Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31360439›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational allergy2019

Elderly versus younger patients with hereditary angioedema type I/II: patient characteristics and safety analysis from the Icatibant Outcome Survey.

Anette Bygum, Teresa Caballero, Anete S Grumach, Hilary J Longhurst, Laurence Bouillet, Werner Aberer, Andrea Zanichelli, Jaco Botha, Irmgard Andresen, Marcus Maurer and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational allergy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04978051 (Randomized, Open, Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial, Proof of Concept, to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Icatibant in Hospitalized Patients With SARS-COV-2), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04978051 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Randomized, Open, Multicenter Phase II Clinical Trial, Proof of Concept, to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of Icatibant in Hospitalized Patients With SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) Without Assisted Ventilation Compared With Standard Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorSebastian VidelaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled73ConditionsCOVID-19 PneumoniaArmsFirazyr, SoC
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 12 countries.

Anette Bygum1Department of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsløws Vej 4, Indgang 142, 5000 Odense C, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-3004-0180
Teresa Caballero3Allergy Department, Hospital La Paz Institute for Health Research (IdiPaz), Biomedical Research Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER, U754), Madrid, Spain.
Anete S Grumach4Faculdade de Medicina ABC, Santo Andre, SP Brazil.
Hilary J Longhurst5Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Laurence Bouillet6National Reference Centre for Angioedema, Internal Medicine Department, Grenoble University Hospital, Grenoble, France.
Werner Aberer7Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Andrea Zanichelli8Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, ASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco, Milan, Italy.
Jaco Botha9Shire, a Takeda company, Zug, Switzerland.
Irmgard Andresen9Shire, a Takeda company, Zug, Switzerland.
Marcus Maurer10Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Dermatological Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
IOS Study Group
Takeda (Switzerland) · CHUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKASST Fatebenefratelli Sacco · ITCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRClinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science · DEHospital La Paz Institute for Health Research · ESMedical University of Graz · ATUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHereditary angioedema with C1 inhibitor deficiency (C1-INH-HAE) is characterized by recurrent swelling in subcutaneous or submucosal tissues. Symptoms often begin by age 5-11 years and worsen during puberty, but attacks can occur at any age and recur throughout life. Disease course in elderly patients is rarely reported.

methodsThe Icatibant Outcome Survey (IOS) is an observational study evaluating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of icatibant. We conducted descriptive analyses in younger (age < 65 years) versus elderly patients (age ≥ 65 years). Here, we report patient characteristics and safety-related findings.

resultsAs of February 2018, 872 patients with C1-INH-HAE type I/II were enrolled, of whom 100 (11.5%) were ≥ 65 years old. Significant differences between elderly versus younger patients, respectively, were noted for median age at symptom onset (17.0 vs 12.0 years), age at diagnosis (41.0 vs 19.4 years), and delay between symptom onset and diagnosis (23.9 vs 4.8 years) (P ≤ 0.0001 for all). Median age at diagnosis was significantly higher in elderly patients regardless of family history (P < 0.0001). Throughout the study, icatibant was used to treat 6798 attacks in 574 patients, with 63 elderly patients reporting 715 (10.5%) of the icatibant-treated attacks. No serious adverse events (SAEs) in elderly patients were judged to be possibly related to icatibant, whereas two younger patients reported three possibly related SAEs. Excluding off-label use and pregnancy (evaluated for regulatory purposes), the percentage of patients with at least one possibly/probably related AE was similar for elderly (2.0%) versus younger patients (2.7%). No deaths linked to icatibant treatment were identified. All related events in elderly patients were attributed to general disorders/administration site conditions, whereas related events in younger patients occurred across various system organ class designations.

conclusionsElderly patients with C1-INH-HAE were significantly older at diagnosis and had greater delay in diagnosis than younger patients. Elderly patients contributed to approximately 10% of the icatibant-treated attacks. Our analysis found similar AE rates (overall and possibly/probably related) in icatibant-treated elderly versus younger patients, despite the fact that elderly patients had significantly more comorbidities and were receiving a greater number of concomitant medications. Our analysis did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.

Indexed as

ElderlyHereditary angioedemaIcatibant Outcome SurveySafety

Identifiers

PMID31360439
PMCPMC6639901
OpenAlexW2964201019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.