↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 200 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 67 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 80 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 24 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,391,377
of 26,178,577 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,771
of 13,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,795
of 330,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 278 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,178,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 330,639 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 278 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 62% of its contemporaries.