EFFICACY EVALUATION OF SUBCUTANEOUS IMMUNOGLOBULIN COMPARED TO INTRAVENOUS IMMUNOGLOBULIN IN PATIENTS WITH CVID

Abstract

Introduction Immunoglobulin replacement therapy serves as a treatment for many immunodeficiencies. In this study, we are investigating the efficacy of subcutaneous immunoglobulin in comparison to intravenous immunoglobulin for patients with CVID requiring supplemental immunoglobulin, using the number of antibiotic courses prescribed as a metric for therapeutic efficacy. Methods This was a retrospective study of medical records to analyze the population of patients with immunodeficiency. All patients with the ICD10 code correlating to CVID who were actively seen from January 1 2015 to December 31 2015 were included in the study. Data was analyzed using ANOVA to evaluate efficacy of subcutaneous immunotherapy and intravenous immunotherapy in patients with CVID. Results There were no significant differences in age, sex, dose of immunoglobulin, or trough IgG level between the two groups. During one year, patients receiving immunoglobulin intravenously were prescribed an average of 2.44 courses of antibiotics, while patients receiving immunoglobulin subcutaneously were prescribed an average of 2.17 courses of antibiotics, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.668). Conclusions Past studies have shown advantages and disadvantages of subcutaneous immunoglobulin versus intravenous immunoglobulin, which are particularly useful when considering a similar therapeutic effect. Overall, this study agrees with current literature that subcutaneous immunoglobulin is as effective as intravenous immunoglobulin at preventing serious infection in patients with immunodeficiency.