Midwest Immunology Clinic, Plymouth, MN 55446-3399, USA.
J Clin Immunol. 2010 Mar;30(2):301-7. doi: 10.1007/s10875-009-9352-2. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
Subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) replacement therapy for primary immune deficiency disease (PIDD) is a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to intravenous Ig (IVIg) therapy. Although SCIg is typically administered weekly by infusion pump, administration by a rapid push technique may provide a greater degree of convenience. Rapid push administration has been an option at the author's clinic for several years. We report experience with a cohort of patients given a choice between rapid push and standard pump administration.
This was a retrospective chart review of PIDD patients at a single site who initiated treatment with SCIg (16% solution) therapy between January 1, 2006 and April 1, 2008. Patients selected either infusion pump or rapid push administration after receiving a description and demonstration of each method and training for home self-administration. Demographics, dose, adverse events (AEs), serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels, and therapy disposition (discontinued, switched technique) were recorded on a standardized data collection form.
Charts for 104 patients (45 male, 59 female; mean age, 21.1 years; range, 0.5-67.6 years; SD = 17.9 years) were reviewed. Seventy-four patients (71%) chose rapid push. Mean SCIg dose was 32.11 g/month (range, 1.92-89.6 g/month; SD = 8.3 g/month) split into an average of 3.11 times per week. Volume per site ranged from 3 to 20 mL, typically administered over 5-20 min and at one site. Mean serum IgG levels did not differ significantly by administration method: pump, 1,153.06 mg/dL (SD = 240.8); rapid push, 1,225.8 mg/dL (SD = 299.8). Local infusion-site reactions were the most common AEs and were experienced by one third of patients in each group. Only two patients discontinued therapy because of an AE.
The results suggest that PIDD patients prefer SCIg administered as a rapid push rather than as conventional pump infusion. Serum IgG levels were comparable between methods, and safety was similar, if not slightly better, with rapid push. Rapid push offers the potential for even greater convenience than the pump infusion technique, although these results should be confirmed in prospective studies.
对于原发性免疫缺陷病(PIDD),皮下免疫球蛋白(SCIg)替代疗法是一种安全、有效且方便的静脉内免疫球蛋白(IVIg)治疗替代方法。尽管 SCIg 通常通过输注泵每周给药,但快速推注技术可能提供更大程度的便利。在作者的诊所,快速推注给药已经是一种选择了好几年。我们报告了在单个地点接受 SCIg(16%溶液)治疗的 PIDD 患者队列中,在接受每种方法的描述和演示以及家庭自我管理培训后,在快速推注和标准泵输注之间进行选择的经验。记录了人口统计学数据、剂量、不良事件(AE)、血清免疫球蛋白 G(IgG)水平以及治疗处置(停止、转换技术)。
这是对 2006 年 1 月 1 日至 2008 年 4 月 1 日期间在单一地点开始 SCIg 治疗的 PIDD 患者的回顾性图表审查。在接受每种方法的描述和演示以及家庭自我管理培训后,患者选择输注泵或快速推注给药。记录人口统计学数据、剂量、不良事件(AE)、血清免疫球蛋白 G(IgG)水平和治疗处置(停止、转换技术)。
共回顾了 104 名患者(男 45 名,女 59 名;平均年龄 21.1 岁;范围 0.5-67.6 岁;SD=17.9 岁)的图表。74 名患者(71%)选择了快速推注。平均 SCIg 剂量为 32.11g/月(范围 1.92-89.6g/月;SD=8.3g/月),平均每周 3.11 次。每次注射的部位体积为 3 至 20 毫升,通常给药时间为 5 至 20 分钟,在一个部位给药。血清 IgG 水平与给药方法无显著差异:泵输注,1153.06mg/dL(SD=240.8);快速推注,1225.8mg/dL(SD=299.8)。局部输注部位反应是最常见的 AE,两组各有三分之一的患者出现这种反应。只有两名患者因 AE 停止治疗。
结果表明,PIDD 患者更喜欢将 SCIg 作为快速推注给药,而不是常规泵输注。两种方法的血清 IgG 水平相当,安全性相似,如果不是稍好一些,则快速推注更好。快速推注比泵输注技术具有更大的便利性潜力,尽管这些结果应在前瞻性研究中得到证实。