Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May;38(4):503-512.
doi: 10.1007/s10875-018-0507-x. Epub 2018 May 31.

Rapid Push vs Pump-Infused Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Treatment: a Randomized Crossover Study of Quality of Life in Primary Immunodeficiency Patients

Affiliations

Rapid Push vs Pump-Infused Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Treatment: a Randomized Crossover Study of Quality of Life in Primary Immunodeficiency Patients

Boris Bienvenu et al. J Clin Immunol. 2018 May.

Abstract

Purpose: Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) may be administered once a week with a pump or every other day with a syringe (rapid push). The objective of the study was to compare the impact of pump and rapid push infusions on patient's life quality index (LQI).

Methods: This study was a randomized, crossover, multicenter, non-inferiority trial conducted in adults with primary immunodeficiency (PID) accustomed to weekly infusions at home by pump. Patients used pump or rapid push for 3 months each according to the randomized sequence. Main criterion was PID-LQI factor I (treatment interference). Non-inferiority ratio was set at 90%.

Results: Thirty patients entered the study; 28 completed the two periods. IgRT exposure was similar during each period. At the end of each period, mean LQI factor 1 was 87.0 (IC95% [80.3; 94.3]) and 77.80 (IC95% [71.5; 84.7]) for pump and rapid push, respectively. There was a slightly larger effect of rapid push on treatment interference than with pump so that the primary endpoint could not be met. No difference was found on other LQI components, satisfaction (TSQM), or quality of life (SF36v2). Eight patients declared to prefer rapid push while 19 others preferred pump. Of rapid push infusions, 67.2% led to local reactions vs 71.8% of pump infusions (p = 0.11) illustrating its good tolerance. Rapid push and pump infusions achieved similar trough IgG levels with similar incidence of infections. Rapid push saved 70% of administration cost when compared to pump.

Conclusions: Since IgRT is a lifelong treatment in PID patients, individualization of treatment is of paramount importance. Rapid push is a new administration method in the physician's armamentarium which is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective. CLINICALTRIALS.

Gov identifier: NCT02180763 CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Self-administration of small volumes of immunoglobulins at home, every other day, using a syringe (rapid push) is a cost-effective alternative to administration of larger volumes by pump once a week. This study compared subcutaneous infusions of immunoglobulins either weekly via a pump or every other day via a syringe (rapid push). Rapid push is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective, therefore completing a physician's armamentarium.

Keywords: PID immunoglobulin replacement therapy; Primary immunodeficiency; home treatment; rapid push.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest

B. Bienvenu, G. Cozon, C. Hoarau, JF. Viallard, and E. Hachulla take part in several scientific boards and/or take part in several studies led by Octapharma. JC. Crave works at Octapharma.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flowchart of the study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Life quality index (PID-LQI). Legend: dark bars, pump; clear bars, syringe. Values are Lsmeans derived from the mixed model with device, period and sequence as fixed factors, and patient within sequence as random factor
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SF36v2 health domain scales and norm-based component scores. Legend: dark bars, pump; clear bars, syringe. Values are Lsmeans derived from the mixed model with device, period and sequence as fixed factors, and patient within sequence as random factor

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Al-Herz W, Bousfiha A, Casanova JL, Chapel H, Conley ME, Cunningham-Rundles C, et al. Primary immunodeficiency diseases: an update on the classification from the international union of immunological societies expert committee for primary immunodeficiency. Front Immunol. 2011;2:54. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2011.00054. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gardulf A. Immunoglobulin treatment for primary antibody deficiencies: advantages of the subcutaneous route. BioDrugs. 2007;21(2):105–116. doi: 10.2165/00063030-200721020-00005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Busse PJ, Razvi S, Cunningham-Rundles C. Efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the prevention of pneumonia in patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;109(6):1001–1004. doi: 10.1067/mai.2002.124999. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gardulf A, Nicolay U. Replacement IgG therapy and self-therapy at home improve the health-related quality of life in patients with primary antibody deficiencies. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;6(6):434–442. doi: 10.1097/01.all.0000246619.49494.41. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gardulf A, Bjorvell H, Andersen V, Bjorkander J, Ericson D, Froland SS, Gustafson R, Hammarstrom L, Nystrom T, Soeberg B, Smith CIE. Lifelong treatment with gammaglobulin for primary antibody deficiencies: the patients' experiences of subcutaneous self-infusions and home therapy. J Adv Nurs. 1995;21(5):917–927. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21050917.x. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources