Immunoglobulin Replacement Therapy Versus Antibiotic Prophylaxis as Treatment for Incomplete Primary Antibody Deficiency.

BACKGROUND: Patients with an IgG subclass deficiency (IgSD) ± specific polysaccharide antibody deficiency (SPAD) often present with recurrent infections. Previous retrospective studies have shown that prophylactic antibiotics (PA) and immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IRT) can both be effective in preventing these infections; however, this has not been confirmed in a prospective study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of PA and IRT in a randomized crossover trial. METHODS: A total of 64 patients (55 adults and 9 children) were randomized (2:2) between two treatment arms. Treatment arm A began with 12 months of PA, and treatment arm B began with 12 months of IRT. After a 3-month bridging period with cotrimoxazole, the treatment was switched to 12 months of IRT and PA, respectively. The efficacy (measured by the incidence of infections) and proportion of related adverse events in the two arms were compared. RESULTS: The overall efficacy of the two regimens did not differ (p = 0.58, two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test). A smaller proportion of patients suffered a related adverse event while using PA (26.8% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.0003, chi-squared test). Patients with persistent infections while using PA suffered fewer infections per year after switching to IRT (2.63 vs. 0.64, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found comparable efficacy of IRT and PA in patients with IgSD ± SPAD. Patients with persistent infections during treatment with PA had less infections after switching to IRT. CLINICAL IMPLICATION: Given the costs and associated side-effects of IRT, it should be reserved for patients with persistent infections despite treatment with PA.

Dosing of Convalescent Plasma and Hyperimmune Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Immunoglobulins: A Phase I/II Dose-Finding Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, trials on convalescent plasma (ConvP) were performed without preceding dose-finding studies. This study aimed to assess potential protective dosing regimens by constructing a population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model describing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers following the administration of ConvP or hyperimmune globulins (COVIg). METHODS: Immunocompromised patients, testing negative for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies despite vaccination, received a range of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the form of COVIg or ConvP infusion. The popPK analysis was performed using NONMEM v7.4. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess potential COVIg and ConvP dosing regimens for prevention of COVID-19. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, and data from 42 were used for constructing the popPK model. A two-compartment elimination model with mixed residual error best described the Nab-titers after administration. Inter-individual variation was associated to CL (44.3%), V1 (27.3%), and V2 (29.2%). Lean body weight and type of treatment (ConvP/COVIg) were associated with V1 and V2, respectively. Median elimination half-life was 20 days (interquartile range: 17-25 days). Simulations demonstrated that even monthly infusions of 600 mL of the ConvP or COVIg used in this trial would not achieve potentially protective serum antibody titers for > 90% of the time. However, as a result of hybrid immunity and/or repeated vaccination, plasma donors with extremely high antibody titers are now readily available, and a > 90% target attainment should be possible. CONCLUSION: The results of this study may inform future intervention studies on the prophylactic and therapeutic use of antiviral antibodies in the form of ConvP or COVIg. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9379 (The Netherlands Trial Register).

Effect and safety of 4% albumin in the treatment of cardiac surgery patients: study protocol for the randomized, double-blind, clinical ALBICS (ALBumin In Cardiac Surgery) trial.

BACKGROUND: In cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), large amounts of fluids are administered. CPB priming with crystalloid solution causes marked hemodilution and fluid extravasation. Colloid solutions may reduce fluid overload because they have a better volume expansion effect than crystalloids. The European Medicines Agency does not recommend the use of hydroxyethyl starch solutions (HES) due to harmful renal effects. Albumin solution does not impair blood coagulation but the findings on kidney function are conflicting. On the other hand, albumin may reduce endothelial glycocalyx destruction and decrease platelet count during CPB. No large randomized, double-blind, clinical trials have compared albumin solution to crystalloid solution in cardiac surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comprising 1386 adult cardiac surgery patients, 4% albumin solution will be compared to Ringer's acetate solution in CPB priming and volume replacement up to 3200 mL during surgery and the first 24 h of intensive care unit stay. The primary efficacy outcome is the number of patients with at least one major adverse event (MAE) during 90 postoperative days (all-cause death, acute myocardial injury, acute heart failure or low output syndrome, resternotomy, stroke, major arrhythmia, major bleeding, infection compromising post-procedural rehabilitation, acute kidney injury). Secondary outcomes are total number of MAEs, incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, acute myocardial injury, acute heart failure, arrhythmia), amount of each type of blood product transfused (red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelets), total fluid balance at the end of the intervention period, total measured blood loss, development of acute kidney injury, days alive without mechanical ventilation in 90 days, days alive outside intensive care unit at 90 days, days alive at home at 90 days, and 90-day mortality. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will provide new evidence regarding efficacy and safety of albumin solution in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) 2015-002556-27 Registered 11 Nov 2016 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02560519. Registered 25 Sept 2015.