Efficacy and safety of home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in paediatric patients with primary immunodeficiencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subcutaneous immunoglobulin infusions are effective, safe and well tolerated in the treatment of primary immunodeficiencies, but only limited data on the treatment of children are available. We investigated the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of home therapy with a 16% liquid human immunoglobulin G preparation (Vivaglobin®) when administered subcutaneously in children with primary immunodeficiencies. Data were analysed from 22 children (2-<12 years) who participated in two prospective, open-label studies (one in Europe/Brazil, one in North America). All children had previously received intravenous immunoglobulins. They started weekly subcutaneous immunoglobulin infusions with an approximately 3-month wash-in/wash-out period, followed by a 6-month (Europe/Brazil) or 12-month (North America) efficacy evaluation period. In Europe/Brazil, subcutaneous doses generally equalled the previous weekly equivalent intravenous doses. In North America, subcutaneous doses during the efficacy evaluation period were 126% (median) of the previous weekly equivalent intravenous doses. Efficacy end-points in both studies included the occurrence of serious bacterial infections and any infections, and serum immunoglobulin G trough levels. Median serum immunoglobulin G trough levels exceeded those during previous intravenous therapy by 13% (North America) and 16% (Europe/Brazil). During the efficacy evaluation period of both studies, none of the children had a serious bacterial infection; the mean overall infection rate/patient year was 4·7 in Europe/Brazil and 5·6 in North America, concurring with previous reports in adults. The adverse event profile was comparable to previous reports in adults. Both studies confirmed the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy with Vivaglobin in children with primary immunodeficiencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".