ArticleClinical and translational allergy2019
Elderly versus younger patients with hereditary angioedema type I/II: patient characteristics and safety analysis from the Icatibant Outcome Survey.
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.
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.
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.
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
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Neglected Older Adults in Hereditary Angioedema: Insights From the ITACA Registry.Clinical and translational allergy · 2026Article
- The 2025 WAO Guidelines for the classification, diagnosis, and treatment of hereditary angioedema, with consideration of worldwide disparities.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Article
- Workplace and Healthcare Stigma in Hereditary Angioedema: Links to Anxiety and Functional Impairment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of Clinical Characteristics Between Hereditary Angioedema Patients Aged 65 Years and Older and Those Under 65: A Perspective on Elderly Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hereditary angioedema as a cause of recurrent abdominal pain in a pediatric patient with Crohn's disease.JPGN reports · 2025Article
- Erratum: Effect of Fresh Frozen Plasma Infusion on Hospital Length of Stay for Patients With Hereditary Angioedema.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2025Article
- Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Management of Angioedema Attacks in Polish Adult Patients with Hereditary Angioedema Due to C1-Inhibitor Deficiency.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor for hereditary angioedema attacks: A European registry.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021Article
- Prophylactic Treatment in Hereditary Angioedema Is Associated with Reduced Anxiety in Patients in Leipzig, Germany.International archives of allergy and immunology · 2021Article
- Highlights and recent developments in allergic diseases in EAACI journals (2019).Clinical and translational allergy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 9 institutions in 12 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.