Rapid Push vs Pump-Infused Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin Treatment: a Randomized Crossover Study of Quality of Life in Primary Immunodeficiency Patients.

PURPOSE: Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) may be administered once a week with a pump or every other day with a syringe (rapid push). The objective of the study was to compare the impact of pump and rapid push infusions on patient's life quality index (LQI). METHODS: This study was a randomized, crossover, multicenter, non-inferiority trial conducted in adults with primary immunodeficiency (PID) accustomed to weekly infusions at home by pump. Patients used pump or rapid push for 3 months each according to the randomized sequence. Main criterion was PID-LQI factor I (treatment interference). Non-inferiority ratio was set at 90%. RESULTS: Thirty patients entered the study; 28 completed the two periods. IgRT exposure was similar during each period. At the end of each period, mean LQI factor 1 was 87.0 (IC95% [80.3; 94.3]) and 77.80 (IC95% [71.5; 84.7]) for pump and rapid push, respectively. There was a slightly larger effect of rapid push on treatment interference than with pump so that the primary endpoint could not be met. No difference was found on other LQI components, satisfaction (TSQM), or quality of life (SF36v2). Eight patients declared to prefer rapid push while 19 others preferred pump. Of rapid push infusions, 67.2% led to local reactions vs 71.8% of pump infusions (p = 0.11) illustrating its good tolerance. Rapid push and pump infusions achieved similar trough IgG levels with similar incidence of infections. Rapid push saved 70% of administration cost when compared to pump. CONCLUSIONS: Since IgRT is a lifelong treatment in PID patients, individualization of treatment is of paramount importance. Rapid push is a new administration method in the physician's armamentarium which is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02180763 CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Self-administration of small volumes of immunoglobulins at home, every other day, using a syringe (rapid push) is a cost-effective alternative to administration of larger volumes by pump once a week. This study compared subcutaneous infusions of immunoglobulins either weekly via a pump or every other day via a syringe (rapid push). Rapid push is preferred by some patients and is cost-effective, therefore completing a physician's armamentarium.

Contribution of diagnostic tests for the etiological assessment of uveitis, data from the ULISSE study (Uveitis: Clinical and medicoeconomic evaluation of a standardized strategy of the etiological diagnosis).

PURPOSE: ULISSE is the only study that prospectively assessed the efficiency of a standardized strategy, compared to an open strategy for the etiologic diagnosis of uveitis. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the tests prescribed in the ULISSE study to clarify their relevance. METHODS: ULISSE is a non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter and cluster randomized study. The standardized strategy is a two-steps strategy: in the first step, common standard tests were performed, and in the second step, tests were guided by the clinical and anatomic type of uveitis. We reported the relevance of the diagnostic tests used in the standardized strategy, as well as the profitability of the tests that were prescribed to more than twenty patients in each group. Based on diagnostic criteria, either an ophthalmologist, or an internist, established the profitability of a test by considering whether the test lead to a diagnosis or not. RESULTS: Among the 676 patients included (standardized 303; open 373), a diagnosis was made for 152 (50.4%) in the standardized group and 203 (54.4%) in the open group. The most common entities were HLA-B27 associated uveitis (22%), spondyloarthritis (11%), sarcoidosis (18%), tuberculosis (10.7%) and herpes virus infections (8.5%). Among the first step's systematic tests, tuberculin skin test was the most contributive investigation (17.1%), followed by chest X-ray (8.4%), C reactive protein and ESR (6.6% and 5.1%), complete blood count (2.2%) and VDRL (2.0%). The second step's most often contributive tests were: HLA B27 (56.3%), chest-CT (30.3%) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) (16.5%). HLA B27 and ACE were significantly more contributive in the standardized group than in the open group. Immunological tests were never contributive. Among the free investigations, or among the investigations guided by clinical or paraclinical findings, the most often contributive tests were: Quantiferon® (24%), electrophoresis of serum protein (7.8%) and sacroiliac imagery (46.4%). Intracellular serologies (1.7%), serum calcium (2.1%) and hepatic tests (3.3%) were exceptionally contributive. Among the third intention tests, labial salivary gland biopsies were contributive in 17.9% of cases, but the profitability of other invasive investigations (anterior chamber tap, vitrectomy, bronchoscopy and lumbar puncture) or specialized imagery (18F-FDG PET, Brain MRI) could not be determined since these test were rarely performed. CONCLUSION: Only a few diagnostic tests are useful for the etiological assessment of uveitis. They are often cheap, simple, more often guided by the clinical findings, and lead to an etiological diagnosis in most patients. On the other hand, some tests are never or exceptionally contributive, such as immunological tests or intracellular serologies. Further studies are required to evaluate the profitability of third intention imagery and invasive investigations.

Urogenital manifestations in Wegener granulomatosis: a study of 11 cases and review of the literature.

We describe the main characteristics and treatment of urogenital manifestations in patients with Wegener granulomatosis (WG). We conducted a retrospective review of the charts of 11 patients with WG. All patients were men, and their median age at WG diagnosis was 53 years (range, 21-70 yr). Urogenital involvement was present at onset of WG in 9 cases (81%), it was the first clinical evidence of WG in 2 cases (18%), and was a symptom of WG relapse in 6 cases (54%). Symptomatic urogenital involvement included prostatitis (n = 4) (with suspicion of an abscess in 1 case), orchitis (n = 4), epididymitis (n = 1), a renal pseudotumor (n = 2), ureteral stenosis (n = 1), and penile ulceration (n = 1). Urogenital symptoms rapidly resolved after therapy with glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents. Several patients underwent a surgical procedure, either at the time of diagnosis (n = 3) (consisting of an open nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy for suspicion of carcinoma, suprapubic cystostomy for acute urinary retention), or during follow-up (n = 3) (consisting of ureteral double J stents for ureteral stenosis, and prostate transurethral resection because of dysuria). After a mean follow-up of 56 months, urogenital relapse occurred in 4 patients (36%). Urogenital involvement can be the first clinical evidence of WG. Some presentations, such as a renal or prostate mass that mimics cancer or an abscess, should be assessed to avoid unnecessary radical surgery. Urogenital symptoms can be promptly resolved with glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents. However, surgical procedures, such as prostatic transurethral resection, may be mandatory in patients with persistent symptoms.

Indications for biotherapy in systemic vasculitides.

Biotherapy now holds a specific place in the therapeutic armamentarium for systemic vasculitides. Such therapy includes cytokines, such as (pegylated) alpha-interferon for hepatitis B virus-related polyarteritis nodosa and hepatitis C virus-related cryoglobulinemic vasculitis, and polyvalent immunoglobulin (IVIg), with well-defined indications and pending positive results. More specifically targeted monoclonal antibodies include antitumor necrosis factor-alpha or anti-CD20 for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitides or anti-interleukin-5 and anti-IgE for Churg-Strauss syndrome. However, the exact indications of these latter new agents, as well as their optimal dosage and duration, are not defined. Therefore, they are prescribed mainly for patients with disease refractory to conventional therapy, in whom results are promising. Results of international ongoing trials will determine whether the agents may also have a place as first-line treatment.