Trial reportClinical and experimental immunology2015
Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Weekly Versus Biweekly IgPro20 Dosing in Patients With Primary Immunodeficiency.Clinical pharmacology in drug development · 2020Trial
- Efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a novel human immune globulin subcutaneous, 20%: a Phase 2/3 study in Europe in patients with primary immunodeficiencies.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2017Trial
- Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of a Novel Human Immune Globulin Subcutaneous, 20 % in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases in North America.Journal of clinical immunology · 2016Trial
- Immunoglobulin replacement therapy in primary immunodeficiency disorders: Pragmatic review and evidence mapping.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. Global · 2026Article
- Mechanical versus Electronic Infusion Systems in Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Therapy: A Structured Literature Review of Infusion-Site Reactions and Device Performance.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Patient Experience and Improvement Opportunities in Self-Administered, Large-Volume Subcutaneous Infusions at Home.Patient preference and adherence · 2025Article
- CutaquigHematology reports · 2022Article
- Patient experience with subcutaneous immunoglobulin 20%, Ig20Gly, for primary immunodeficiency diseases: a prespecified post hoc analysis of combined data from 2 pivotal trials.BMC immunology · 2020Article
- Shift from intravenous or 16% subcutaneous replacement therapy to 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in patients with primary antibody deficiencies.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology · 2017Observational
- Treatment with Hizentra in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiencies: a real-life, non-interventional trial.BMC immunology · 2016Article
- Risk and safety requirements for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in allergology: World Allergy Organization Statement.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.