↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled AP301 for treatment of pulmonary edema in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a phase IIa randomized placebo-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Inhaled AP301 for treatment of pulmonary edema in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a phase IIa randomized placebo-controlled trial
Published in
Critical Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1795-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina Krenn, Rudolf Lucas, Adrien Croizé, Stefan Boehme, Klaus Ulrich Klein, Robert Hermann, Klaus Markstaller, Roman Ullrich

Abstract

High-permeability pulmonary edema is a hallmark of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and is frequently accompanied by impaired alveolar fluid clearance (AFC). AP301 enhances AFC by activating epithelial sodium channels (ENaCs) on alveolar epithelial cells, and we investigated its effect on extravascular lung water index (EVLWI) in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS. Forty adult mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS were included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial for proof of concept. Patients were treated with inhaled AP301 (n = 20) or placebo (0.9% NaCl; n = 20) twice daily for 7 days. EVLWI was measured by thermodilution (PiCCO®), and treatment groups were compared using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test. AP301 inhalation was well tolerated. No differences in mean baseline-adjusted change in EVLWI from screening to day 7 were found between the AP301 and placebo group (p = 0.196). There was no difference in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, ventilation pressures, Murray lung injury score, or 28-day mortality between the treatment groups. An exploratory subgroup analysis according to severity of illness showed reductions in EVLWI (p = 0.04) and ventilation pressures (p < 0.05) over 7 days in patients with initial sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores ≥11 inhaling AP301 versus placebo, but not in patients with SOFA scores ≤10. There was no difference in mean baseline-adjusted EVLWI between the AP301 and placebo group. An exploratory post-hoc subgroup analysis indicated reduced EVLWI in patients with SOFA scores ≥11 receiving AP301. These results suggest further confirmation in future clinical trials of inhaled AP301 for treatment of pulmonary edema in patients with ARDS. The study was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01627613 . Registered 20 June 2012.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Other 11 15%
Researcher 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#710,745
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#535
of 6,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,415
of 317,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 317,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.