ArticleBMC immunology2025
Monitoring of immunoglobulin treatment compliance of patients with an inborn error of immunity during the pandemic period.
Article in BMC immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Values and preferences of patients with inborn errors of immunity and their caregivers: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, significant challenges have been encountered in managing patients with chronic diseases. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the pandemic on follow-up and treatment adherence in patients receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT).
methodsA study examining the changes in IRT application methods was conducted between March 2020 and September 2021. An online message line, under the control of nurses and doctors, was established for our patients, and their usage rates for this communication system were recorded.
resultsA total of 169 patients, 93 males and 76 females, were included in the study. Among the patients, 124 (73.4%) received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and 45 (26.6%) received subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) treatment. Male sex was more common in both the IVIG and SCIG groups. Although all patients in the subcutaneous treatment group continued the treatments regularly, this rate was 80.6% in the IVIG group. During the pandemic, 26 patients switched from IVIG to SCIG treatment. Furthermore, 24 patients interrupted immunoglobulin treatment for various reasons. Patients who received subcutaneous treatment took a long break from their hospital controls, although they applied them properly at home. Routine immunoglobulin trough values were measured in only 17 (37.7%) patients who were on SCIG. In the presence of symptoms, 100% of SCIG patients contacted the remote medical team via the online message line, compared to 48.3% of IVIG patients.
conclusionDuring the pandemic, the route of immunoglobulin treatment should be individualized based on each patient's characteristics and expectations. Telehealth services have emerged as a crucial tool for monitoring patients with chronic disorders, facilitating effective communication and personalized care.
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.