Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
This study assessed whether measuring immunoglobulin G (IgG) from dried blood spots (DBSs) using nephelometry is a suitable remote monitoring method for patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID).
Methods
Patients receiving immunoglobulin replacement therapy for PID were included in this non-interventional single-arm study (DRKS-ID: DRKS00020522) conducted in Germany from December 4, 2019, to December 22, 2020. Three blood samples, two capillary DBSs (one mail-transferred and the other direct-transferred to the laboratory), and one intravenous were collected from each patient. IgG levels were determined using nephelometry. IgG levels were summarized descriptively, and significant differences were assessed using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests. Correlation and agreement between IgG levels were assessed using Spearman correlation and Bland–Altman analyses, respectively.
Results
Among 135 included patients, IgG levels measured from DBS samples were lower than those measured in serum (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between IgG levels in direct- and mail-transferred DBS samples. There was a high degree of correlation between IgG levels in serum samples and DBS samples (r = 0.94–0.95). Although there was a bias for higher levels of IgG in serum than in DBS samples, most samples were within the 95% interval of agreement. There was a high degree of correlation between IgG levels measured in direct- and mail-transferred DBS samples (r = 0.96) with no bias based on the shipment process and most samples within the 95% interval of agreement.
Conclusion
Monitoring IgG levels from DBS samples is a suitable alternative to the standard method, and results are not substantially affected by mailing DBS cards.
Funder
Baxalta GmbH, a Takeda company
Universitätsklinikum Freiburg
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Immunology,Immunology and Allergy
Reference19 articles.
1. Bazregari S, Azizi G, Tavakol M, Asgardoon MH, Kiaee F, Tavakolinia N, et al. Evaluation of infectious and non-infectious complications in patients with primary immunodeficiency. Cent Eur J Immunol. 2017;42(4):336–41. https://doi.org/10.5114/ceji.2017.72825.
2. Bonilla FA, Khan DA, Ballas ZK, Chinen J, Frank MM, Hsu JT, et al. Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136(5):1186-205 e1-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2015.04.049.
3. Krivan G, Jolles S, Granados EL, Paolantonacci P, Ouaja R, Cisse OA, et al. New insights in the use of immunoglobulins for the management of immune deficiency (PID) patients. Am J Clin Exp Immunol. 2017;6(5):76–83.
4. Wasserman RL, Melamed IR, Stein MR, Jolles S, Norton M, Moy JN, et al. Evaluation of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of Gammaplex® 10% versus Gammaplex® 5% in subjects with primary immunodeficiency. J Clin Immunol. 2017;37(3):301–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-017-0383-9.
5. Misbah S, Sturzenegger MH, Borte M, Shapiro RS, Wasserman RL, Berger M, et al. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin: opportunities and outlook. Clin Exp Immunol. 2009;158(Suppl 1):51–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.2009.04027.x.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献