Background: Intravenous immunoglobulin and subcutaneous immunoglobulin preparations are used to treat primary and secondary immunodeficiencies, as well as autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. Summary: For certain indications, only defined formulations or routes of administration are approved by health authorities. However, for other diseases, there are more options, and treatment decisions may be based on different aspects, such as patient conditions and preferences, pharmacokinetics, or pharmacoeconomic considerations. Key Messages: Understanding the two different treatment modalities may support the decision-making for the optimal therapeutic option for individual patients. This review summarizes the latest insights into the direct and indirect comparison between the two types of products.

For decades, polyclonal immunoglobulin (Ig) preparations have been used to treat a variety of different diseases [1]. Originally developed to substitute insufficient IgG levels in patients with primary or acquired antibody deficiencies, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) preparations are increasingly used to treat inflammatory disorders such as Kawasaki disease [2], multifocal motor neuropathy [3], chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), and many more [4].

The modes of action of polyclonal Ig preparations are broad and heterogeneous, and diverse mechanisms are likely at play amid therapeutic use for substitution therapy or immunomodulation in different autoimmune and inflammatory settings [5]. Schneider et al. [6] investigated various immunoglobulin preparations and showed that these preparations include antibodies pooled from several thousand healthy donors and therefore reflect the antibody repertoires of the donor populations. In the substitution therapy, the modes of action comprise the recognition and subsequent elimination of pathogens and potentially the blockade of microbial attachments sites [6]. Ig preparations may compensate not only for quantitative but also specific qualitative deficiencies observed in primary antibody deficiencies [7] and thereby augment antimicrobial defense but eventually also restore tissue homeostasis and influence other immunodeficiency-related sequelae including autoimmunity or tumorigenesis. Notably, levels of naturally occurring tumor-specific antibodies were found to be reduced in the sera of subsets of immunodeficient patients at increased risk of malignancies [7]. The mechanisms of action of autoimmune diseases and inflammation remain only partially understood [8], eventually also due to certain limitations of animal models [9, 10]. The range of proposed mechanisms is broad, ranging from F(ab)’2-mediated effects involving the suppression or neutralization of inflammatory cytokines, autoantibodies, and regulation of leukocyte function and survival [11, 12], to Fc-mediated effects such as neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) saturation [5]. A better understanding of these mechanisms might allow enhancing the therapeutic potential of immunoglobulins or their derivatives [1, 13, 14].

In the last years, subcutaneous immunoglobulins (SCIGs) have been increasingly used for the treatment of primary and secondary immunodeficiencies as well as selected autoimmune disorders [15‒18]. In this article, we highlighted recent aspects of pharmacokinetics, patient preference, and pharmacoeconomics, the consideration of which might facilitate informed decision-making on the therapeutic use of various IVIG or SCIG preparations.

Historical Milestones

The therapeutic use of polyclonal antibodies was first introduced in 1952 by the US physician Col. Ogden Bruton who treated a boy with agammaglobulinemia and severe recurrent infections [19]. Since the eighties, the intravenous application of polyclonal IgG as IVIG treatment has been the most common way of administration in many countries, both as replacement therapy or for the treatment of autoimmune and inflammatory conditions [1, 20]. For subcutaneous administration of IgG, portable syringe drivers were introduced in the USA in 1980 [21], followed by its use in other countries including New Zealand and parts of Europe, but due to the slow subcutaneous application of voluminous immunoglobulin preparation, SCIG did not become widely popular [22]. In 1991, however, rapid infusion methods were introduced (20 mL/h/pump) in Scandinavian countries and the use of SCIG has since become a common practice [23].

Pharmacokinetic Aspects

In the sixties, Waldman et al. [24] showed that the catabolism of IgG differs compared to other isotypes as its turnover is slower and proportional to the serum concentration. In human plasma, IgG has an average half-life of 21 days [25], which depends on a pH-dependent recycling mechanism involving the FcRn [26]. Indeed, contrarily to many serum proteins that are internalized by endothelial cells and subsequently eliminated by lysosomal degradation, IgG upon binding to the FcRn is recycled and released into the circulation (Fig. 1). The FcRn protects IgG from degradation mainly at the vascular endothelium, but it is also expressed by several tissues and organs [27].

Fig. 1.

Recycle mechanism of IgG, mediated by the neonatal receptor FcRn.

Fig. 1.

Recycle mechanism of IgG, mediated by the neonatal receptor FcRn.

Close modal

The intravenous administration of high IgG quantities (up to 2 g/kg body weight) results in high peak levels in the plasma (30–50 g/L IgG) with a rapid decline within the first 48–72 h [4, 28] (Fig. 2), which might be explained by FcRn saturation effects [27]. Indeed, it has been shown that the half-life of IgG at serum concentrations of 30 g/L is reduced to 11 days [28]. Therapeutic benefits in inflammatory disorders are explained by high IgG peaks following infusion, which could contribute to the fast onset of action [4]. On the other hand, high IgG concentrations might be associated with adverse events (AEs) such as headache or fever [4, 29]. Toward the end of a treatment cycle, which usually takes 3–4 weeks, the plasma IgG concentration can drop significantly to similar levels to pre infusion, which is called trough level [4].

Fig. 2.

Serum IgG level after IVIG and SCIG administration. Serum IgG depicted as a result of the treatment of a PID patient with 30 g IVIG (every 3 weeks) or 36 g SCIG, distributed to three doses, once weekly. The red hatched area represents serum levels with potential wear-off effects.

Fig. 2.

Serum IgG level after IVIG and SCIG administration. Serum IgG depicted as a result of the treatment of a PID patient with 30 g IVIG (every 3 weeks) or 36 g SCIG, distributed to three doses, once weekly. The red hatched area represents serum levels with potential wear-off effects.

Close modal

Subcutaneously administered Ig first reach the lymphatic system before entering the blood circulation, resulting in decreased absorption rate and initial bioavailability compared to IVIG. Reduced bioavailability of SCIG has not been demonstrated to be dependent on production method or concentration [30, 31]. Peak serum levels are reached after 36–72 h in patients receiving SCIG at which IgG concentrations augment to approximately 60% compared to peaks achieved with IVIG [32]. The lower peak levels of SCIG might be attributed to the binding of IgG to constituents of the extracellular matrix or degradation by extracellular proteases [30]. The more frequent subcutaneous administration of smaller Ig doses results in higher trough levels compared to the intravenous application of larger volumes of IVIG [16, 33]. Indeed, trough levels of SCIG are up to 20% higher than the trough levels of IVIG, when considering dose-equivalent administration of once-weekly SCIG or IVIG administered every 21–28 days [34]. Furthermore, the differences between maximal and minimal serum IgG concentrations often do not exceed 10% for SCIG [34]. Even when it is not clear how important is the steady-state IgG serum levels reached with the subcutaneous route compared with the high peaks obtained with IVIG, there are some data suggesting that high IgG levels can help to a faster clinical stability, while the stable trough levels are important for the maintenance and the reduction of AEs [35]. More studies are required to confirm these results.

Efficacy and Safety of SCIG and IVIG Preparations

Clinical trials have shown efficacy and safety of antibody replacement therapy with IVIG in immunodeficient patients as well as of immunomodulatory therapy in autoimmune or inflammatory conditions [36‒41]. Most frequently observed AEs were headache, pyrexia, flu-like symptoms, and nausea/vomiting [36, 37, 42‒48]. Several of these AEs during IVIG therapy seem to be dependent on the infusion speed [48, 49] and can potentially be mitigated by ensuring adequate hydration of the patient [48].

SCIG has been evaluated in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PID), CIDP [50‒56], myositis [57, 58], small fiber neuropathy related to Sjögren’s syndrome [59], MMN [60], and epidermolysis bullosa [61] as both induction and maintenance treatment. In all these studies, SCIG was safe and the main AEs were associated with mild and self-limiting local reactions at the site of administration such as pain, edema, swelling among others as a result of relatively high injection volumes [17, 41, 62]. The delayed increase of serum IgG concentration after SCIG infusion might explain the lower rate of systemic AEs observed with the subcutaneous treatment compared with the intravenous administration [62‒64] (Table 1 ).

Table 1.

Characteristics of IVIG and SCIG

 Characteristics of IVIG and SCIG
 Characteristics of IVIG and SCIG

However, in the absence of head-to-head comparison, it is not possible to directly compare intravenous or subcutaneous treatment strategies. In a systemic review and meta-analysis considering various IVIG and SCIG preparations from different manufacturers, no significant difference in overall infections or serious infections with IVIG versus SCIG was detected in patients with PID [65]. Furthermore, two studies comparing five different IVIGs and SCIGs evidenced comparable efficacy in patients with CIDP [66, 67]. The PATH-trial, the largest trial on SCIG treatment in CIDP, evaluated the safety and efficacy of SCIG in 172 patients [62]. Despite the lack of direct comparison to IVIG, the study protocol allowed an indirect comparison of the two treatments. Only patients who responded to IVIG treatment were included in the study and randomly allocated to different SCIG doses or to placebo for a treatment duration of 24 weeks. The clinical evaluation under this pretreatment was considered as baseline. The primary outcome reflected a worsening of the clinical assessment (INCAT-Score) versus baseline. As this assessment did not change between baseline and SCIG treatment, the authors of the study concluded that SCIG offers comparable efficacy to IVIG in the treatment of CIDP [62]. Furthermore, the European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline strongly recommends both IVIG and SCIG as a maintenance treatment in CIDP with no preference but implies that dose adjustment should be done during the follow-up [68].

Wear-off effects, also referred to as end-of-cycle loss of efficacy [69], have been described for IVIG substitution as well as for immunomodulation therapies (Fig. 2). Trough levels of IVIG therapies at the end of a treatment cycle might potentially be too low to achieve optimal therapeutic effects, thereby leading to a loss of treatment efficacy [28, 70]. Due to the stable serum IgG levels during SCIG treatment, it can be speculated that the risk of such wear-off effects can be diminished when switching a patient from IVIG to SCIG [4, 28, 70].

Patient Preference and Quality of Life

Despite clinical benefits of IVIG or SCIG therapies, the need for repetitive infusion treatments, eventually in the setting of clinical visits can negatively impact the quality of life (QoL) of patients [71‒73]. For patients who successfully manage home-based administration of SCIG, the gain of flexibility and autonomy might add value and increase their QoL [71, 74‒76]. In a conjoint survey including 252 adult patients and 66 parents of children with PID, both groups preferred a home setting, monthly frequency, fewer needle sticks, and shorter treatment durations of IG treatment relative to alternative choices (p < 0.05) [77]. Despite the more frequent administration of SCIG, ranging from biweekly to daily depending on patient needs [78], reports assessing two different SCIG and two different IVIG products suggest that patients favor SCIG over IVIG treatment [62, 71], also in light of independence and less side effects [62].

Of note, the self-administration or administration of SCIG by a caregiver requires training by health care professionals, a high degree of independence, and high compliance to the treatment schedule [70, 72]. Poor parental supervision for younger patients, attention-deficit disorders, or low compliance in general might be exclusion criteria for the SCIG treatment option. The assessment of such exclusion criteria may be difficult, but in these cases, treatment with IVIG may be preferred [75]. Home IVIG administration has been also used by some patients as a maintenance treatment [79]. However, this modality cannot be self-administrated and has to be done by a trained person leading to less autonomy.

Various experts therefore suggest to proactively discuss the treatment options with the patients [70, 75]. The patient preference is often dependent on their priorities and doubts. Jolles et al. argue that patients who decide for home-based SCIG treatment are in general also willing to complete the adequate training and take the responsibility for the treatment [70]. In any case, it will be crucial to discuss the advantages and the disadvantages of both, SCIG and IVIG, with patients and caregivers. A patient-tailored approach to therapy with immunoglobulin preparations including the choice of the route of application is crucial to ensure patient adherence and maximizing treatment outcome.

Pharmacoeconomic Aspects

Pharmacoeconomic analysis much depends on local price levels and idiosyncratic characteristics of health systems. However, costs beyond treatment expenses should be considered including indirect costs for nursing, travel, patient-training, or loss of productivity [80‒82]. In a recent 3-year cost-minimization analysis for PID patients performed by Perraudin et al. [81] in Switzerland, hospital-based IVIG treatment was compared to home-based SCIG treatment with a interprofessional team consisting of training sessions, feedback to physicians, and once yearly follow-ups (administration under supervision), comparing one IVIG product to one SCIG product from the same manufacturer. Assessed costs included direct costs such as for medication and ancillaries, hospital overheads or nursing, as well as indirect costs including transportation costs or loss of patient’s productivity due to the absence from work when receiving the Ig treatment. Due to the high training and nursing investments during the first year of SCIG treatment, the total costs of IVIG and SCIG therapies were comparable. As expenses related to training and supervision declined for SCIG patients during years 2 and 3, the total costs for the initial 3 years of SCIG treatment were about 10% lower as compared to IVIG. The cost-saving effects of SCIG as compared to IVIG treatment were also found in a model-based cost-minimization analysis for CIDP patients [83]. Using the same criteria as in the PID study, total costs over the first 48 weeks were more than 20% lower for home-based SCIG as compared to IVIG [82]. In this study, the costs of the immunoglobulin preparations were identified as the major cost-driver. Mainly due to the higher administration dose, SCIG was more expensive in the initial phase, but these additional costs declined during the maintenance phase (from week 28). As uncommon in Switzerland, the cost-effectiveness of home-based IVIG was not assessed. However, studies conducted in many other countries including Japan [84], Italy [83, 85], Germany [86], and Canada [87, 88] also point toward a cost-benefit of SCIG over IVIG, eventually when considering direct treatment costs and indirect costs together (Table 1). However, while these studies suggest a cost-minimization potential of SCIG versus IVIG treatment, they also highlight the need to consider divergent treatment schemes and the sensitivity of such analysis to patient- and country-specific factors.

Both IVIG and SCIG preparations offer adequate therapeutic options for various diseases. In most countries, IVIG shows a broader range of labeled indications as compared to SCIG. In the case that both therapeutic options are available, the treating physician needs to evaluate the patients’ preferences to tailor the treatment [70]. Compared to IVIG, systemic AEs and wear-off effects are less common during SCIG treatment, which might also offer higher flexibility and QoL to the patient [28, 29, 74]. However, the treatment success with SCIG relies on the adequate training and a good level of compliance and cognitive capabilities of the patient. The more structured treatment approach using IVIG with regular clinical visits may still be preferred for some patients, especially, if the circumstances for home-based SCIG treatment are suboptimal. Despite high investments of patient instructions and training, the total costs of SCIG appear to be lower than for IVIG, if the treatment is followed long term [82, 85, 88, 89].

Taken together, IVIG and SCIG have their own idiosyncratic characteristics. Treatment decisions should be based on the careful evaluation of multiple factors (clinical, pharmacoeconomic, and social) for a personalized treatment approach that leads to an increased QoL.

The authors thank Dr. Christoph Schneider (CSL Behring) for his inputs to the content of the manuscript.

Caroline von Achenbach is a full-time employee of CSL, Behring. Giselle Hevia Hernandez and Stephan von Gunten declare no conflict of interest.

The laboratory of S.V.G. is supported by grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation (310030_184757), the Swiss Cancer League/Swiss Cancer Research (KFS-4958-02-2020), and the Bern Center for Precision Medicine.

Caroline von Achenbach, Giselle Hevia Hernandez, and Stephan von Gunten wrote and approved the manuscript.

1.
Späth PJ, Schneider C, von Gunten S. Clinical use and therapeutic potential of IVIG/SCIG, plasma-derived IgA or IgM, and other alternative immunoglobulin preparations. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. 2017 Jun;65(3):215–31.
2.
Yan F, Zhang H, Xiong R, Cheng X, Chen Y, Zhang F. Effect of early intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in Kawasaki disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:593435.
3.
van der Pol WL, Cats EA, van den Berg LH. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in multifocal motor neuropathy. J Clin Immunol. 2010 May;30(S1):S79–83.
4.
Beydoun SR, Sharma KR, Bassam BA, Pulley MT, Shije JZ, Kafal A. Individualizing therapy in CIDP: a mini-review comparing the pharmacokinetics of Ig with SCIg and IVIg. Front Neurol. 2021 Mar;12:638816.
5.
Negi VS, Elluru S, Sibéril S, Graff-Dubois S, Mouthon L, Kazatchkine MD, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin: an update on the clinical use and mechanisms of action. J Clin Immunol. 2007 May;27(3):233–45.
6.
Schneider C, Smith DF, Cummings RD, Boligan KF, Hamilton RG, Bochner BS, et al. The human IgG anti-carbohydrate repertoire exhibits a universal architecture and contains specificity for microbial attachment sites. Sci Transl Med. 2015 Jan;7(269):269ra1.
7.
Jandus P, Boligan KF, Smith DF, de Graauw E, Grimbacher B, Jandus C, et al. The architecture of the IgG anti-carbohydrate repertoire in primary antibody deficiencies. Blood. 2019 Nov;134(22):1941–50.
8.
Schwab I, Lux A, Nimmerjahn F, Branch DR, Vassilev T, Käsermann F. Reply to: IVIG pluripotency and the concept of Fc-sialylation–challenges to the scientist. Nat Rev Immunol. 2014 May;14(5):349.
9.
Quast I, Keller CW, Weber P, Schneider C, von Gunten S, Lünemann JD. Protection from experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis by polyclonal IgG requires adjuvant-induced inflammation. J Neuroinflammation. 2016 Feb;13(1):42.
10.
Schneider C, Wicki S, Graeter S, Timcheva TM, Keller CW, Quast I, et al. IVIG regulates the survival of human but not mouse neutrophils. Sci Rep. 2017 Dec;7(1):1296.
11.
Gelfand EW. Intravenous immune globulin in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. N Engl J Med. 2012 Nov;367(21):2015–25.
12.
Graeter S, Simon HU, von Gunten S. Granulocyte death mediated by specific antibodies in intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Pharmacol Res. 2020 Apr;154:104168.
13.
Graeter S, Schneider C, Verschoor D, von Däniken S, Seibold F, Yawalkar N, et al. Enhanced pro-apoptotic effects of Fe(II)-Modified IVIG on human neutrophils. Front Immunol. 2020;11:973.
14.
Spirig R, Campbell IK, Koernig S, Chen CG, Lewis BJB, Butcher R, et al. rIgG1 Fc hexamer inhibits antibody-mediated autoimmune disease via effects on complement and FcγRs. J Immunol. 2018 Apr;200(8):2542–53.
15.
Borte M, Quinti I, Soresina A, Fernández-Cruz E, Ritchie B, Schmidt DS, et al. Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous vivaglobin® replacement therapy in previously untreated patients with primary immunodeficiency: a prospective, multicenter study. J Clin Immunol. 2011 Dec;31(6):952–61.
16.
Gardulf A, Nicolay U, Asensio O, Bernatowska E, Böck A, Carvalho BC, et al. Rapid subcutaneous IgG replacement therapy is effective and safe in children and adults with primary immunodeficiencies: a prospective, multi-national study. J Clin Immunol. 2006 Mar;26(2):177–85.
17.
Kanegane H, Imai K, Yamada M, Takada H, Ariga T, Bexon M, et al. Efficacy and safety of IgPro20, a subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in Japanese patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases. J Clin Immunol. 2014 Feb;34(2):204–11.
18.
Streu E, Wiseman MC, Johnston JB. Low-dose subcutaneous immunoglobulin is an effective treatment for autoimmune bullous skin disorders: a case report. SAGE Open Med Case Rep. 2020 Jan;8:2050313X1990107.
19.
Bruton OC. Agammaglobulinemia. Pediatrics. 1952 Jun;9(6):722–8.
20.
Jolles S, Stein MR, Longhurst HJ, Borte M, Ritchie B, Sturzenegger MH, et al. New frontiers in subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment. Biol Ther. 2011 Sep;1(1):3.
21.
Berger M, Cupps TR, Fauci AS. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy by slow subcutaneous infusion. Ann Intern Med. 1980 Jul;93(1):55–6.
22.
Gardulf A. Immunoglobulin treatment for primary antibody deficiencies: advantages of the subcutaneous route. BioDrugs. 2007;21(2):105–16.
23.
Hammarstrom L, Gardulf A, Edvard Smith C, Gardulf A. Home treatment of hypogammaglobulinaemia with subcutaneous gammaglobulin by rapid infusion. The Lancet. 1991 Jul;338(8760):162–6.
24.
Waldmann TA, Strober W. Metabolism of immunoglobulins. Prog Allergy. 1969;13:1–110.
25.
Morell A, Terry WD, Waldmann TA. Metabolic properties of IgG subclasses in man. J Clin Invest. 1970 Apr;49(4):673–80.
26.
Junghans RP, Anderson CL. The protection receptor for IgG catabolism is the beta2-microglobulin-containing neonatal intestinal transport receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 May;93(11):5512–6.
27.
Roopenian DC, Akilesh S. FcRn: the neonatal Fc receptor comes of age. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007 Sep;7(9):715–25.
28.
Berger M, Harbo T, Cornblath DR, Mielke O. IgPro20, the Polyneuropathy and Treatment with Hizentra ® study (PATH), and the treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy with subcutaneous IgG. Immunotherapy. 2018 Aug;10(11):919–33.
29.
Shabaninejad H, Asgharzadeh A, Rezaei N, Rezapoor A. A comparative study of intravenous immunoglobulin and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in adult patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2016;12(5):595–602.
30.
Berger M, Jolles S, Orange JS, Sleasman JW. Bioavailability of IgG administered by the subcutaneous route. J Clin Immunol. 2013 Jul;33(5):984–90.
31.
Bonilla FA. Pharmacokinetics of immunoglobulin administered via intravenous or subcutaneous routes. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008 Nov;28(4):803–19.
32.
Berger M, Rojavin M, Kiessling P, Zenker O. Pharmacokinetics of subcutaneous immunoglobulin and their use in dosing of replacement therapy in patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Clin Immunol. 2011 May;139(2):133–41.
33.
Gustafson R, Gardulf A, Hansen S, Leibl H, Engl W, Lindén M, et al. Rapid subcutaneous immunoglobulin administration every second week results in high and stable serum immunoglobulin G levels in patients with primary antibody deficiencies. Clin Exp Immunol. 2008 May;152(2):274–9.
34.
Allen JA, Gelinas DF, Freimer M, Runken MC, Wolfe GI. Immunoglobulin administration for the treatment of CIDP: IVIG or SCIG? J Neurol Sci. 2020 Jan;408:116497.
35.
Markvardsen LH, Sindrup SH, Christiansen I, Olsen NK, Jakobsen J, Andersen H. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin as first-line therapy in treatment-naive patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: randomized controlled trial study. Eur J Neurol. 2017 Feb;24(2):412–8.
36.
Blažek B, Misbah SA, Soler-Palacin P, McCoy B, Leibl H, Engl W, et al. Human immunoglobulin (KIOVIG®/GAMMAGARD LIQUID®) for immunodeficiency and autoimmune diseases: an observational cohort study. Immunotherapy. 2015;7(7):753–63.
37.
Frenzel W, Wietek S, Svae TE, Debes A, Svorc D. Tolerability and safety of Octagam® (IVIG): a post-authorization safety analysis of four non-interventional phase IV trials. CP. 2016 Nov;54(11):847–55.
38.
Karelis G, Balasa R, De Bleecker JL, Stuchevskaya T, Villa A, Van Damme P, et al. A phase 3 multicenter, prospective, open-label efficacy and safety study of immune globulin (human) 10% caprylate/chromatography purified in patients with myasthenia gravis exacerbations. Eur Neurol. 2019;81(5–6):223–30.
39.
Léger J, De Bleecker JL, Sommer C, Robberecht W, Saarela M, Kamienowski J, et al. Efficacy and safety of Privigen ® in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: results of a prospective, single-arm, open-label Phase III study (the PRIMA study). J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2013 Jun;18(2):130–40.
40.
Merkies ISJ, van Schaik IN, Léger JM, Bril V, van Geloven N, Hartung HP, et al. Efficacy and safety of IVIG in CIDP: Combined data of the PRIMA and PATH studies. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2019 Mar;24(1):48–55.
41.
Milota T, Bloomfield M, Kralickova P, Jilek D, Novak V, Litzman J, et al. Czech hizentra noninterventional study with rapid push: efficacy, safety, tolerability, and convenience of therapy with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin. Clin Ther. 2019 Nov;41(11):2231–8.
42.
Belmokhtar C, Lozeron P, Adams D, Franques J, Lacour A, Godet E, et al. Efficacy and safety of Octagam® in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Neurol Ther. 2019 Jun;8(1):69–78.
43.
Stein MR, Nelson RP, Church JA, Wasserman RL, Borte M, Vermylen C, et al. Safety and efficacy of Privigen, a novel 10% liquid immunoglobulin preparation for intravenous use, in patients with primary immunodeficiencies. J Clin Immunol. 2009 Jan;29(1):137–44.
44.
Ricci S, Lippi F, Canessa C, Guarnieri C, Macchia R, Azzari C. Efficacy and safety of human intravenous immunoglobulin 5% (Ig VENA) in pediatric patients affected by primary immunodeficiency. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2020 Dec;34:205873842094300.
45.
Kreuz W, Erdös M, Rossi P, Bernatowska E, Espanol T, Maródi L. A multi-centre study of efficacy and safety of Intratect®, a novel intravenous immunoglobulin preparation. Clin Exp Immunol. 2010 Aug;161(3):512–7.
46.
Bauhofer A, Schimo S, Klausmann M. Benefits of immunoglobulin substitution in primary and secondary immunodeficiencies: interim analysis of a prospective, long-term non-interventional study. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Jun;59(06):417–27.
47.
Krivan G, Chernyshova L, Kostyuchenko L, Lange A, Nyul Z, Derfalvi B, et al. A multicentre study on the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of IqYmune®, a highly purified 10% liquid intravenous immunoglobulin, in patients with primary immune deficiency. J Clin Immunol. 2017 Aug;37(6):539–47.
48.
Orbach H, Katz U, Sherer Y, Shoenfeld Y. Intravenous immunoglobulin: adverse effects and safe administration. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2005;29(3):173–84.
49.
Kareva L, Mironska K, Stavric K, Hasani A. Adverse reactions to intravenous immunoglobulins: our experience. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018 Dec;6(12):2359–62.
50.
Benbrahim O, Viallard JF, Choquet S, Royer B, Bauduer F, Decaux O, et al. The use of octagam and gammanorm in immunodeficiency associated with hematological malignancies: a prospective study from 21 French hematology departments. Hematology. 2019 Dec;24(1):173–82.
51.
Borte M, Kriván G, Derfalvi B, Maródi L, Harrer T, Jolles S, et al. Efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a novel human immune globulin subcutaneous, 20%: a phase 2/3 study in Europe in patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Clin Exp Immunol. 2016;187(1):146–59.
52.
Kobayashi RH, Mandujano JF, Rehman SM, Kobayashi AL, Geng B, Atkinson TP, et al. Treatment of children with primary immunodeficiencies with a subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (cutaquig ® [octanorm]). Immunotherapy. 2021 May;13(10):813–824.
53.
Latysheva E, Rodina Y, Sizyakina L, Totolian A, Tuzankina I. Efficacy and safety of octanorm (cutaquig®) in adults with primary immunodeficiencies with predominant antibody deficiency: a prospective, open-label study. Immunotherapy. 2020 Apr;12(5):299–309.
54.
Kobayashi RH, Gupta S, Melamed I, Mandujano JF, Kobayashi AL, Ritchie B, et al. Clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of a New subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% (octanorm [Cutaquig®]) in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Front Immunol. 2019 Feb;10:40.
55.
Suez D, Kriván G, Jolles S, Stein M, Gupta S, Paris K, et al. Safety and tolerability of subcutaneous immunoglobulin 20% in primary immunodeficiency diseases from two continents. Immunotherapy. 2019 Aug;11(12):1057–65.
56.
Angelotti F, Capecchi R, Giannini D, Mazzarella O, Rocchi V, Migliorini P. Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of recombinant human hyaluronidase-facilitated subcutaneous infusion of immunoglobulin (Ig) (fSCIG; HyQvia[®]) in immunodeficiency diseases: real-life data from a monocentric experience. Clin Exp Med. 2020 Aug;20(3):387–92.
57.
Danieli MG, Tonacci A, Paladini A, Longhi E, Moroncini G, Allegra A, et al. A machine learning analysis to predict the response to intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in inflammatory myopathies. A proposal for a future multi-omics approach in autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2022 Jun;21(6):103105.
58.
Danieli MG, Verga JU, Mezzanotte C, Terrenato I, Svegliati S, Bilo MB. Replacement and immunomodulatory activities of 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment: a single-center retrospective study in autoimmune myositis and CVID patients. Front Immunol. 2021;12:805705.
59.
Pindi Sala T, Villedieu M, Damian L, Crave JC, Pautot V, Stojanovich L, et al. Long-term efficacy of immunoglobulins in small fiber neuropathy related to Sjögren’s syndrome. J Neurol. 2020 Dec;267(12):3499–507.
60.
Gentile L, Russo M, Rodolico C, Arimatea I, Vita G, Toscano A, et al. Long-term treatment with subcutaneous immunoglobulin in multifocal motor neuropathy. Sci Rep. 2021 Apr;11(1):9216.
61.
Tayal U, Burton J, Dash C, Wojnarowska F, Chapel H. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy for immunomodulation in a patient with severe epidermolysis bullosa acquisita. Clin Immunol. 2008 Dec;129(3):518–9.
62.
van Schaik IN, Bril V, van Geloven N, Hartung HP, Lewis RA, Sobue G, et al. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin for maintenance treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (PATH): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Jan;17(1):35–46.
63.
Racosta JM, Sposato LA, Kimpinski K. Subcutaneous versus intravenous immunoglobulin for chronic autoimmune neuropathies: a meta-analysis. Muscle Nerve. 2017 Jun;55(6):802–9.
64.
Markvardsen LH, Debost JC, Harbo T, Sindrup SH, Andersen H, Christiansen I, et al. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin in responders to intravenous therapy with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Eur J Neurol. 2013 May;20(5):836–42.
65.
Shrestha P, Karmacharya P, Wang Z, Donato A, Joshi AY. Impact of IVIG versus. SCIG on IgG trough level and infection incidence in primary immunodeficiency diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. World Allergy Organ J. 2019 Oct;12(10):100068.
66.
Hadden RDM, Marreno F. Switch from intravenous to subcutaneous immunoglobulin in CIDP and MMN: improved tolerability and patient satisfaction. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015 Jan;8(1):14–9.
67.
Markvardsen LH, Harbo T. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment in CIDP and MMN. Efficacy, treatment satisfaction and costs. J Neurol Sci. 2017 Jul;378:19–25.
68.
Van den Bergh PYK, Doorn PA, Hadden RDM, Avau B, Vankrunkelsven P, Allen JA, et al. European academy of neurology/peripheral nerve society guideline on diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: report of a joint task force-second revision. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2021 Sep;26(3):242–68.
69.
Shapiro RS, Borte M. 7 th international immunoglobulin conference: immunoglobulin in clinical practice. Clin Exp Immunol. 2014 Dec;178:86–6.
70.
Jolles S, Bernatowska E, de Gracia J, Borte M, Cristea V, Peter HH, et al. Efficacy and safety of Hizentra® in patients with primary immunodeficiency after a dose-equivalent switch from intravenous or subcutaneous replacement therapy. Clin Immunol. 2011 Oct;141(1):90–102.
71.
Querol L, Crabtree M, Herepath M, Priedane E, Viejo Viejo I, Agush S, et al. Systematic literature review of burden of illness in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). J Neurol. 2020 Jun;268(10):3706–16.
72.
Mallick R, Henderson T, Lahue BJ, Kafal A, Bassett P, Scalchunes C. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary immunodeficiency: impact of training and infusion characteristics on patient-reported outcomes. BMC Immunol. 2020 Dec;21(1):47.
73.
Sultan S, Rondeau É, Levasseur MC, Dicaire R, Decaluwe H, Haddad É. Quality of life, treatment beliefs, and treatment satisfaction in children treated for primary immunodeficiency with SCIg. J Clin Immunol. 2017 Jul;37(5):496–504.
74.
Hartung H-P, Mallick R, Bril V, Lewis RA, Sobue G, Lawo J-P, et al. Patient-reported outcomes with subcutaneous immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: the PATH study. Eur J Neurol. 2020 Jan;27(1):196–203.
75.
Samaan K, Levasseur MC, Decaluwe H, St-Cyr C, Chapdelaine H, Des Roches A, et al. SCIg versus IVIg: let’s give patients the choice. J Clin Immunol. 2014 Aug;34(6):611–4.
76.
Chérin P, Pindi Sala T, Clerson P, Dokhan A, Fardini Y, Duracinsky M, et al. Recovering autonomy is a key advantage of home-based immunoglobulin therapy in patients with myositis: a qualitative research study. Medicine. 2020 Feb;99(7):e19012.
77.
Mohamed AF, Kilambi V, Luo MP, Iyer RG, Li-McLeod JM. Patient and parent preferences for immunoglobulin treatments: a conjoint analysis. J Med Econ. 2012;15(6):1183–91.
78.
Ness S. Differentiating characteristics and evaluating intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin. Am J Manag Care. 2019 Jun;25(6 Suppl l):S98–104.
79.
Katzberg HD, Rasutis V, Bril V. Home IVIG for CIDP: a focus on patient centred care. Can J Neurol Sci. 2013 May;40(3):384–8.
80.
Ducruet T, Levasseur MC, Des Roches A, Kafal A, Dicaire R, Haddad E. Pharmacoeconomic advantages of subcutaneous versus intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in a Canadian pediatric center. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013 Feb;131(2):585–7.e3. e3
81.
Perraudin C, Bourdin A, Spertini F, Berger J, Bugnon O. Switching patients to home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin: an economic evaluation of an interprofessional drug therapy management program. J Clin Immunol. 2016 Jul;36(5):502–10.
82.
Perraudin C, Bourdin A, Vicino A, Kuntzer T, Bugnon O, Berger J. Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy patients: a Swiss cost-minimization analysis. PLoS One. 2020 Nov;15(11):e0242630.
83.
Pulvirenti F, Cinetto F, Pecoraro A, Carrabba M, Crescenzi L, Neri R, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with CVID under different schedules of immunoglobulin administration: prospective multicenter study. J Clin Immunol. 2019 Feb;39(2):159–70.
84.
Igarashi A, Kanegane H, Kobayashi M, Miyawaki T, Tsutani K. Cost-minimization analysis of IgPro20, a subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in Japanese patients with primary immunodeficiency. Clin Ther. 2014 Nov;36(11):1616–24.
85.
Lazzaro C, Lopiano L, Cocito D. Subcutaneous vs intravenous administration of immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: an Italian cost-minimization analysis. Neurol Sci. 2014 Jul;35(7):1023–34.
86.
Högy B, Keinecke H-O, Borte M. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of immunoglobulin treatment in patients with antibody deficiencies from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance. Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Mar;6(1):24–9.
87.
Fu LW, Song C, Isaranuwatchai W, Betschel S. Home-based subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy vs hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin therapy: a prospective economic analysis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018 Feb;120(2):195–9.
88.
Membe SK, Ho C, Cimon K, Morrison A, Kanani A, Roifman CM. Economic assessment of different modalities of immunoglobulin replacement therapy. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2008 Nov;28(4):861x–74.
89.
Cocito D, Serra G, Falcone Y, Paolasso I. The efficacy of subcutaneous immunoglobulin administration in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy responders to intravenous immunoglobulin. J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2011 Jun;16(2):150–2.