Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in Patients with Immunodeficiencies - Impact of Drug Packaging and Administration Method on Patient Reported Outcomes

Overview

Journal BMC Immunol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Allergy & Immunology

Date 2024 Feb 20

PMID 38378441

Authors

R Mallick

G Solomon

P Bassett

X Zhang

P Patel

O Lepeshkina

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Here, the perspective of patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency receiving subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) via introductory smaller size pre-filled syringes (PFS) or vials were compared.

Methods: An online survey was conducted in Canada by the Association des Patients Immunodéficients du Québec (APIQ) (10/2020-03/2021). Survey questions included: reasons for choosing SCIg packaging and administration methods, training experiences, infusion characteristics, and switching methods. The survey captured structured patient-reported outcomes: treatment satisfaction and its sub-domains, symptom state, general health perception, and physical and mental function. Respondents using PFS were compared with vial users, overall and stratified by their administration method (pump or manual push).

Results: Of the 132 total respondents, 66 respondents used vials, with 38 using a pump and 28 using manual push. PFS (5 and 10 mL sizes) were being used by 120 respondents, with 38 using a pump and 82 using manual push. PFS users were associated with a 17% lower median (interquartile range) SCIg dose (10 [8, 12] vs. 12 [9, 16] g/week, respectively), a significantly shorter infusion preparation time (15 [10, 20] vs. 15 [10, 30] mins, respectively), and a trend for shorter length of infusion (60 [35, 90] vs. 70 [48, 90] mins, respectively) compared with those on vials. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction scores were overall similar between vial and PFS users (including on the domains of effectiveness and convenience), except for a higher score for vials over PFS on the domain of global satisfaction (p=0.02).

Conclusions: Consistent with prescribing that reflects a recognition of less wastage, PFS users were associated with a significantly lower SCIg dose compared with vial users. PFS users were also associated with shorter pre-infusion times, reflecting simpler administration mechanics compared with vial users. Higher global satisfaction with treatment among vial users compared with PFS users was consistent with users being limited to smaller PFS size options in Canada during the study period. Patient experience on PFS is expected to improve with the introduction of larger PFS sizes. Overall, treatment satisfaction for SCIg remains consistently high with the introduction of PFS packaging compared with vials.

References

Orange J, Grossman W, Navickis R, Wilkes M . Impact of trough IgG on pneumonia incidence in primary immunodeficiency: A meta-analysis of clinical studies. Clin Immunol. 2010; 137(1):21-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.clim.2010.06.012. View

Wazny L, Raymond C, Do M, Skwarchuk D . Reduced drug costs from switching hemodialysis patients from epoetin alfa in multidose vials to pre-filled syringes. CANNT J. 2009; 19(3):39-41. View

Tcheurekdjian H, Palermo T, Hostoffer R . Quality of life in common variable immunodeficiency requiring intravenous immunoglobulin therapy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004; 93(2):160-5. DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61469-X. View

Giralt S, Jolles S, Kerre T, Lazarus H, Mustafa S, Papanicolaou G . Recommendations for Management of Secondary Antibody Deficiency in Multiple Myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2023; 23(10):719-732. DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2023.05.008. View

. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013; 310(20):2191-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. View

Mallick R, Solomon G, Bassett P, Zhang X, Patel P, Lepeshkina O . Immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies: impact of infusion method on patient-reported outcomes. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2022; 18(1):110. PMC: 9789520. DOI: 10.1186/s13223-022-00746-3. View

Sacha G, Rogers J, Miller R . Pre-filled syringes: a review of the history, manufacturing and challenges. Pharm Dev Technol. 2015; 20(1):1-11. DOI: 10.3109/10837450.2014.982825. View

Seeborg F, Seay R, Boyle M, Boyle J, Scalchunes C, Orange J . Perceived Health in Patients with Primary Immune Deficiency. J Clin Immunol. 2015; 35(7):638-50. PMC: 4628087. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-015-0196-7. View

Bailo L, Guiddi P, Vergani L, Marton G, Pravettoni G . The patient perspective: investigating patient empowerment enablers and barriers within the oncological care process. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019; 13:912. PMC: 6467453. DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2019.912. View

10.

Roth E, Bujas-Bobanovic M, Louie M, Cariou B . Patient and Physician Perspectives on Mode of Administration of the PCSK9 Monoclonal Antibody Alirocumab, an Injectable Medication to Lower LDL-C Levels. Clin Ther. 2015; 37(9):1945-1954.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2015.07.008. View

11.

Duraisingham S, Buckland M, Dempster J, Lorenzo L, Grigoriadou S, Longhurst H . Primary vs. secondary antibody deficiency: clinical features and infection outcomes of immunoglobulin replacement. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6):e100324. PMC: 4074074. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100324. View

12.

Anderson D, Ali K, Blanchette V, Brouwers M, Couban S, Radmoor P . Guidelines on the use of intravenous immune globulin for hematologic conditions. Transfus Med Rev. 2007; 21(2 Suppl 1):S9-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2007.01.001. View

13.

Otani I, Lehman H, Jongco A, Tsao L, Azar A, Tarrant T . Practical guidance for the diagnosis and management of secondary hypogammaglobulinemia: A Work Group Report of the AAAAI Primary Immunodeficiency and Altered Immune Response Committees. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022; 149(5):1525-1560. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.01.025. View

14.

Jimmy B, Jose J . Patient medication adherence: measures in daily practice. Oman Med J. 2011; 26(3):155-9. PMC: 3191684. DOI: 10.5001/omj.2011.38. View

15.

Kafal A, Vinh D, Langelier M . Prefilled syringes for immunoglobulin G (IgG) replacement therapy: clinical experience from other disease settings. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018; 15(12):1199-1209. DOI: 10.1080/17425247.2018.1546692. View

16.

Kittner J, Grimbacher B, Wulff W, Jager B, Schmidt R . Patients' attitude to subcutaneous immunoglobulin substitution as home therapy. J Clin Immunol. 2006; 26(4):400-5. DOI: 10.1007/s10875-006-9031-5. View

17.

Maksymowych W, Gooch K, Dougados M, Wong R, Chen N, Kupper H . Thresholds of patient-reported outcomes that define the patient acceptable symptom state in ankylosing spondylitis vary over time and by treatment and patient characteristics. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010; 62(6):826-34. DOI: 10.1002/acr.20131. View

18.

Misbah S, Sturzenegger M, Borte M, Shapiro R, Wasserman R, Berger M . Subcutaneous immunoglobulin: opportunities and outlook. Clin Exp Immunol. 2009; 158 Suppl 1:51-9. PMC: 2801034. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2249.2009.04027.x. View

19.

Jezek J, Darton N, Derham B, Royle N, Simpson I . Biopharmaceutical formulations for pre-filled delivery devices. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2013; 10(6):811-28. DOI: 10.1517/17425247.2013.780023. View

20.

Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Math D, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Bock A . 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2004.06.053. View