Search

Background: Prior clinical trials have suggested that home-based Ig treatment in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and its variant Lewis-Sumner syndrome (LSS) is safe and effective and is less costly than hospital-administered intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg)., Methods: A French prospective, dual-center, cost minimization analysis was carried out to evaluate IVIg administration (5% concentrated) at home versus in hospital with regard to costs, patients' autonomy, and patients' quality of life. The primary endpoint was the overall cost of treatment, and we adopted the perspective of the payer (French Social Health Insurance)., Results: Twenty-four patients aged 52.3 (12.2) years were analyzed: nine patients with MMN, eight with CIDP, and seven with LSS. IVIg (g/kg) dosage was 1.51 ± 0.43 in hospital and 1.52 ± 0.4 at home. Nine-month total costs per patient extrapolated to 1 year of treatment were €48,189 ± 26,105 versus €91,798 ± 51,125 in the home and hospital groups, respectively ( p  <   .0001). The most frequently reported factors for choosing home treatment were the good tolerance and absence of side effects of IVIg administration, as well as a good understanding of the advantages and drawbacks of home treatment (75% of respondents). The mRankin scores before and after switch to home treatment were 1.61 ± 0.72 and 1.36 ± 0.76, respectively ( p  =   .027)., Discussion: The switch from hospital-based to home-based IVIg treatment for patients with immune neuropathy represents potentially significant savings in the management of the disease.

The efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) in patients with autoimmune diseases (AID) has been known for several decades. Majority of these patients received IVIg in hospital. A retrospective study was conducted in 22 centers in France to evaluate the feasibility of the administration of Tegeline, an IVIg from LFB Biomedicaments, and assess its safety at home, compared to in hospital, in patients with AID. The included patients were at least 18 years old, suffering from AID, and treated with at least 1 cycle of Tegeline at home after receiving 3 consecutive cycles of hospital-based treatment with Tegeline at a dose between 1 and 2 g/kg/cycle. Forty-six patients with AID, in most cases immune-mediated neuropathies, received a total of 138 cycles of Tegeline in hospital and then 323 at home. Forty-five drug-related adverse events occurred in 17 patients who received their cycles at home compared to 24 adverse events in hospital in 15 patients. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients during home treatment, but they were not life-threatening and did not lead to discontinuation of Tegeline. Forty-five patients continued their treatment with Tegeline at home or in hospital; 39 (84.8%) were still receiving home treatment at the end of the study. In conclusion, the study demonstrates the good safety profile of Tegeline administered at home at high doses in patients with AID who are eligible for home administration of Tegeline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]