ArticlePloS one2025
Healthcare resource utilization and costs in immunodeficient patients receiving subcutaneous Ig: Real-world evidence from France.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSubcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) replacement therapy is indicated for patients with hypogammaglobulinemia caused by primary (PID) and secondary immunodeficiencies (SID).
objectiveTo compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and related direct medical costs of patients in France treated with weekly conventional SCIg (cSCIg) vs monthly hyaluronidase-facilitated SCIg (fSCIg).
methodsThis retrospective study of Ig-naïve patients with PID or SID newly receiving a SCIg between 2016 and 2018, extracted from the French National Healthcare reimbursement database (SNDS), analyzed the SCIg-related HCRU and reimbursed costs generated from in-hospital (hospitalizations and SCIg doses) or at-home (nurse visits [NV] and pump provider visits [PPV], drug doses) SCIg administration.
resultsOverall, 2,012 patients (PID:534; SID:1,478) were analyzed. The follow-up duration varied between 7.5 and 8.7 months according to sub-groups. Compared with fSCIg-treated patients, monthly mean rates of NV and PPV were respectively 2.5 and 3.1 times higher in PID, and 1.6 and 3.1 times higher in SID cSCIg-treated patients. Monthly mean rates for SCIg administration-related hospitalizations were lower overall, while their costs were 1.6 and 1.8 times higher for cSCIg than fSCIg subgroups, in PIDs and SIDs respectively; these results are due to more frequent hospitalizations with fSCIg being mainly shorter, without stayover. Total HCRU costs from the French NHI's perspective were estimated to be lower with fSCIg vs cSCIg, in PIDs and SIDs.
conclusionThis study provides real-world evidence of SCIg administration in a large French population. Patients with PID or SID treated with fSCIg had fewer at-home HCRU and lower overall costs for in-hospital or at-home SCIg administration compared with cSCIg-treated patients.
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.