Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies – impact of drug packaging and administration method on patient reported outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Here, the perspective of patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency receiving subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) via introductory smaller size pre-filled syringes (PFS) or vials were compared. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in Canada by the Association des Patients Immunodéficients du Québec (APIQ) (10/2020-03/2021). Survey questions included: reasons for choosing SCIg packaging and administration methods, training experiences, infusion characteristics, and switching methods. The survey captured structured patient-reported outcomes: treatment satisfaction and its sub-domains, symptom state, general health perception, and physical and mental function. Respondents using PFS were compared with vial users, overall and stratified by their administration method (pump or manual push). RESULTS: Of the 132 total respondents, 66 respondents used vials, with 38 using a pump and 28 using manual push. PFS (5 and 10 mL sizes) were being used by 120 respondents, with 38 using a pump and 82 using manual push. PFS users were associated with a 17% lower median (interquartile range) SCIg dose (10 [8, 12] vs. 12 [9, 16] g/week, respectively), a significantly shorter infusion preparation time (15 [10, 20] vs. 15 [10, 30] mins, respectively), and a trend for shorter length of infusion (60 [35, 90] vs. 70 [48, 90] mins, respectively) compared with those on vials. Patient-reported treatment satisfaction scores were overall similar between vial and PFS users (including on the domains of effectiveness and convenience), except for a higher score for vials over PFS on the domain of global satisfaction (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with prescribing that reflects a recognition of less wastage, PFS users were associated with a significantly lower SCIg dose compared with vial users. PFS users were also associated with shorter pre-infusion times, reflecting simpler administration mechanics compared with vial users. Higher global satisfaction with treatment among vial users compared with PFS users was consistent with users being limited to smaller PFS size options in Canada during the study period. Patient experience on PFS is expected to improve with the introduction of larger PFS sizes. Overall, treatment satisfaction for SCIg remains consistently high with the introduction of PFS packaging compared with vials.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".