Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (cutaquig®) in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies

6Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

A prospective study and its long-term extension examined whether weekly treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) with a 16.5% subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg; cutaquig®) confers acceptable efficacy, safety, and tolerability over a follow-up of up to 238 weeks (>4 years). Seventy-five patients received 4462 infusions during up to 70 weeks of follow-up in the main study and 27 patients received 2777 infusions during up to 168 weeks of follow-up in the extension. In the main study, there were no serious bacterial infections (SBIs), and the annual rate of other infections was 3.3 (95% CI 2.4, 4.5). One SBI was recorded in the extension, for an SBI rate of 0.02 (upper 99% CI 0.19). The annual rate of all infections over the duration of the extension study was 2.2 (95% CI 1.2, 3.9). Only 15.0% (1085) of 7239 infusions were associated with infusion site reactions (ISRs), leaving 85.0% (6153) of infusions without reactions. The majority of ISRs were mild and transient. ISR incidence decreased over time, from 36.9% to 16% during the main study and from 9% to 2.3% during the extension. The incidence of related systemic adverse events was 14.7% in the main study and 7.4% in the extension. In conclusion, this prospective, long-term study with cutaquig showed maintained efficacy and low rates of local and systemic adverse reactions in PID patients over up to 238 weeks of follow-up.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kobayashi, R. H., Litzman, J., Melamed, I., Mandujano, J. F., Kobayashi, A. L., Ritchie, B., … Gupta, S. (2022). Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (cutaquig®) in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Clinical and Experimental Immunology, 210(2), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/cei/uxac092

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free