Health status and infections in patients with symptomatic primary and secondary immunoglobulin G (IgG) deficiencies receiving intravenous IgG replacement.

BACKGROUND: The effects of intravenous immunoglobulin G replacement on perceived health and infection susceptibility of patients suffering from immunoglobulin G (IgG) deficiencies should be evaluated in a prospective analysis. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic primary or secondary IgG deficiencies were interviewed prior to the first IgG infusion (t0) and over the course of their treatment (t1 - t6). The respondents rated their current health using a 100 point scale (EQ-5D-5L), ranging from 0 ('worst imaginable health') to 100 ('best imaginable health'). The patients also provided information on the frequency of infections and of infections requiring antibiotics in the past 8 weeks. A healthy control group (CG) without oncologic diseases answered the questions once. RESULTS: One hundred six patients with a median age of 65 years (21-85 years) were investigated. The median serum IgG concentration changed from 500 mg/dl (t0) to 772 mg/dl (t6). The mean number of infections and of infections requiring antibiotics decreased during IgG replacement significantly. Current health according to EQ-5D-5L improved from 57 (t0) to 68 (t6), compared to 73 in the CG. CONCLUSION: During the course of IgG replacement patients reported fewer and less severe infections. Their health assessment improved but still was inferior to the healthy CG.

Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. CONCLUSION: These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.