Search

Patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) are at a higher risk of developing serious infections than healthy individuals. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) replacement therapy reduces this risk, as it raises a patient's antibody levels to help fight off infections. IgG replacement therapy can be performed as an intravenous or subcutaneous (under the skin) infusion. The subcutaneous route is associated with improved quality of life for patients, as therapy can be carried out at home by the patient, allowing for more flexibility, convenience and autonomy. Wearable drug-delivery systems are devices that stick to the body and automatically deliver doses of a drug to the patient. In this study, we investigated whether a novel Investigational Wearable Infusor device could deliver the subcutaneous IgG replacement therapy, IgPro20, in patients with PID. We show that the new infusion device can deliver IgG replacement therapy and allows for similar levels of IgG to be achieved in patients as a comparator device. This wearable drug delivery device simplifies drug administration and could help address some of the challenges associated with self-injection such as complicated infusion preparation, needle phobia and concerns about pain.

The two main objectives of this analysis were to (i) characterize the relationship between immunoglobulin (Ig) exposure and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) disease severity using data from 171 patients with CIDP who received either subcutaneous Ig (IgPro20; Hizentra®) or placebo (PATH study), and to (ii) simulate and compare exposure coverage with various dosing approaches considering weekly dosing to be the reference dose. IgG pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, including those from a previous population PK model, were used to predict individual IgG profile and exposure metrics. Treatment‐related changes in Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) scores were best described by a maximum effect (Emax) model as a function of ΔIgG (total serum IgG at INCAT score assessment minus baseline IgG levels before intravenous Ig restabilization). Simulations indicate that flexible dosing from daily to biweekly (every other week) provide an exposure coverage equivalent to that of a weekly Ig dose.

Purpose To evaluate the safety and tolerability of subcutaneous IgPro20 (Hizentra®, CSL Behring, King of Prussia, PA, USA) administered at high infusion parameters (> 25 mL and > 25 mL/h per injection site) in patients with primary immunodeficiency. Methods The Hizentra® Label Optimization (HILO) study was an open-label, parallel-arm, non-randomized study (NCT03033745) of IgPro20 using a forced upward titration design for infusion parameters. Patients experienced with pump-assisted IgPro20 infusions received weekly IgPro20 infusions at a stable dose in the Pump-Assisted Volume Cohort (N = 15; 25–50 mL per injection site) and in the Pump-Assisted Flow Rate Cohort (N = 18; 25–100 mL/h per injection site). Responder rates (percentage of patients who successfully completed ≥ 75% of planned infusions), safety outcomes, and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) trough levels were evaluated. Results Responder rates were 86.7% (13/15, 25 mL) and 73.3% (11/15, 40 and 50 mL) in the Volume Cohort, and 77.8% (14/18, 25 and 50 mL/h), 66.7% (12/18, 75 mL/h), and 61.1% (11/18, 100 mL/h) in the Flow Rate Cohort. Infusion compliance was ≥ 90% in all patients in the Volume Cohort and in 83.3% of patients in the Flow Rate Cohort. The number of injection sites (Volume Cohort) and the infusion duration (Flow Rate Cohort) decreased with increasing infusion parameters. The rate of treatment-emergent adverse events per infusion was low (0.138 [Volume Cohort] and 0.216 [Flow Rate Cohort]). Serum IgG levels remained stable during the study. Conclusion Pump-assisted IgPro20 infusions are feasible at 50 mL and 100 mL/h per injection site in treatment-experienced patients, which may result in fewer injection sites and shorter infusion times. Trial Registration NCT03033745; registered January 27, 2017

Purpose To evaluate the safety and tolerability of IgPro20 manual push (also known as rapid push) infusions at flow rates of 0.5–2.0 mL/min. Methods Patients with primary immunodeficiency (PID) with previous experience administering IgPro20 (Hizentra®, CSL Behring, King of Prussia, PA, USA) were enrolled in the Hizentra® Label Optimization (HILO) study (NCT03033745) and assigned to Pump-assisted Volume Cohort, Pump-assisted Flow Rate Cohort, or Manual Push Flow Rate Cohort; this report describes the latter. Patients administered IgPro20 via manual push at 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 mL/min/site for 4 weeks each. Responder rates (percentage of patients who completed a predefined minimum number of infusions), safety outcomes, and serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) trough levels were evaluated. Results Sixteen patients were treated; 2 patients (12.5%) discontinued at the 1.0-mL/min level (unrelated to treatment). Responder rates were 100%, 100%, and 87.5% at 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-mL/min flow rates, respectively. Mean weekly infusion duration decreased from 103–108 to 23–28 min at the 0.5- and 2.0-mL/min flow rates, respectively. Rates of treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) per infusion were 0.023, 0.082, and 0.025 for the 0.5-, 1.0-, and 2.0-mL/min flow rates, respectively. Most TEAEs were mild local reactions and tolerability (infusions without severe local reactions/total infusions) was 100% across flow rate levels. Serum IgG levels (mean [SD]) were similar at study start (9.36 [2.53] g/L) and end (9.58 [2.12] g/L). Conclusions Subcutaneous IgPro20 manual push infusions at flow rates up to 2.0 mL/min were well tolerated and reduced infusion time in treatment-experienced patients with PID. Trial Registration NCT03033745

Background: Immunoglobulin G (IgG) replacement therapy can be administered subcutaneously (SCIG) using an infusion pump or by manual push. Both methods have shown similar serum IgG trough levels for the same total weekly/monthly dose as well as safety and tolerability profiles. The currently approved infusion parameters for the SCIG Hizentra® (IgPro20, CSL Behring, King of Prussia, PA, USA) in primary immunodeficiency (PID) in the United States are volumes of ≤25 mL and flow rates of ≤25 mL/h per injection site. Previously, clinical studies and case reports had demonstrated use of higher infusion parameters than those approved, but safety and tolerability of these have not been systematically evaluated. In the absence of regulatory guidance, we have developed a novel prospective clinical study applying forced upward titration design to evaluate the safety and tolerability of high infusion parameters of IgPro20 in PID patients using pump-assisted and manual push techniques (NCT03033745). Results: A total of 45 patients were planned for inclusion. Primary endpoints were defined as the proportion of patients successfully infusing certain infusion parameters (responder rate). The study included three cohorts (n=15 planned per group): 1) Pump-assisted Volume Cohort with weekly infusions at volumes of 25, 40 and 50 mL per injection site; 2) Pump-assisted Flow Rate Cohort with weekly infusions at flow rates of 25, 50, 75 and 100 mL/h per injection site, and 3) Manual Push Flow Rate Cohort with 2 to 7 infusions at flow rates 30, 60 and 120 mL/h per injection site. Each infusion parameter level was tested for 4 weeks, after which those who successfully infused at the current level (responders) were switched to the next level. Responder rate, safety and tolerability were assessed. Study results will be available in early 2020. Conclusions: This study applied a novel and rigorous prospective evaluation of individual safety and tolerability levels of pump-assisted and manual push SCIG at higher infusion parameters than currently approved in the United States and demonstrated their safety and tolerability.

Mika Saarela työryhmän jäsenenä. Background Approximately two-thirds of patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) need long-term intravenous immunoglobulin. Subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) is an alternative option for immunoglobulin delivery, but has not previously been investigated in a large trial of CIDP. The PATH study compared relapse rates in patients given SCIg versus placebo. Methods Between March 12, 2012, and Sept 20, 2016, we studied patients from 69 neuromuscular centres in North America, Europe, Israel, Australia, and Japan. Adults with definite or probable CIDP who responded to intravenous immunoglobulin treatment were eligible. We randomly allocated participants to 0.2 g/kg or 0.4 g/kg of a 20% SCIg solution (IgPro20) weekly versus placebo (2% human albumin solution) for maintenance treatment for 24 weeks. We did randomisation in a 1: 1:1 ratio with an interactive voice and web response system with a block size of six, stratified by region (Japan or non-Japan). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a CIDP relapse or who were withdrawn for any other reason during 24 weeks of treatment. Patients, caregivers, and study personnel, including those assessing outcomes, were masked to treatment assignment. Analyses were done in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol sets. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT01545076. Findings In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly allocated 172 patients: 57 (33%) to the placebo group, 57 (33%) to the low-dose group, and 58 (34%) to the high-dose group. In the intention-to-treat set, 36 (63% [95% CI 50-74]) patients on placebo, 22 (39% [27-52]) on low-dose SCIg, and 19 (33% [22-46]) on high-dose SCIg had a relapse or were withdrawn from the study for other reasons (p=0.0007). Absolute risk reductions were 25% (95% CI 6-41) for low-dose versus placebo (p=0.007), 30% (12-46) for high-dose versus placebo (p=0.001), and 6% (-11 to 23) for high-dose versus low-dose (p=0.32). Causally related adverse events occurred in 47 (27%) patients (ten [18%] in the placebo group, 17 [30%] in the low-dose group, and 20 [34%] in the high-dose group). Six (3%) patients had 11 serious adverse events: one (2%) patient in the placebo group, three (5%) in the low-dose group, and two (3%) in the high-dose group; only one (an acute allergic skin reaction in the low-dose group) was assessed to be causally related. Interpretation This study, which is to our knowledge, the largest trial of CIDP to date and the first to study two administrations of immunoglobulins and two doses, showed that both doses of SCIg IgPro20 were efficacious and well tolerated, suggesting that SCIg can be used as a maintenance treatment for CIDP.

We thank Ravi Uniyal and colleagues for their comments on our results from the PATH trial1 on subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) for maintenance treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). They express concern about the relapse rates in the treatment groups and hypothesise the cause being the pharmacokinetics of SCIg.

Systemic safety surveillance is an essential component of vaccination programmes to elucidate the full safety profile of a vaccine and to detect previously unrecognized adverse reactions that might be related to new vaccines. This article summarizes the spontaneous adverse drug reactions (ADR) from approximately 12 million administered doses of the pandemic MF59-adjuvanted H1N1v vaccine (Focetria®, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics) from the mass vaccination programmes in Europe.All ADR reports from October 2009 to March 2010 were included in the analyses and classified according to Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Adverse events of special interest were compared with pooled spontaneous case reports for seasonal influenza vaccines, and signal detection analyses were performed.In the reporting period we received a total of 5315 pandemic vaccine ADR reports, of which 19.9% were serious. The reporting rate was higher after H1N1 pandemic vaccines, i.e. 44.3 cases/100.000 doses, than for seasonal influenza vaccines covering the same time period, i.e. 1.7 cases/100.000 doses. The majority of reports included expected local and systemic postvaccination reactions. Rates for adverse events of special interest, for example, Guillain-Barré syndrome, anaphylaxis, and convulsions showed no signs of disproportionality between the pandemic and the seasonal vaccines. There were 36 deaths reported after use of the pandemic vaccine; however, no evidence for a causal relationship with the vaccine was found.The analyses of the spontaneously reported adverse events support the good safety profile of the MF59-adjuvanted H1N1v pandemic influenza vaccine.

When monitoring spontaneous reports of adverse reactions to registered drugs, it is important to detect any change in the number of reported adverse reactions in the course of time. Sales adjusted adverse drug reaction rates are usually compared in order to be able to take drug exposure into account. Here we review the so-called arithmetic and some statistical procedures which could form the basis for an alert system. The advantages and disadvantages of each of these methods are discussed. The importance of data requirements and the problems which arise when using an alert system are pointed out and then clarified with the help of the example of diphtheria/tetanus vaccine.

Background Dose-sparing strategies and new production technologies will be necessary to produce adequate supplies of vaccines for pandemic influenza. One approach is to include adjuvant, which can reduce the amount of antigen required for immunization and stimulate cross-reactive responses to drifted variants of novel viruses. Dose-sparing studies of adjuvant, itself a finite resource, have not previously been reported for H5N1 vaccine development. Methodology/principal findings A total of 753 healthy 18–40-year-old adults were randomized to one of 12 groups (N ∼ 60/group) to receive two intramuscular doses, 21 days apart, of 3.75, 7.5 or 15 μg of cell culture grown influenza A/H5N1 hemagglutinin (A/Indonesia/5/2005 (H5N1)/PR-8-IBCDC-RG2), each dose level formulated with 0%, 25%, 50% or 100% of the MF59 dose contained in licensed influenza vaccine. 752 subjects actually received one dose, and 695 a second dose. Serum hemagglutination inhibition and neutralizing antibody levels, were determined before and 21 days after each dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed by self-completed diary cards. Nonadjuvanted H5N1 formulations were poorly immunogenic, but antibody responses were significantly enhanced by all doses of MF59 for each antigen level. The 3.75 μg H5N1 containing 50% MF59 satisfied the European criteria for pandemic vaccine licensure. All formulations were well tolerated, although MF59 dose-dependent increases in the frequency of injection site pain were observed. The frequencies of injection site and systemic reactions were lower after receipt of the second dose of vaccine. No vaccine-related SAE was reported. Conclusions Dose-sparing of both antigen and adjuvant is possible without compromising immunogenicity, while improving reactogenicity and is a promising strategy that will expand the availability of vaccines for global control of pandemic influenza.

Proactive priming before the next pandemic could induce immune memory responses to novel influenza antigens. In an open-label study, we analyzed B cell memory and antibody responses of 54 adults who received 2 7.5-μg doses of MF59-adjuvanted A/Vietnam/1194/2004 clade 1 (H5N1) vaccine. Twenty-four subjects had been previously primed with MF59-adjuvanted or plain clade 0-like A/duck/Singapore/1997 (H5N3) vaccine during 1999–2001. The prevaccination frequency of circulating memory B cells reactive to A/Vietnam/1194/2004 was low in both primed and unprimed individuals. However, at day 21 after boosting, MF59-adjuvanted primed subjects displayed a higher frequency of H5N1-specific memory B cells than plain-primed or unprimed subjects. The immune memory was rapidly mobilized by a single vaccine administration and resulted in high titers of neutralizing antibodies to antigenically diverse clade 0, 1, and 2 H5N1 viruses already at day 7. In general, postvaccination antibody titers were significantly higher in primed subjects than in unprimed subjects. Subjects primed with MF59-adjuvanted vaccine responded significantly better than those primed with plain vaccine, most notably in early induction and duration of cross-reacting antibody responses. After 6 months, high titers of cross-reactive antibody remained detectable among MF59-primed subjects. We conclude that distant priming with clade 0-like H5N3 induces a pool of cross-reactive memory B cells that can be boosted rapidly years afterward by a mismatched MF59-adjuvanted vaccine to generate high titers of cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies rapidly. These results suggest that pre-pandemic vaccination strategies should be considered.

The authors report on an open-label study of an MF59-adjuvanted vaccine against avian influenza. The findings indicate that priming subjects with H5 antigen induces a rapidly mobilized, long-lastin...

Recombinant human albumin (rHA) is a highly purified animal-, virus-, and prion-free product developed as an alternative to human serum albumin (HSA), to which it is structurally equivalent. The present investigation compared the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of rHA with HSA. Two double-blind, randomized trials were performed in healthy volunteers using intramuscular (IM) and intravenous (IV) administration. The IM trial included 500 volunteers, each receiving 5 repeat doses of 5 mg (100 subjects), 15 mg (100 subjects), or 65 mg (300 subjects) of rHA or HSA. Thirty volunteers participated in the IV trial, each receiving ascending doses (10 g, 20 g, and 50 g) of either rHA or HSA. In both trials, all adverse events were recorded and conventionally classified; potential allergic responses were also monitored. Blood samples were taken in both studies to test for IgG or IgE antibodies against test products and potential impurities. For the IV study, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic assessments were performed, including measurement of serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure, and hematocrit pre- and postinfusion. Nine subjects in the IM study (4 recipients of rHA and 5 of HSA) reported drug-related, potentially allergic events; all but 2 of these were skin related. No serious or potentially allergic events were reported with either product in the IV study. There was no immunological response to either product, and dose level did not influence the study outcomes. Serum albumin, colloid osmotic pressure changes, and hematocrit ratio were as expected, with no differences between rHA and HSA. rHA and HSA exhibited similar safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles, with no evidence of any immunological response.