Pharmacokinetics and safety of subcutaneous immune globulin (human), 10% caprylate/chromatography purified in patients with primary immunodeficiency disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subcutaneous administration of intravenous immunoglobulin G (IgG) preparations provides an additional level of patient convenience and more options for patients with poor venous access or a history of intravenous IgG reactions. An open-label, pharmacokinetic trial (n = 32) determined the non-inferiority of the subcutaneous versus intravenous route of 10% caprylate/chromatography purified human immune globulin intravenous (IGIV-C; Gamunex®) administration by comparing the steady-state area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) of total plasma IgG in patients with primary immunodeficiency disease. Patients on stable IGIV-C received two intravenous infusions (administered 3 or 4 weeks apart). Seven to 10 days after the second intravenous infusion, all patients switched to a weekly infusion of subcutaneous IGIV-C, with the dose equal to 137% of the previous weekly equivalent intravenous dose, for up to 24 weeks. Samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected during steady state for intravenous and subcutaneous IGIV-C treatments. The AUC(0-) τ geometric least-squares mean ratio was 0·89 (90% confidence interval, 0·86-0·92) and met the criteria for non-inferiority. The overall mean steady-state trough concentration of plasma total IgG with subcutaneous IGIV-C was 11·4 mg/ml, 18·8% higher than intravenous IGIV-C (9·6 mg/ml). Subcutaneous IGIV-C was safe and well tolerated. Subcutaneous IGIV-C infusion-site reactions were generally mild/moderate and the incidence decreased over time. No serious bacterial infections were reported. Weekly subcutaneous IGIV-C infusion using 137% of the weekly equivalent intravenous immunoglobulin dose provides an AUC comparable to intravenous administration, thus allowing patients to maintain the same IgG preparation/formulation if switching between intravenous and subcutaneous infusions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".