Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency
Summary Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin®) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra®) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single‐centre, open‐label study of PAD s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical and experimental immunology 2015-09, Vol.181 (3), p.441-450 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 450 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 441 |
container_title | Clinical and experimental immunology |
container_volume | 181 |
creator | Niebur, H. B. Duff, C. M. Shear, G. F. Nguyen, D. Alberdi, T. K. Dorsey, M. J. Sleasman, J. W. |
description | Summary
Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin®) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra®) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single‐centre, open‐label study of PAD subjects transitioning Vivaglobin to equivalent Hizentra doses, rounded to the nearest vial size. Comparisons included immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels; tetanus, varicella and Streptococcus pneumoniae titres; adverse events (AEs), annual infection rate and quality of life during 8 weeks of Vivaglobin and 24 weeks of Hizentra. Thirty‐two subjects (aged 2–75 years) participated. Rounding to the nearest Hizentra vial size resulted in a 12·8% (± 2·9%) increase in SCIG dose. Median immunoglobulin (Ig)G level following 8 weeks of Vivaglobin was similar to 24 weeks of Hizentra (1050 versus 1035 mg/dl, respectively; P = 0·77). Both products had similar protective titres to tetanus, varicella and serotypes of S. pneumoniae, which were variable but well above protective levels. After 12 weeks of Hizentra, subjects reported fewer local site reactions compared with Vivaglobin. Switching products resulted in increased systemic AEs in some subjects but, overall, not significantly higher than during Vivaglobin treatment. Average infusion time decreased from 104·7 min (3·3 sites) with Vivaglobin to 70·7 min (2·2 sites) with Hizentra (P = 0·0005). Acute serious bacterial infections were similar. Treatment satisfaction was superior with Hizentra. Hizentra and Vivaglobin have similar pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Although transition to a different SCIG product initially increased AEs, Hizentra is well tolerated and can be infused more rapidly and with fewer sites compared to Vivaglobin. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/cei.12623 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4557380</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1709164953</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5463-be5cd5b538d35e0d71d2ff56bdd3a16397cc93ca3abf1ec07325b967ed0186533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1LHDEYhUOx1K31wj8gARHqxWg-JsnOTaEsWxWE3rTXIV-jkcxkm8wo8xP81806W9FCGwLhJQ_nnJcDwBFG57icC-P8OSac0HdggSlnFSF1swcWCKGmajCq98HHnO_LyDknH8A-YYJjKsgCPK3b1htlJqh6C4cYXFLaBz9MMLYQ81OYR23GQfUujhn6rhv7eBuiHoPvoYndRiVn4aMf7iBB_6fL3STfqbQ1G7yOdoLWFXvvejN9Au9bFbI73L0H4Oe39Y_VVXXz_fJ69fWmMqzmtNKOGcs0o0tLmUNWYEvalnFtLVWY00YY01CjqNItdgYJSphuuHAW4SVnlB6AL7PuZtSds8b1Q1JB7pLJqLx8-9P7O3kbH2TNmKBLVAQ-7wRS_DW6PMjOZ-NCmLeWWKAG87p59jr5C72PY-rLeluKLuuai7pQZzNlUsw5ufYlDEZyW7AsBcvnggt7_Dr9C_mn0QJczMCjD276t5Jcra9nyd_CELL4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1703844674</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Niebur, H. B. ; Duff, C. M. ; Shear, G. F. ; Nguyen, D. ; Alberdi, T. K. ; Dorsey, M. J. ; Sleasman, J. W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Niebur, H. B. ; Duff, C. M. ; Shear, G. F. ; Nguyen, D. ; Alberdi, T. K. ; Dorsey, M. J. ; Sleasman, J. W.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary
Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin®) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra®) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single‐centre, open‐label study of PAD subjects transitioning Vivaglobin to equivalent Hizentra doses, rounded to the nearest vial size. Comparisons included immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels; tetanus, varicella and Streptococcus pneumoniae titres; adverse events (AEs), annual infection rate and quality of life during 8 weeks of Vivaglobin and 24 weeks of Hizentra. Thirty‐two subjects (aged 2–75 years) participated. Rounding to the nearest Hizentra vial size resulted in a 12·8% (± 2·9%) increase in SCIG dose. Median immunoglobulin (Ig)G level following 8 weeks of Vivaglobin was similar to 24 weeks of Hizentra (1050 versus 1035 mg/dl, respectively; P = 0·77). Both products had similar protective titres to tetanus, varicella and serotypes of S. pneumoniae, which were variable but well above protective levels. After 12 weeks of Hizentra, subjects reported fewer local site reactions compared with Vivaglobin. Switching products resulted in increased systemic AEs in some subjects but, overall, not significantly higher than during Vivaglobin treatment. Average infusion time decreased from 104·7 min (3·3 sites) with Vivaglobin to 70·7 min (2·2 sites) with Hizentra (P = 0·0005). Acute serious bacterial infections were similar. Treatment satisfaction was superior with Hizentra. Hizentra and Vivaglobin have similar pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Although transition to a different SCIG product initially increased AEs, Hizentra is well tolerated and can be infused more rapidly and with fewer sites compared to Vivaglobin.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9104</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2249</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cei.12623</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25761372</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; antibody deficiency ; Bacterial Infections - immunology ; Bacterial Infections - prevention & control ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ; Edema - chemically induced ; Female ; Fever - chemically induced ; Headache - chemically induced ; Hizentra ; Humans ; IgG ; immunodeficiency ; Immunoglobulin G - administration & dosage ; Immunoglobulin G - adverse effects ; Immunoglobulin G - immunology ; Immunoglobulin G - metabolism ; Immunoglobulin G - therapeutic use ; Immunoglobulins - administration & dosage ; Immunoglobulins - adverse effects ; Immunoglobulins - therapeutic use ; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - drug therapy ; Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - immunology ; Infusions, Subcutaneous ; IVIG ; Male ; Middle Aged ; pneumococcal titres ; Prospective Studies ; Quality of Life ; Streptococcus pneumoniae ; subcutaneous immunoglobulin ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Translational ; Treatment Outcome ; varicella ; Vivaglobin ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Clinical and experimental immunology, 2015-09, Vol.181 (3), p.441-450</ispartof><rights>2015 The Authors. Clinical & Experimental Immunology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Society for Immunology</rights><rights>2015 British Society for Immunology.</rights><rights>2015 British Society for Immunology</rights><rights>2015 British Society for Immunology 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5463-be5cd5b538d35e0d71d2ff56bdd3a16397cc93ca3abf1ec07325b967ed0186533</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5463-be5cd5b538d35e0d71d2ff56bdd3a16397cc93ca3abf1ec07325b967ed0186533</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557380/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4557380/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25761372$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Niebur, H. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duff, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shear, G. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alberdi, T. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorsey, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sleasman, J. W.</creatorcontrib><title>Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency</title><title>Clinical and experimental immunology</title><addtitle>Clin Exp Immunol</addtitle><description>Summary
Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin®) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra®) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single‐centre, open‐label study of PAD subjects transitioning Vivaglobin to equivalent Hizentra doses, rounded to the nearest vial size. Comparisons included immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels; tetanus, varicella and Streptococcus pneumoniae titres; adverse events (AEs), annual infection rate and quality of life during 8 weeks of Vivaglobin and 24 weeks of Hizentra. Thirty‐two subjects (aged 2–75 years) participated. Rounding to the nearest Hizentra vial size resulted in a 12·8% (± 2·9%) increase in SCIG dose. Median immunoglobulin (Ig)G level following 8 weeks of Vivaglobin was similar to 24 weeks of Hizentra (1050 versus 1035 mg/dl, respectively; P = 0·77). Both products had similar protective titres to tetanus, varicella and serotypes of S. pneumoniae, which were variable but well above protective levels. After 12 weeks of Hizentra, subjects reported fewer local site reactions compared with Vivaglobin. Switching products resulted in increased systemic AEs in some subjects but, overall, not significantly higher than during Vivaglobin treatment. Average infusion time decreased from 104·7 min (3·3 sites) with Vivaglobin to 70·7 min (2·2 sites) with Hizentra (P = 0·0005). Acute serious bacterial infections were similar. Treatment satisfaction was superior with Hizentra. Hizentra and Vivaglobin have similar pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Although transition to a different SCIG product initially increased AEs, Hizentra is well tolerated and can be infused more rapidly and with fewer sites compared to Vivaglobin.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>antibody deficiency</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - immunology</subject><subject>Bacterial Infections - prevention & control</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</subject><subject>Edema - chemically induced</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fever - chemically induced</subject><subject>Headache - chemically induced</subject><subject>Hizentra</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>IgG</subject><subject>immunodeficiency</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - adverse effects</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - immunology</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - metabolism</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Immunoglobulins - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Immunoglobulins - adverse effects</subject><subject>Immunoglobulins - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - drug therapy</subject><subject>Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - immunology</subject><subject>Infusions, Subcutaneous</subject><subject>IVIG</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>pneumococcal titres</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Streptococcus pneumoniae</subject><subject>subcutaneous immunoglobulin</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Translational</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>varicella</subject><subject>Vivaglobin</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0009-9104</issn><issn>1365-2249</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV1LHDEYhUOx1K31wj8gARHqxWg-JsnOTaEsWxWE3rTXIV-jkcxkm8wo8xP81806W9FCGwLhJQ_nnJcDwBFG57icC-P8OSac0HdggSlnFSF1swcWCKGmajCq98HHnO_LyDknH8A-YYJjKsgCPK3b1htlJqh6C4cYXFLaBz9MMLYQ81OYR23GQfUujhn6rhv7eBuiHoPvoYndRiVn4aMf7iBB_6fL3STfqbQ1G7yOdoLWFXvvejN9Au9bFbI73L0H4Oe39Y_VVXXz_fJ69fWmMqzmtNKOGcs0o0tLmUNWYEvalnFtLVWY00YY01CjqNItdgYJSphuuHAW4SVnlB6AL7PuZtSds8b1Q1JB7pLJqLx8-9P7O3kbH2TNmKBLVAQ-7wRS_DW6PMjOZ-NCmLeWWKAG87p59jr5C72PY-rLeluKLuuai7pQZzNlUsw5ufYlDEZyW7AsBcvnggt7_Dr9C_mn0QJczMCjD276t5Jcra9nyd_CELL4</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Niebur, H. B.</creator><creator>Duff, C. M.</creator><creator>Shear, G. F.</creator><creator>Nguyen, D.</creator><creator>Alberdi, T. K.</creator><creator>Dorsey, M. J.</creator><creator>Sleasman, J. W.</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency</title><author>Niebur, H. B. ; Duff, C. M. ; Shear, G. F. ; Nguyen, D. ; Alberdi, T. K. ; Dorsey, M. J. ; Sleasman, J. W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5463-be5cd5b538d35e0d71d2ff56bdd3a16397cc93ca3abf1ec07325b967ed0186533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>antibody deficiency</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - immunology</topic><topic>Bacterial Infections - prevention & control</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Dose-Response Relationship, Drug</topic><topic>Edema - chemically induced</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fever - chemically induced</topic><topic>Headache - chemically induced</topic><topic>Hizentra</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>IgG</topic><topic>immunodeficiency</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - adverse effects</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - immunology</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - metabolism</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Immunoglobulins - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Immunoglobulins - adverse effects</topic><topic>Immunoglobulins - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - drug therapy</topic><topic>Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - immunology</topic><topic>Infusions, Subcutaneous</topic><topic>IVIG</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>pneumococcal titres</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Streptococcus pneumoniae</topic><topic>subcutaneous immunoglobulin</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Translational</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>varicella</topic><topic>Vivaglobin</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Niebur, H. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duff, C. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shear, G. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alberdi, T. K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorsey, M. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sleasman, J. W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical and experimental immunology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Niebur, H. B.</au><au>Duff, C. M.</au><au>Shear, G. F.</au><au>Nguyen, D.</au><au>Alberdi, T. K.</au><au>Dorsey, M. J.</au><au>Sleasman, J. W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency</atitle><jtitle>Clinical and experimental immunology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Exp Immunol</addtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>181</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>441</spage><epage>450</epage><pages>441-450</pages><issn>0009-9104</issn><eissn>1365-2249</eissn><abstract>Summary
Multiple subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) products are available to treat primary antibody deficiency (PAD). The efficacy and tolerability of 16% SCIG (Vivaglobin®) was compared with 20% SCIG (Hizentra®) in PAD subjects. The study was a prospective, single‐centre, open‐label study of PAD subjects transitioning Vivaglobin to equivalent Hizentra doses, rounded to the nearest vial size. Comparisons included immunoglobulin (Ig)G levels; tetanus, varicella and Streptococcus pneumoniae titres; adverse events (AEs), annual infection rate and quality of life during 8 weeks of Vivaglobin and 24 weeks of Hizentra. Thirty‐two subjects (aged 2–75 years) participated. Rounding to the nearest Hizentra vial size resulted in a 12·8% (± 2·9%) increase in SCIG dose. Median immunoglobulin (Ig)G level following 8 weeks of Vivaglobin was similar to 24 weeks of Hizentra (1050 versus 1035 mg/dl, respectively; P = 0·77). Both products had similar protective titres to tetanus, varicella and serotypes of S. pneumoniae, which were variable but well above protective levels. After 12 weeks of Hizentra, subjects reported fewer local site reactions compared with Vivaglobin. Switching products resulted in increased systemic AEs in some subjects but, overall, not significantly higher than during Vivaglobin treatment. Average infusion time decreased from 104·7 min (3·3 sites) with Vivaglobin to 70·7 min (2·2 sites) with Hizentra (P = 0·0005). Acute serious bacterial infections were similar. Treatment satisfaction was superior with Hizentra. Hizentra and Vivaglobin have similar pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Although transition to a different SCIG product initially increased AEs, Hizentra is well tolerated and can be infused more rapidly and with fewer sites compared to Vivaglobin.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>25761372</pmid><doi>10.1111/cei.12623</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0009-9104 |
ispartof | Clinical and experimental immunology, 2015-09, Vol.181 (3), p.441-450 |
issn | 0009-9104 1365-2249 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4557380 |
source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged antibody deficiency Bacterial Infections - immunology Bacterial Infections - prevention & control Child Child, Preschool Dose-Response Relationship, Drug Edema - chemically induced Female Fever - chemically induced Headache - chemically induced Hizentra Humans IgG immunodeficiency Immunoglobulin G - administration & dosage Immunoglobulin G - adverse effects Immunoglobulin G - immunology Immunoglobulin G - metabolism Immunoglobulin G - therapeutic use Immunoglobulins - administration & dosage Immunoglobulins - adverse effects Immunoglobulins - therapeutic use Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - drug therapy Immunologic Deficiency Syndromes - immunology Infusions, Subcutaneous IVIG Male Middle Aged pneumococcal titres Prospective Studies Quality of Life Streptococcus pneumoniae subcutaneous immunoglobulin Surveys and Questionnaires Translational Treatment Outcome varicella Vivaglobin Young Adult |
title | Efficacy and tolerability of 16% subcutaneous immunoglobulin compared with 20% subcutaneous immunoglobulin in primary antibody deficiency |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T00%3A51%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Efficacy%20and%20tolerability%20of%2016%25%20subcutaneous%20immunoglobulin%20compared%20with%2020%25%20subcutaneous%20immunoglobulin%20in%20primary%20antibody%20deficiency&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20and%20experimental%20immunology&rft.au=Niebur,%20H.%20B.&rft.date=2015-09&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=441&rft.epage=450&rft.pages=441-450&rft.issn=0009-9104&rft.eissn=1365-2249&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cei.12623&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1709164953%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1703844674&rft_id=info:pmid/25761372&rfr_iscdi=true |