Patient-reported outcomes with subcutaneous immunoglobulin in secondary immunodeficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subcutaneous (SCIG) and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) replacement are both used to prevent infections in patients with secondary immunodeficiency (SID). Compared with IVIG, SCIG has fewer systemic side effects and, additionally, facilitates home-based treatment. Shared decision-making practice should include discussion of aspects such as patient preference as well as the associated risks and benefits of treatment. We review the available evidence for the use of SCIG treatment in patients with SID, focusing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In most studies, there were improvements to health-related quality of life with SCIG treatment, compared with before initiating SCIG without prior IVIG treatment, or after switching to SCIG from IVIG treatment, or a no-SCIG/IVIG cohort. Treatment satisfaction with SCIG was similar between patients with SID and primary immunodeficiency disease. Patient preference and perception assessments highlighted the benefits of SCIG compared with IVIG, such as ease of use and administration, convenience, and time-effectiveness. In addition, many patients self-administered SCIG at home. Such aspects may be of specific benefit to patients with SID and hematological malignancy by reducing the risk of infection exposure in clinical settings. PRO data may be useful during shared decision-making discussions with patients with SID.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".