Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin replacement therapy represents the standard treatment for hypogammaglobulinemia secondary to B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin infusion is an effective, safe and well-tolerated treatment approach in primary immunodeficiencies but no extensive data are available on their use in secondary hypogammaglobulinemia, a frequent phenomenon occurring after treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in lymphoproliferative disorders. In this retrospective study we evaluated efficacy (serum IgG trough levels, incidence of infections per year, need for antibiotics) and safety (number of adverse events) of intravenous (300 mg/kg/4 weeks) versus subcutaneous (75 mg/kg/week) immunoglobulin replacement therapy in 61 patients. In addition, the impact of the infusion methods on quality of life was compared. All patients were treated with subcutaneous immunoglobulin, and 33 out of them had been previously treated with intravenous immunoglobulin. Both treatments appeared to be effective in replacing Ig production deficiency and in reducing the incidence of infectious events and the need for antibiotics. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin obtained a superior benefit when compared to intravenous immunoglobulin achieving higher IgG trough levels, lower incidence of overall infection and need for antibiotics. The incidence of serious bacterial infections was similar with both infusion ways. As expected, a lower number of adverse events was registered with subcutaneous immunoglobulin, compared to intravenous immunoglobulin, with no serious adverse events. Finally, we observed an improvement in health-related quality of life parameters after the switch to subcutaneous immunoglobulin. Our results suggest that subcutaneous immunoglobulin is safe and effective in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia associated to lymphoproliferative disorders.