Current opinion in allergy and clinical immunology · 2022
Immunodeficient patient experience of emergency switch from intravenous to rapid push subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy during coronavirus disease 2019 shielding.
ОбзорСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Morgan Clare, Jolles Stephen, Ponsford Mark J, Evans Kimberly, Carne Emily
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Welsh immunodeficient patients on immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) who were considered high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were directed to shield. Consequently, patients receiving hospital-based intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) quickly transitioned to home-based self-administered subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg). This evaluation aimed to assess patients' perceptions and experiences and laboratory outcomes of emergency IgRT transition during COVID-19.
RECENT FINDINGS: A quick transition from in-hospital IVIg to home-based rapid push SCIg is achievable, however, patient IgRT administration preference remains key outside of emergency shielding measures.
SUMMARY: Subjective self-reported experiences ( n = 23) and objective immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration ( n = 28) assessments were prospectively collected from patients pre/post-IgRT switch. In total, 41/55 (75%) patients transitioned from IVIg to rapid push SCIg and all completed training to self-administer subcutaneously within 24 days. Twenty-two percent ( n = 5) of patients preferred SCIg and 35% ( n = 8) wanted to return to hospital-based IVIg at 6 weeks post-transition. Mean IgG levels were similar pre vs. post-SCIg switch (10.3 g/l vs. 10.6 g/l, respectively). Patients reported greater infection anxiety during COVID-19 and adapted behaviours to mitigate risk. Although a third of patients wished to return to IVIg following cessation of shielding, over time the percentage electing to remain on SCIg rose from 22% to 59%.
RECENT FINDINGS: A quick transition from in-hospital IVIg to home-based rapid push SCIg is achievable, however, patient IgRT administration preference remains key outside of emergency shielding measures.
SUMMARY: Subjective self-reported experiences ( n = 23) and objective immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentration ( n = 28) assessments were prospectively collected from patients pre/post-IgRT switch. In total, 41/55 (75%) patients transitioned from IVIg to rapid push SCIg and all completed training to self-administer subcutaneously within 24 days. Twenty-two percent ( n = 5) of patients preferred SCIg and 35% ( n = 8) wanted to return to hospital-based IVIg at 6 weeks post-transition. Mean IgG levels were similar pre vs. post-SCIg switch (10.3 g/l vs. 10.6 g/l, respectively). Patients reported greater infection anxiety during COVID-19 and adapted behaviours to mitigate risk. Although a third of patients wished to return to IVIg following cessation of shielding, over time the percentage electing to remain on SCIg rose from 22% to 59%.