Pharmacokinetic modelling of intravenous immunoglobulin in children with primary immunodeficiencies and secondary antibody deficiencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims Children with primary immunodeficiency (PID) and secondary antibody deficiency (SAD) often require immunoglobulin replacement therapy due to low plasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels and recurrent infections. Existing pharmacokinetic models for immunoglobulin in PID patients predominantly focus on adults, with limited attention to secondary antibody deficiencies and a lesser emphasis on paediatric populations. This study aims to investigate the pharmacokinetic properties of IgG in paediatric patients with PID and SAD. Methods Population pharmacokinetic analysis for PID and SAD children treated with intravenous immunoglobulin at a tertiary paediatric centre was conducted using NONMEM® (7.5.1). Dosing simulations to achieve therapeutic levels of 6 and 8 gL −1 were performed. Results A population pharmacokinetic analysis of 64 patients (median age 4.08 years, range 0.06–16.8) was performed. A two‐compartment model with first‐order elimination, incorporating both additive and proportional residual error, adequately described the data. Interindividual variability was modelled on clearance, volume of distribution and baseline IgG levels, with allometric scaling to a 70‐kg body weight applied a priori. The estimated clearance was 0.308 L −1 day −1 70 kg −1 (95% CI 0.23, 0.67), and the volume of distribution was 10.96 L −1 70 kg −1 (95% CI 5.97, 15.79). Patients with SAD exhibited a lower clearance rate of 54% compared with PID patients. Dosing simulations indicated that the recommended SAD dosing regimen maintained therapeutic IgG levels in the simulated population. However, only 44.8% to 51.9% of patients with PID achieved target IgG levels with the standard regimen. Conclusions This study provides insights into immunoglobulin pharmacokinetics in paediatric PID and SAD patients, guiding optimised dosing strategies. Administering a loading dose would improve the probability of maintaining therapeutic IgG levels during the 4‐week dosing interval.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".