ABSTRACT
Both intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulins are therapeutic modalities approved in various conditions, including primary and secondary immune deficiencies and autoimmune disorders. To date, immunoglobulins have more often been considered as a safe medication, with minor adverse effects such as hypertension, fever and chills, nausea, myalgia or headache. However, with the wider use of immunoglobulins in the treatment of autoimmune diseases, severe side effects have also been reported to occur in immunoglobulin-treated patients, especially anaphylaxis, aseptic meningitis, acute renal impairment, thrombotic events as well as haematological manifestations. This paper reviews all the potential adverse events related to immunoglobulin therapy and establishes a comprehensive guideline for the management of these events.
Subject(s)
Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/therapy , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Immunoglobulins, Intravenous/adverse effects , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Acute Kidney Injury/chemically induced , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , Hematologic Diseases/chemically induced , Humans , Iatrogenic Disease/prevention & control , Immunization, Passive/methods , Thrombosis/chemically inducedABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: IgG replacement therapy (IgRT) in primary immunodeficiencies (PID) is a lifelong treatment which may be administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg), at hospital or at home. The objective of the VISAGE study was to investigate if route and/or place for IgRT impact patients' satisfaction regarding IgRT and quality of life (QoL) in real-life conditions. METHODS: The study enrolled PID patients at least 15 years old receiving IgRT for at least 3 months. Satisfaction and QoL were evaluated at enrollment and over a 12-month follow-up period by Life Quality Index (LQI) which measures 3 dimensions of satisfaction: treatment interference, therapy related problems and therapy settings (factors I, II and III) and SF-36 v2 questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 116 PID patients (mean age 42 ± 18 years, 44 % males, 58 % with scholar or professional occupation) receiving IgRT for a mean of 8.5 ± 8.4 years. At enrollment they were receiving either home-based SCIg (51 %), hospital-based IVIg (40 %) or home-based IVIg (9 %). Patients exhibited a high degree of satisfaction regarding IgRT whatever the route and place for administration. LQI factor I was higher for home-based SCIg (86 ± 2) than for hospital-based IVIg (81 ± 3) and home-based IVIg (73 ± 5; p = 0.02 versus home-based SCIg); no difference was found for LQI factor II; LQI factor III was higher for home-based SCIg (92 ± 2) than for hospital-based IVIg (87 ± 5) and hospital-based IVIg (82 ± 3; p = 0.005 versus home-based SCIg). By contrast, every dimension of QoL was impaired. Over the follow-up period, 10 patients switched from hospital-based IVIg to home-based SCIg and improved LQI factor I (p = 0.004) and factor III (p = 0.02), while no change was noticed in LQI factors II and QoL. Meanwhile, no change in satisfaction or QoL was found in patients with stable route of IgRT. When asked on their preferred place of treatment all but one patient with home-based treatment would choose to be treated at home and 29 % of patients treated at hospital would prefer home-based IgRT. CONCLUSION: PID patients expressed a high degree of satisfaction regarding IgRT, contrasting with impaired QoL. In real-life conditions awareness of patient's expectations regarding the route or place of IgRT may be associated with further improvement of satisfaction.
