Comparison of IVIg 5% Versus 10% in hematological patients with a secondary immunodeficiency disorder

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) solutions (5% vs. 10%) in hematological patients suffering from a secondary immunodeficiency (SID) to optimize infusion duration and hospitalization time.

Design: A monocentric, observational study in 30 patients with secondary hypogammaglobulinemia due to a lymphoproliferative disorder currently under IVIg 5% treatment. A sequential approach was followed with observations during IVIg 5% and 10% administration 3 to 4 weeks later. Infusion time, time spent at the day clinic, IVIg-related adverse events and number of actions taken by the nursing staff were evaluated and compared between the 5% and 10% infusions. Questionnaires for patients and nursing staff were obtained after IVIg 10% to assess their satisfaction with the change of infusion.

Results: Average infusion time was reduced from 4.92 h to 2.29 h (p < 0.0001). Time spent at the day clinic was 5.87 h for the 5% IVIg administration and 4.56 h for the 10% (p = 0.0005). IVIg-related adverse events rose from 0 to 0.43 per patient. No serious adverse events were reported. Nursing actions per patient decreased from 1.03 to 0.67. Patient and nursing satisfaction were respectively 83% and 96% in favor of IVIg 10%.

Conclusion: A 10% IVIg solution can significantly reduce infusion time and overall duration of the day clinic visit. Care must be taken to minimize new infusion-related adverse events. Switching to a 10% IVIg administration increases patient and nursing satisfaction but also requires additional workflow changes to further shorten the day clinic visit.

KEYWORDS:

• IVIg
• secondary immunodeficiency
• hypogammaglobulinemia
• hematology
• Multigam

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

Supplymental data for this article can be accessed here.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.