Czech Hizentra Noninterventional Study With Rapid Push: Efficacy, Safety, Tolerability, and Convenience of Therapy With 20% Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin.

PURPOSE: Immunoglobulin substitution therapy is an essential therapeutic approach for patients with primary antibody deficiencies. Different methods of administration, including intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) preparations, provide effective and tolerable treatment and enable the adjustment of therapy to patients' needs. A new 20% SCIG represents a new therapeutic option and a new route of administration using rapid-push application. The aim of the Czech Hizentra Noninterventional Study With Rapid Push (CHHINSTRAP) is to evaluate patient satisfaction with as well as the tolerability and efficacy of nonmedical switch to 20% SCIG from previous treatment with IVIG or SCIG and rapid push as a new way to administer SCIG. CHHINSTRAP is the first Phase IV, noninterventional, open-label, prospective, multicentric study of this type conducted in Central and Eastern Europe. METHODS: Primary end points, including efficacy, adverse effects, convenience of use, and overall satisfaction, were evaluated by Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication version II. Secondary end points, such as serum IgG trough levels, infusion duration, number of application sites, frequency of infections, related hospital admissions, and antibiotic consumption, were obtained from patients at each follow-up visit. FINDINGS: Together, 50 eligible patients with primary antibody deficiency were switched from SCIG or IVIG to an equivalent dose of 20% SCIG and were followed up for 12 months during 5 consecutive visits. The results indicate that patients switched from previous IVIG or SCIG preparations had significantly higher serum trough IgG levels and a lower incidence of infections and related events, such as hospital admissions or consumption of antibiotics. These findings were also reflected in gradually increasing convenience of use and overall satisfaction reported by patients. Apart from duration of application, no differences were found between patients previously receiving SCIG or IVIG. Moreover, our study found a high level of safety of 20% SCIG rapid push, which was comparable to other preparations and application methods. IMPLICATIONS: On the basis of the results of CHHINSTRAP study, we conclude that 20% SCIG is a tolerable and effective immunoglobulin preparation, representing a new therapeutic approach in patients with primary antibody deficiencies. Its efficacy and tolerability have been found in patients on nonmedical switch from previous treatment with IVIG or SCIG.

Antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen trough levels and half-lives do not differ after intravenous and intramuscular hepatitis B immunoglobulin administration after liver transplantation.

Hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) administration remains an essential component of standard reinfection prophylaxis after liver transplantation for hepatitis B virus-related liver disease. Previous studies have suggested that intramuscular (IM) HBIG administration compared to intravenous (IV) HBIG administration may be cost-effective and dose-saving. To compare antibody against hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) kinetics after IV HBIG administration versus IM HBIG administration, 24 patients received 2000 IU of HBIG every 6 weeks over a study period of 48 weeks in a crossover design. HBIG was started intravenously in 12 patients (group A) and intramuscularly in 12 patients (group B). After 4 doses, at week 24 HBIG administration was switched from IM to IV and vice versa. Anti-HBs kinetics of 22 patients were evaluated. Mean anti-HBs levels measured 2, 4, and 6 weeks after each HBIG administration did not differ significantly (480 +/- 166, 319 +/- 126, and 221 +/- 106 IU/L after IV administration versus 457 +/- 166, 310 +/- 147, and 218 +/- 112 IU/L after IM administration). Half-lives of anti-HBs decline (IV, 25.5 +/- 6.0 days, versus IM, 24.7 +/- 6.2 days) and area under the curve values from week 2 to 6 (IV, 9.4 +/- 3.6 IU*day/mL, versus IM, 9.0 +/- 3.9 IU*day/mL) also showed no significant difference. Variation of anti-HBs levels after IV HBIG administration versus IM HBIG administration was neither significantly different within patients (intraindividual variance) nor between patients (interindividual variance). However, intraindividual variance was lower than interindividual variance after IV (P < 0.05) and IM (P < 0.05) HBIG administration at every time point (2, 4, and 6 weeks). In conclusion, IV HBIG administration and IM HBIG administration are equally effective with respect to the crucial pharmacokinetic parameters. That is, IM HBIG is not dose-saving; however, it may be cost-effective if the price per unit is lower. Individualized dosing intervals should be further evaluated as a cost-effective alternative to fixed dosing schemes.

Failure of hepatitis B vaccination with conventional HBsAg vaccine in patients with continuous HBIG prophylaxis after liver transplantation.

Hepatitis B vaccination after liver transplantation for hepatitis B-related liver disease has been investigated as an alternative strategy to reinfection prophylaxis with hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) with conflicting results. In most studies, HBIG treatment was discontinued before vaccination. An outstanding good response was achieved with vaccination under continuous HBIG administration using hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-based vaccine containing special adjuvants. Both, adjuvants and continuous HBIG administration have been discussed as crucial factors for good response. Twenty-four patients were vaccinated with conventional double dose recombinant vaccine containing 40 microg HBsAg up to 12 times at weeks 0, 2, 4 (cycle 1), 12, 14, 16 (cycle 2), 24, 26, 28 (cycle 3), and 36, 38, 40 (cycle 4). All patients received 2,000 IU HBIG every 6 weeks (4 times intravenously and 4 times intramuscularly). A significant response was defined as reconfirmed increase of anti-HBs-antigen (anti-HBs) unexplained by HBIG administration or lack of anti-HBs decrease below 100 IU/L after discontinuation of HBIG treatment after week 48. Only 2 of 24 patients (8.3%) responded significantly. Anti-HBs started to increase after the seventh vaccination (cycle 3, during intramuscular HBIG administration) in 1 patient and after 12th vaccination (cycle 4, during intravenous HBIG administration) in the other. Maximum anti-HBs levels were >1,000 IU/L in both patients and decreased significantly slower as compared to passive prophylaxis during follow-up. In conclusion, the conventional HBsAg vaccine failed to induce a significant humoral immune response in most patients despite continued HBIG treatment. Further studies should address the question, of whether the use of potent adjuvant systems results in higher response rates.