ArticlePloS one2025
Feasibility and resource utilization of nurse-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy in antibody deficiency: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary and secondary antibody deficiencies (PAD and SAD) are amongst the most prevalent immunodeficiency syndromes, often necessitating long-term immune globulin replacement therapy (IRT). Both intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) have demonstrated efficacy in antibody deficiency. Comparative analyses of these two routes of administration are limited to nurse-administered IVIG and home therapy with self-administered SCIG. A third programmatic approach, SCIG administered by nurses in hospital-based outpatient infusion clinics, combines certain advantages of IVIG and home SCIG such as the provision of nursing support and the reduced risk of systemic reactions associated with the subcutaneous route. This cross-sectional study aimed to compare the viability and resource utilization of nurse-administered SCIG with IVIG in patients with antibody deficiency. We hypothesized that nurse-administered SCIG would require a similar amount of infusion clinic time per month as IVIG, despite more frequent dosing, due to shorter individual appointments, while maintaining high patient satisfaction. Information on infusion duration, time in the infusion chair, direct nursing time, and treatment satisfaction using the Life Quality Index was collected. Time measures for each patient were expressed as minutes/4 weeks to account for the more frequent dosing of nurse-administered SCIG compared to IVIG. We determined that the total time, infusion time, and nursing time needed to provide nurse-administered SCIG was comparable to IVIG. The more frequent dosing of SCIG was offset by the shorter times required per infusion. Patients reported favorable treatment satisfaction with both nurse-administered SCIG and IVIG. We conclude that nurse-administered SCIG may be a useful treatment modality for well-selected individuals.
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.