↓ Skip to main content

Carglumic acid enhances rapid ammonia detoxification in classical organic acidurias with a favourable risk-benefit profile: a retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Carglumic acid enhances rapid ammonia detoxification in classical organic acidurias with a favourable risk-benefit profile: a retrospective observational study
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0406-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vassili Valayannopoulos, Julien Baruteau, Maria Bueno Delgado, Aline Cano, Maria L. Couce, Mireia Del Toro, Maria Alice Donati, Angeles Garcia-Cazorla, David Gil-Ortega, Pedro Gomez-de Quero, Nathalie Guffon, Floris C. Hofstede, Sema Kalkan-Ucar, Mahmut Coker, Rosa Lama-More, Mercedes Martinez-Pardo Casanova, Agustin Molina, Samia Pichard, Francesco Papadia, Patricia Rosello, Celine Plisson, Jeannie Le Mouhaer, Anupam Chakrapani

Abstract

Isovaleric aciduria (IVA), propionic aciduria (PA) and methylmalonic aciduria (MMA) are inherited organic acidurias (OAs) in which impaired organic acid metabolism induces hyperammonaemia arising partly from secondary deficiency of N-acetylglutamate (NAG) synthase. Rapid reduction in plasma ammonia is required to prevent neurological complications. This retrospective, multicentre, open-label, uncontrolled, phase IIIb study evaluated the efficacy and safety of carglumic acid, a synthetic structural analogue of NAG, for treating hyperammonaemia during OA decompensation. Eligible patients had confirmed OA and hyperammonaemia (plasma NH3 > 60 μmol/L) in ≥1 decompensation episode treated with carglumic acid (dose discretionary, mean (SD) first dose 96.3 (73.8) mg/kg). The primary outcome was change in plasma ammonia from baseline to endpoint (last available ammonia measurement at ≤18 hours after the last carglumic acid administration, or on Day 15) for each episode. Secondary outcomes included clinical response and safety. The efficacy population (received ≥1 dose of study drug and had post-baseline measurements) comprised 41 patients (MMA: 21, PA: 16, IVA: 4) with 48 decompensation episodes (MMA: 25, PA: 19, IVA: 4). Mean baseline plasma ammonia concentration was 468.3 (±365.3) μmol/L in neonates (29 episodes) and 171.3 (±75.7) μmol/L in non-neonates (19 episodes). At endpoint the mean plasma NH3 concentration was 60.7 (±36.5) μmol/L in neonates and 55.2 (±21.8) μmol/L in non-neonates. Median time to normalise ammonaemia was 38.4 hours in neonates vs 28.3 hours in non-neonates and was similar between OA subgroups (MMA: 37.5 hours, PA: 36.0 hours, IVA: 40.5 hours). Median time to ammonia normalisation was 1.5 and 1.6 days in patients receiving and not receiving concomitant scavenger therapy, respectively. Although patients receiving carglumic acid with scavengers had a greater reduction in plasma ammonia, the endpoint ammonia levels were similar with or without scavenger therapy. Clinical symptoms improved with therapy. Twenty-five of 57 patients in the safety population (67 episodes) experienced AEs, most of which were not drug-related. Overall, carglumic acid seems to have a good safety profile for treating hyperammonaemia during OA decompensation. Carglumic acid when used with or without ammonia scavengers, is an effective treatment for restoration of normal plasma ammonia concentrations in hyperammonaemic episodes in OA patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,234,159
of 25,371,292 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,201
of 3,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,035
of 307,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,079 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 307,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.