Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Clinical Immunology 2/2010

01-03-2010

Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Therapy by Rapid Push is Preferred to Infusion by Pump: A Retrospective Analysis

Author: Ralph Shapiro

Published in: Journal of Clinical Immunology | Issue 2/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) replacement therapy for primary immune deficiency disease (PIDD) is a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to intravenous Ig (IVIg) therapy. Although SCIg is typically administered weekly by infusion pump, administration by a rapid push technique may provide a greater degree of convenience. Rapid push administration has been an option at the author's clinic for several years. We report experience with a cohort of patients given a choice between rapid push and standard pump administration.

Methods

This was a retrospective chart review of PIDD patients at a single site who initiated treatment with SCIg (16% solution) therapy between January 1, 2006 and April 1, 2008. Patients selected either infusion pump or rapid push administration after receiving a description and demonstration of each method and training for home self-administration. Demographics, dose, adverse events (AEs), serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, and therapy disposition (discontinued, switched technique) were recorded on a standardized data collection form.

Results

Charts for 104 patients (45 male, 59 female; mean age, 21.1 years; range, 0.5–67.6 years; SD = 17.9 years) were reviewed. Seventy-four patients (71%) chose rapid push. Mean SCIg dose was 32.11 g/month (range, 1.92–89.6 g/month; SD = 8.3 g/month) split into an average of 3.11 times per week. Volume per site ranged from 3 to 20 mL, typically administered over 5–20 min and at one site. Mean serum IgG levels did not differ significantly by administration method: pump, 1,153.06 mg/dL (SD = 240.8); rapid push, 1,225.8 mg/dL (SD = 299.8). Local infusion-site reactions were the most common AEs and were experienced by one third of patients in each group. Only two patients discontinued therapy because of an AE.

Conclusion

The results suggest that PIDD patients prefer SCIg administered as a rapid push rather than as conventional pump infusion. Serum IgG levels were comparable between methods, and safety was similar, if not slightly better, with rapid push. Rapid push offers the potential for even greater convenience than the pump infusion technique, although these results should be confirmed in prospective studies.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Gardulf A. Treatment for primary antibody deficiencies. Advantages of the subcutaneous route. BioDrugs. 2007;21(2):105–16.CrossRefPubMed Gardulf A. Treatment for primary antibody deficiencies. Advantages of the subcutaneous route. BioDrugs. 2007;21(2):105–16.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Moore ML, Quinn JM. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy for primary antibody deficiency: advancements into the 21st century. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed Moore ML, Quinn JM. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy for primary antibody deficiency: advancements into the 21st century. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2008;101(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Berger M. Principles of and advances in immunoglobulin replacement therapy for primary immunodeficiency. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008;28(2):413–37.CrossRefPubMed Berger M. Principles of and advances in immunoglobulin replacement therapy for primary immunodeficiency. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008;28(2):413–37.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Vivaglobin Immune Globulin Subcutaneous (Human) [package insert]. Marburg, Germany: CSL Behring GmbH; April 2007. Vivaglobin Immune Globulin Subcutaneous (Human) [package insert]. Marburg, Germany: CSL Behring GmbH; April 2007.
6.
go back to reference Chapel HM, Spickett GP, Ericson D, Engl W, Eibl MM, Bjorkander J. The comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2000;20(2):94–100.CrossRefPubMed Chapel HM, Spickett GP, Ericson D, Engl W, Eibl MM, Bjorkander J. The comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravenous versus subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2000;20(2):94–100.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Bock A, Costa Carvalho B, 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(2):177–85.CrossRefPubMed Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Bock A, Costa Carvalho B, 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(2):177–85.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ochs HD, Gupta S, Kiessling P, Nicolay U, Berger M, Subcutaneous IgG Study Group. Safety and efficacy of self-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(3):265–73.CrossRefPubMed Ochs HD, Gupta S, Kiessling P, Nicolay U, Berger M, Subcutaneous IgG Study Group. Safety and efficacy of self-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(3):265–73.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Berger M. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement in primary immunodeficiencies. Clin Immunol. 2004;112(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMed Berger M. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement in primary immunodeficiencies. Clin Immunol. 2004;112(1):1–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Waniewski J, Gardulf A, Hammarström L. Bioavailability of γ-globulin after subcutaneous infusions in patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Clin Immunol. 1994;14(2):90–7.CrossRefPubMed Waniewski J, Gardulf A, Hammarström L. Bioavailability of γ-globulin after subcutaneous infusions in patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Clin Immunol. 1994;14(2):90–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Kittner JM, Grimbacher B, Wulff W, Jager B, Schmidt RE. Patients' attitude to subcutaneous immunoglobulin substitution as home therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(4):400–5.CrossRefPubMed Kittner JM, Grimbacher B, Wulff W, Jager B, Schmidt RE. Patients' attitude to subcutaneous immunoglobulin substitution as home therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2006;26(4):400–5.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gaspar J, Gerritsen B, Jones A. Immunoglobulin replacement treatment by rapid subcutaneous infusion. Arch Dis Child. 1998;79(1):48–51.CrossRefPubMed Gaspar J, Gerritsen B, Jones A. Immunoglobulin replacement treatment by rapid subcutaneous infusion. Arch Dis Child. 1998;79(1):48–51.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Bock A, Costa-Carvalho BT, et al. Children and adults with primary antibody deficiencies gain quality of life by subcutaneous IgG self-infusions at home. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(4):936–42.CrossRefPubMed Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Bock A, Costa-Carvalho BT, et al. Children and adults with primary antibody deficiencies gain quality of life by subcutaneous IgG self-infusions at home. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2004;114(4):936–42.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Fasth A, Nystrom J. Quality of life and health-care resource utilization among children with primary immunodeficiency receiving home treatment with subcutaneous human immunoglobulin. J Clin Immunol. 2008;28(4):370–8.CrossRefPubMed Fasth A, Nystrom J. Quality of life and health-care resource utilization among children with primary immunodeficiency receiving home treatment with subcutaneous human immunoglobulin. J Clin Immunol. 2008;28(4):370–8.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Therapy by Rapid Push is Preferred to Infusion by Pump: A Retrospective Analysis
Author
Ralph Shapiro
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Clinical Immunology / Issue 2/2010
Print ISSN: 0271-9142
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2592
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-009-9352-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2010

Journal of Clinical Immunology 2/2010 Go to the issue