Journals / Turkish Journal of Pediatrics / 2018 / Cilt: 60 - Sayı: 3

Advantage of the subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in primary immunodeficient patients with or without secondary protein loss

Pages
270–276
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Subcutaneous administration may be a goodalternative for primary immunodeficient patients with protein loss whohave persistent low serum immunoglobulin levels despite increments in theintravenous immunoglobulin doses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years subcutaneous immunoglobulin is widely used for primaryimmunodeficient patients.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Serum immunoglobulin levels at the 3rd and the 6th monthsbefore and after subcutaneous route were recorded.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Subcutaneous administration may be a goodalternative for primary immunodeficient patients with protein loss whohave persistent low serum immunoglobulin levels despite increments in theintravenous immunoglobulin doses.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

In recent years subcutaneous immunoglobulin is widely used for primaryimmunodeficient patients. Subcutaneous administration provides a morestable and higher serum immunoglobulin levels due to continuous andsteady transition from lymphatics to the systemic circulation. We aimed toevaluate the changes in serum immunoglobulin levels under subcutaneousimmunoglobulin therapy in patients with primary immunodeficiency with orwithout secondary protein loss. Nine patients with primary immunodeficiencywho switched to subcutaneous immunoglobulin were enrolled. Age, gender,diagnosis, reasons of transition to subcutaneous route, reasons of secondaryprotein loss were recorded. A questionnaire consisting of frequencies andtypes of infections, side effects observed with intravenous and subcutaneousroutes; date and reason of transition to subcutaneous route were asked toall participants. Serum immunoglobulin levels at the 3rd and the 6th monthsbefore and after subcutaneous route were recorded. Of the 9 patients (M/F=4/5) the median age was 12 years (6.1-28.7) and 5 of them had proteinloss. In total, 444 injections were applied, and all patients experienced localreactions. Infections were more frequent under intravenous than subcutaneousroute (p=0.004). We observed an increase in immunoglobulin levels undersubcutaneous route (p=0.069 at 3rd; p=0.13 at 6th month). This increasewas evident at the 3rd month of transition to subcutaneous route in patientswith protein loss (p=0.080). There was an increase in serum immunoglobulinlevels under subcutaneous route. However, increase was not statisticallysignificant since the study group was small. This increment was prominentin patients with protein loss. Subcutaneous administration may be a goodalternative for primary immunodeficient patients with protein loss whohave persistent low serum immunoglobulin levels despite increments in theintravenous immunoglobulin doses.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇETİNKAYA, P. G., AYVAZ, D. N. Ç., ÖKSÜZ, A. B., ERTOY, A., HAYRAN, U., ÖZKAN, F., EROL, M., TEZCAN, İ. (2018). Advantage of the subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in primary immunodeficient patients with or without secondary protein loss. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, Cilt: 60 - Sayı: 3, 270–276. https://ajindex.com/articles/412177

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Bruton OC. Agammaglobulinemia. Pediatrics 1952; 9: 722-728
  2. Berger M, Cupps TR, Fauci AS. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy by slow subcutaneous infusion. Ann Intern Med 1980; 93: 55-56
  3. Roord JJ, van der Meer JW, Kuis M, et al. Home treatment in patients with antibody deficiency by slow subcutaneous infusion of gammaglobulin. Lancet 1982; 1: 689-690
  4. Cunningham-Rundles C, Siegal FP, Smithwick EM, et al. Efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in primary humoral immunodeficiency disease. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101: 435-439
  5. Skoda-Smith S, Torgerson TR, Ochs HD. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiency disease. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2010; 6: 1-10
  6. Gardulf A, Hammarström L, Smith CI. Home treatment of hypogammaglobulinaemia with subcutaneous gammaglobulin by rapid infusion. Lancet 1991; 338: 162-166
  7. Thomas MJ, Brennan VM, Chapel HH. Rapid subcutaneous immunoglobulin infusions in children. Lancet 1993; 342: 1432-1433
  8. Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, et al. Rapid subcutaneous IgG replacement therapy is effective and safe in children and adults with primary immunodeficiencies-a prospective, multi-national study. J Clin Immunol 2006; 26: 177-185
  9. Berger M. Principles of and advances in immunoglobulin replacement therapy for primary immunodeficiency. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2008; 28: 413-437
  10. Berger M, Rojavin M, Kiessling P, Zenker O. Pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous immunoglobulin and their use in dosing of replacement therapy in patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Clin Immunol 2011; 139: 133-141
  11. Nimmerjahn F, Ravetch JV. Anti-inflammatory actions of intravenous immunoglobulin. Annu Rev Immunol 2008; 26: 513-533
  12. Orange JS, Hossny EM, Weiler CR, et al. Use of intravenous immunoglobulin in human disease: a review of evidence by members of the Primary Immunodeficiency Committee of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117: 525-553
  13. Eijkhout HW, van der Meer JW, Kallenberg CG et al. The effect of two different dosages of intravenous immunoglobulin on the incidence of recurrent infections in patients with primary hypogammaglobulinemia: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter crossover trial. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 165-174
  14. L u c a s M, H u g h - J o n e s K, We l b y A, e t a l. Imunomodulatory therapy to achieve maximum efficacy: doses, monitoring, compliance, and self-infusion at home. J