142 infusions), comprising the safety population. Median dosages per infusion were 10.8 IU/kg (attack treatment) and 16.6 IU/kg (prophylaxis). Approximately 95% of infusions were administered outside of a health care setting. No adverse events (AEs) were reported in retrospective data. Among prospective data (n = 296 subjects; 9148 infusions), 252 AEs were reported in 85 (28.7%) subjects (rate of 0.03 events/infusion); 9 events were considered related to pnfC1-INH. Two thromboembolic events were reported in subjects with thrombotic risk factors. No patient was noted to have undergone viral testing for suspected blood-borne infection during registry participation. The findings from this large, international patient registry documented widespread implementation of pnfC1-INH self-administration outside of a health care setting consistent with current HAE guidelines. These real-world data revealed pnfC1-INH usage for a variety of reasons in patients with HAE and showed a high level of safety regardless of administration setting or reason for use.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Professor 5 8%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 19 32%
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 09 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,968,106
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
#2,046
of 4,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,967
of 354,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice
#27
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,310 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 51% 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 354,744 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 52% of its contemporaries.