BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety of a newly developed 10% liquid immunoglobulin preparation in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases. This new preparation for intravenous use includes three dedicated virus clearance steps in its manufacturing process to ensure a high margin of viral safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, non-controlled, multicentre study. Twenty-two subjects with primary immunodeficiency were treated initially with three infusions of a licensed intravenous immunoglobulin to standardize the immunoglobulin G (IgG) replacement therapy of all subjects to the same intravenous product. A total of nine infusions of the new 10% liquid preparation were subsequently administered. RESULTS: The median terminal half-life of total IgG following administration of the new preparation was 30.1 days. Median terminal half-lives for IgG subclasses IgG(1), IgG(2), IgG(3) and IgG(4) were 28.3, 31.3, 20.9 and 24.2 days, respectively. The median total serum IgG steady-state trough level was 8.51 g/l. No severe infection episodes started after initiation of treatment with the new preparation. The median rate of mild or moderate infection episodes was 0.48 per month. A total of 194 infusions with the new 10% liquid immunoglobulin preparation were administered. The mean dose per infusion was 0.41 g/kg body weight and the maximum infusion rates recorded were 8 ml/kg/h. Adverse experiences were mostly mild and unrelated to the study drugs. Only 4% of infusions with the new product were followed by one or more related adverse experiences. CONCLUSION: The new 10% liquid immunoglobulin preparation was well tolerated and shown to have an excellent pharmacokinetic, efficacy and safety profile. The liquid formulation provides convenience to patients and healthcare professionals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Björkander et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: