Trial reportJournal of clinical immunology2021
Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy Versus Antibiotic Prophylaxis as Treatment for Incomplete Primary Antibody Deficiency.
Trial report in Journal of clinical immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low levels of IgG2 and pneumococcal antibodies as predictors of benefit from IgG replacement in IgG subclass deficiency.Journal of human immunity · 2026Article
- How I Treat: Infections and inborn errors of immunity-Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.Journal of human immunity · 2026Review
- Pulmonary Manifestations of Inborn Errors of Immunity: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Insights.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Updates in the Understanding of Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in Primary Immune Deficiency Disorders: Function, Composition, and Role in Reconstitution and Immunomodulation.Immunology and allergy clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Diagnosis, Characteristics, and Outcome of Selective Anti-polysaccharide Antibody Deficiencies In A Retrospective Cohort of 55 Adult Patients.Journal of clinical immunology · 2025Observational
- Use of Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy in Clinical Practice: A Review.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2025Review
- Protecting children and adults with primary antibody deficiencies against common and emergent pathogens and non-infectious complications.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2024Review
- IPINeT Ped-unPAD Study: Goals, Design, and Preliminary Results.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in minor primary antibody deficiencies: A 2-year real-life experience.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with an IgG subclass deficiency (IgSD) ± specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SPAD) often present with recurrent infections. Previous retrospective studies have shown that prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) can both be effective in preventing these infections; however, this has not been confirmed in a prospective study.
objectiveTo compare the efficacy of PA and IRT in a randomized crossover trial.
methodsA total of 64 patients (55 adults and 9 children) were randomized (2:2) between two treatment arms. Treatment arm A began with 12 months of PA, and treatment arm B began with 12 months of IRT. After a 3-month bridging period with cotrimoxazole, the treatment was switched to 12 months of IRT and PA, respectively. The efficacy (measured by the incidence of infections) and proportion of related adverse events in the two arms were compared.
resultsThe overall efficacy of the two regimens did not differ (p = 0.58, two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A smaller proportion of patients suffered a related adverse event while using PA (26.8% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.0003, chi-squared test). Patients with persistent infections while using PA suffered fewer infections per year after switching to IRT (2.63 vs. 0.64, p < 0.01).
conclusionWe found comparable efficacy of IRT and PA in patients with IgSD ± SPAD. Patients with persistent infections during treatment with PA had less infections after switching to IRT. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Given the costs and associated side-effects of IRT, it should be reserved for patients with persistent infections despite treatment with PA.
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.