Feasibility and resource utilization of nurse-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy in antibody deficiency: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary and secondary antibody deficiencies (PAD and SAD) are amongst the most prevalent immunodeficiency syndromes, often necessitating long-term immune globulin replacement therapy (IRT). Both intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) have demonstrated efficacy in antibody deficiency. Comparative analyses of these two routes of administration are limited to nurse-administered IVIG and home therapy with self-administered SCIG. A third programmatic approach, SCIG administered by nurses in hospital-based outpatient infusion clinics, combines certain advantages of IVIG and home SCIG such as the provision of nursing support and the reduced risk of systemic reactions associated with the subcutaneous route. This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the viability and resource utilization of nurse-administered SCIG with IVIG in patients with antibody deficiency. We hypothesized that nurse-administered SCIG would require a similar amount of infusion clinic time per month as IVIG, despite more frequent dosing, due to shorter individual appointments, while maintaining high patient satisfaction. Information on infusion duration, time in the infusion chair, direct nursing time, and treatment satisfaction using the Life Quality Index was collected. Time measures for each patient were expressed as minutes/4 weeks to account for the more frequent dosing of nurse-administered SCIG compared to IVIG. We determined that the total time, infusion time, and nursing time needed to provide nurse-administered SCIG was comparable to IVIG. The more frequent dosing of SCIG was offset by the shorter times required per infusion. Patients reported favorable treatment satisfaction with both nurse-administered SCIG and IVIG. We conclude that nurse-administered SCIG may be a useful treatment modality for well-selected individuals.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".