↓ Skip to main content

Initial intravenous immunoglobulin doses should be based on adjusted body weight in obese patients with primary immunodeficiency disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Initial intravenous immunoglobulin doses should be based on adjusted body weight in obese patients with primary immunodeficiency disorders
Published in
Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13223-017-0220-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohan Ameratunga

Abstract

Immunoglobulin therapy plays a critical role in the treatment of immunodeficiency disorders as well as autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. In immunodeficient patients, there has been controversy whether initial loading doses of intravenous (IVIG) should be based on actual body weight or a calculated parameter such as adjusted body weight in obese patients. I describe a patient with Common Variable Immunodeficiency disorder (CVID) who underwent bariatric surgery for morbid obesity. Her weight decreased by 50% to below her calculated ideal body weight (IBW) while her immunoglobulin requirement fell by approximately 20%. Her steady state serum IgG increased from approximately 7 g/l to 11.7 g/l concomitant with weight loss. I present this observation as support for the recommendation that initial loading doses of SCIG/IVIG in immunodeficiency should be based on adjusted body weight (AjBW) and not actual body weight in obese patients. This has important fiscal implications for treating obese patients with immunodeficiency disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 11%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Lecturer 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 14 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 14 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#784
of 924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#339,734
of 445,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology
#11
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 445,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.