Search

Patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases often require lifelong immunoglobulin (IG) therapy. Most clinical trials investigating IG therapies characterize serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles by serially assessing serum IgG levels. This retrospective analysis evaluated whether steady-state serum IgG trough level measurement alone is adequate for PK assessment. Based on individual patient serum IgG trough levels from two pivotal trials (phase 2/3 European [NCT01412385] and North American [NCT01218438]) of weekly 20% subcutaneous IG (SCIG; Cuvitru, Ig20Gly), trough level-predicted IgG AUC (AUCτ,tp) were calculated and compared with the reported AUC calculated from serum IgG concentration-time profiles (AUCτ). In both studies, mean AUCτ,tpvalues for Ig20Gly were essentially equivalent to AUCτwith point estimates of geometric mean ratio (GMR) of AUCτ,tp/AUCτnear 1.0 and 90% CIs within 0.80–1.25. In contrast, for IVIG, 10%, mean AUCτ,tpvalues were lower than AUCτby >20%, (GMR [90% CI]: 0.74 [0.70–0.78] and 0.77 [0.73–0.81] for the two studies, respectively). Mean AUCτ,tpvalues calculated for 4 other SCIG products (based on mean IgG trough levels reported in the literature/labels) were also essentially equivalent to the reported AUCτ(differences 20%. In conclusion, steady-state serum IgG levels following weekly SCIG remain stable, allowing for reliable prediction of AUC over the dosing interval using trough IgG levels. These findings indicate that measuring steady-state serum IgG trough levels alone may be adequate for PK assessment of weekly SCIG.

Purpose Treatment of primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDD) with subcutaneous (SC) infusions of IgG preceded by injection of recombinant human hyaluronidase (rHuPH20) (IGHy) to increase SC tissue permeability was evaluated in two consecutive, prospective, non-controlled, multi-center studies. Methods Subjects >4 years of age received SC IgG replacement at a weekly dose equivalent of 108 % of their previous intravenous (IV) dose, facilitated by prior injection of 75 U/g IgG of rHuPH20. Starting with weekly SC infusions, the interval was increased (ramped-up) to a 3- or 4-week schedule. Results Eighty-three subjects (24

A multi-center, prospective, open-label study was conducted in primary immunodeficiency disease patients to determine the tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a 10% liquid IgG preparation administered subcutaneously. Forty-nine subjects (3–77 years old) were enrolled. Pharmacokinetic equivalence of subcutaneous treatment was achieved at a median dose of 137% of the intravenous dose, with a mean trough IgG level of 1,202 mg/dL at the end of the assessment period. The overall infection rate during subcutaneous treatment was 4.1 per subject-year. Three acute serious bacterial infections were reported, resulting in a rate of 0.067 per subject-year. A low overall rate of temporally associated adverse events (8%), and a very low rate of infusion site adverse events (2.8%), was seen at volumes up to 30 mL/site and rates ≤30 mL/h/site. Thus, subcutaneous replacement therapy with a 10% IgG preparation proved effective, safe and well-tolerated in our study population of subjects with primary immunodeficiency disease.

To compare the efficacy of immunoglobulin replacement therapy given intravenously versus subcutaneously to prevent infections in patients with primary antibody deficiency syndromes, an international, multicenter, open label, crossover study was designed. Forty patients were randomized to receive either subcutaneous or intravenous immunoglobulin replacement therapy for 1 year. In the second year, patients were switched to the alternative treatment, enabling patients to act as their own controls. Equivalent doses were given by both routes. Ethical approval was obtained from the review boards of the hospitals in which the patients were seen and written consent obtained from each patient. Patients with a primary antibody deficiency syndrome, either common variable immunodeficiency or IgG subclass deficiency or specific antibody deficiency, who required immunoglobulin replacement therapy were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had significant thrombocytopenia (defined as platelets less than 50 × 109/liter), had high levels of anti-IgA antibodies (defined as greater than 1:8192), or had severe adverse reactions to a blood product within the last 2 years. The primary end point was the number of infections and their severity (moderate and major) during the two treatment periods. Secondary end points were adverse reactions, length of infections, days lost from school or work due to infections, and acceptability of treatment regimens to the patients. Based on the assumption that it was difficult to prove equivalence of therapies statistically in crossover studies, an arbitrary number of 40 patients was selected on the basis that this might be achievable in 2 years. There are no significant differences in efficacy or adverse reaction rates between immunoglobulin replacement therapy given subcutaneously or intravenously.