Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (cutaquig®) in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective study and its long-term extension examined whether weekly treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) with a 16.5% subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg; cutaquig®) confers acceptable efficacy, safety, and tolerability over a follow-up of up to 238 weeks (>4 years). Seventy-five patients received 4462 infusions during up to 70 weeks of follow-up in the main study and 27 patients received 2777 infusions during up to 168 weeks of follow-up in the extension. In the main study, there were no serious bacterial infections (SBIs), and the annual rate of other infections was 3.3 (95% CI 2.4, 4.5). One SBI was recorded in the extension, for an SBI rate of 0.02 (upper 99% CI 0.19). The annual rate of all infections over the duration of the extension study was 2.2 (95% CI 1.2, 3.9). Only 15.0% (1085) of 7239 infusions were associated with infusion site reactions (ISRs), leaving 85.0% (6153) of infusions without reactions. The majority of ISRs were mild and transient. ISR incidence decreased over time, from 36.9% to 16% during the main study and from 9% to 2.3% during the extension. The incidence of related systemic adverse events was 14.7% in the main study and 7.4% in the extension. In conclusion, this prospective, long-term study with cutaquig showed maintained efficacy and low rates of local and systemic adverse reactions in PID patients over up to 238 weeks of follow-up.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".