Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25761372›Full record

Trial reportClinical and experimental immunology2015

Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency.

H B Niebur, C M Duff, G F Shear, D Nguyen, T K Alberdi, M J Dorsey, J W Sleasman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. CutaquigHematology reports · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H B NieburDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
C M DuffDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
G F ShearDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
D NguyenDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
T K AlberdiDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
M J DorseyDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
J W SleasmanDivision of Allergy, Immunology and Rheumatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of South Florida, St Petersburg, FL, USA.
University of South Florida St. Petersburg · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin(®) ) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra(®) ) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single-centre, open-label study of PAD subjects transitioning Vivaglobin to equivalent Hizentra doses, rounded to the nearest vial size. Comparisons included immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels; tetanus, varicella and Streptococcus pneumoniae titres; adverse events (AEs), annual infection rate and quality of life during 8 weeks of Vivaglobin and 24 weeks of Hizentra. Thirty-two subjects (aged 2-75 years) participated. Rounding to the nearest Hizentra vial size resulted in a 12·8% (± 2·9%) increase in SCIG dose. Median immunoglobulin (Ig)G level following 8 weeks of Vivaglobin was similar to 24 weeks of Hizentra (1050 versus 1035 mg/dl, respectively; P = 0·77). Both products had similar protective titres to tetanus, varicella and serotypes of S. pneumoniae, which were variable but well above protective levels. After 12 weeks of Hizentra, subjects reported fewer local site reactions compared with Vivaglobin. Switching products resulted in increased systemic AEs in some subjects but, overall, not significantly higher than during Vivaglobin treatment. Average infusion time decreased from 104·7 min (3·3 sites) with Vivaglobin to 70·7 min (2·2 sites) with Hizentra (P = 0·0005). Acute serious bacterial infections were similar. Treatment satisfaction was superior with Hizentra. Hizentra and Vivaglobin have similar pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Although transition to a different SCIG product initially increased AEs, Hizentra is well tolerated and can be infused more rapidly and with fewer sites compared to Vivaglobin.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedBacterial InfectionsChildChild, PreschoolDose-Response Relationship, DrugEdemaFemaleFeverHeadacheHumansImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulinsImmunologic Deficiency SyndromesInfusions, SubcutaneousHizentraImmunoglobulin GImmunoglobulinsVivaglobinantibody deficiencyHizentraIgGimmunodeficiencyIVIGpneumococcal titresquality of lifesubcutaneous immunoglobulinvaricellaVivaglobin

Identifiers

PMID25761372
PMCPMC4557380
OpenAlexW2091357222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.