TY - JOUR
T1 - Subcutaneous Gammanorm® by pump or rapid push infusion
T2 - Impact of the device on quality of life in adult patients with primary immunodeficiencies
AU - Warnatz, Klaus
AU - Jolles, Stephen
AU - Agostini, Carlo
AU - Vianello, Fabrizio
AU - Borte, Michael
AU - Bethune, Claire
AU - Grigoriadou, Sofia
AU - Richter, Alex
AU - Jain, Rashmi
AU - Lowe, David M.
AU - Katelaris, Constance
AU - Milito, Cinzia
AU - Cook, Matthew C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - Many patients with immunodeficiencies require lifelong immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover, non-inferiority 3-month-trial, we compared the impact of the subcutaneous immunoglobulin Gammanorm® administered via pump or syringe (rapid push). Primary endpoint was the life quality index (LQI), secondary endpoints were QoL (SF36v2), satisfaction (TSQM-11), disease and treatment burden (PRISM), incidence of infections and adverse events (AE), treatment costs, and IgG levels. 28/30 patients completed the study. Most of the endpoints were comparable. Drug administrations with rapid push were more frequent, but reduced total time expenditure and some costs. Of the TSQM-11/LQI/SF36 components only “treatment interference with daily activities” was superior with pump and two QoL domains with rapid push. Both delivery devices showed favorable safety. Rapid push was preferred by 34.5% of patients. It proved to be an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to pumps adding to patient choice and increasing flexibility during long-term IgRT.
AB - Many patients with immunodeficiencies require lifelong immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). In a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover, non-inferiority 3-month-trial, we compared the impact of the subcutaneous immunoglobulin Gammanorm® administered via pump or syringe (rapid push). Primary endpoint was the life quality index (LQI), secondary endpoints were QoL (SF36v2), satisfaction (TSQM-11), disease and treatment burden (PRISM), incidence of infections and adverse events (AE), treatment costs, and IgG levels. 28/30 patients completed the study. Most of the endpoints were comparable. Drug administrations with rapid push were more frequent, but reduced total time expenditure and some costs. Of the TSQM-11/LQI/SF36 components only “treatment interference with daily activities” was superior with pump and two QoL domains with rapid push. Both delivery devices showed favorable safety. Rapid push was preferred by 34.5% of patients. It proved to be an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to pumps adding to patient choice and increasing flexibility during long-term IgRT.
KW - Immunoglobulin replacement therapy
KW - Primary immunodeficiency
KW - Quality of life
KW - Rapid push
KW - Self-treatment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85124198247&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.clim.2022.108938
DO - 10.1016/j.clim.2022.108938
M3 - Article
C2 - 35121105
AN - SCOPUS:85124198247
SN - 1521-6616
VL - 236
JO - Clinical Immunology
JF - Clinical Immunology
M1 - 108938
ER -