ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2025
Immunoglobulin treatment and clinical outcomes: data from the Ontario Immunoglobulin Treatment program multicenter case registry.
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The therapeutic use of immunoglobulin (IG) is increasing and accounts for the largest expenditure in the Canadian Blood Services budget. However, more granular data on IG utilization is limited. Objective: To describe IG treatment indications, dosing characteristics, and clinical outcomes in patients enrolled in the Ontario IG Treatment (ONIT) program, a government-funded pilot clinical program with a case registry. Methods: A longitudinal descriptive study was conducted on ONIT registry participants from June 1, 2020 to March 31, 2024. Results: Six hundred ninety-three consenting participants were included; 429 (61.9%) were female; median [Q1, Q3] age was 62 [47, 71] years; 47 (6.8%) passed away during the study period. Of 693, 658 (94.9%) were receiving IG treatment: 544 (82.7%) on SCIG and 114 (17.3%) on IVIG. Treatment indications were primary immune deficiency (PID) (299, 43.1%), secondary immune deficiency (SID) (348, 50.2%), and immune-mediated disease (IMD) (46, 6.7%). The median dose was 0.48 [0.42, 0.57] and 0.52 [0.44, 0.64] g/kg/4 weeks, for SCIG and IVIG, respectively. Seventy-three patients transitioned from IVIG to SCIG, with the dose adjusted to clinical response. The IVIG:SCIG conversion ratios were 1:1, 1:0.9, and 1:1.2 for PID, SID, and IMD, respectively. Only 33 (5.0%) stopped IG during the study. There was a 78.4% reduction in infections and over 90% reduction in emergency room visits and hospitalizations in PID and SID. Most patients (89.4%) reported improved health after starting IG therapy. Conclusion: The study provides insights into the current landscape of IG utilization, which may inform health system research and support healthcare delivery planning.
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.