History of immunoglobulin replacement

Towards personalized and rational use of immunoglobulins amid expanding indications and shortages

The development of intravenous IgG (IVIG) formulations in the 1970s enabled expanded use for treating primary antibody deficiency syndromes and autoimmune conditions. Recent advancements include the use of IVIG in secondary immune deficiencies related to hematologic malignancies and stem cell transplantation, along with the newly emerging prophylactic applications following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. Novel therapeutic areas such as bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) for lymphoma and myeloma have increased the use of IgG, given the associated risks of infections. Today, the concept of a rational personalized clinical use of IgG in the context of evolving clinical indications in high-income countries (HIC) is emerging, as unmet challenges in line with managing shortages due to increasing demands globally. The current work aims to review and link the indications for IgG to their characteristics and formulations, their dose, route and frequency of administrations and duration of therapy to meet the needs of individual patients. It will also explore the means to rationalize and monitor IgG use in HIC in the time of shortage, while explaining pragmatic strategies to improve supply and use in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Safety and tolerability of pooled human immune globulins after topical ophthalmic administration in New Zealand White rabbits

PURPOSE

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of pooled human immune globulins, Flebogamma® 5% DIF and Flebogamma® 10% DIF, administered by topical ophthalmic instillation to New Zealand White (NZW) rabbits.

METHODS

Male NZW rabbits were used in this study. In the acute single dose tolerability study, rabbits (n = 12) received a single topical dose of Flebogamma® 5% DIF. In the two-week repeated-dose tolerability study, rabbits (n = 5 for each group) were administered either Flebogamma® 5% DIF or Flebogamma® 10% DIF by topical bilateral administration four times daily (q.i.d.) between 8 am and 6 pm for a period of two weeks. Full ophthalmic examinations were conducted to evaluate ocular tolerability at baseline, Day 7, and Day 14.

RESULTS

In the acute single dose study, mild hyperaemia was observed in 1 out of 4 eyes at each 4 h and 24 h post-instillation of Flebogamma® 5% DIF. In the repeated dose study, no ocular signs were detected after q.i.d. topical instillation of Flebogamma® 5% DIF, while Flebogamma® 10% DIF resulted in mild hyperaemia in 8 out of 10 eyes on Day 7, and 5 out of 10 eyes on Day 14. No positive corneal fluorescein staining was detected. Schirmer tear test results were unremarkable. No other ocular signs were observed. Administration of immune globulins had no effect on intraocular pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Flebogamma® 5% DIF and Flebogamma® 10% DIF were well-tolerated by NZW rabbits following single and repeat dose topical ophthalmic administration, supporting the future development of topical pooled human immune globulins for the treatment of ocular surface disease.

Effects of Intravenous Immunoglobulins on Human Innate Immune Cells: Collegium Internationale Allergologicum Update 2024

BACKGROUND

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been used for almost 40 years in the treatment of autoimmune and systemic inflammatory diseases. Numerous cells are involved in the innate immune response, including monocytes/macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic cells, mast cells, basophils, eosinophils, natural killer cells, and innate lymphoid cells. Many studies have investigated the mechanisms by which IVIg down-modulates inflammatory and autoimmune processes of innate immune cells. However, questions remain regarding the precise mechanism of action in autoimmune or inflammatory conditions. The aim of this work was to review the immunomodulatory effect of IVIg on only human innate immune cells. A narrative review approach was chosen to summarize key evidence on the immunomodulatory effects of commercially available and unmodified IVIg on human innate immune cells.

SUMMARY

Numerous different immunomodulatory effects of IVIg have been reported, with some very different effects depending on the immune cell type and disease. Several limitations of the different studies were identified. Of the 77 studies identified and reviewed, 29 (37.7%) dealt with autoimmune or inflammatory diseases. Otherwise, the immunomodulatory effects of IVIg were studied only in healthy donors using an in vitro experimental approach. Some of the documented effects showed disease-specific effects, such as in Kawasaki disease. Various methodological limitations have also been identified that may reduce the validity of some studies.

KEY MESSAGE

As further insights have been gained into the various inflammatory cascades activated in immunological diseases, interesting insights have also been gained into the mechanism of action of IVIg. We are still far from discovering all the immunomodulatory mechanisms of IVIg.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

The Evolution of the Safety of Plasma Products from Pathogen Transmission-A Continuing Narrative

Chronic recipients of plasma products are at risk of infection from blood-borne pathogens as a result of their inevitable exposure to agents which will contaminate a plasma manufacturing pool made up of thousands of individual donations. The generation of such a pool is an essential part of the large-scale manufacture of these products and is required for good manufacturing practice (GMP). Early observations of the transmission of hepatitis by pooled plasma and serum led to the incorporation of heat treatment of the albumin solution produced by industrial Cohn fractionation of plasma. This led to an absence of pathogen transmission by albumin over decades, during which hepatitis continued to be transmitted by other early plasma fractions, as well as through mainstream blood transfusions. This risk was decreased greatly over the 1960s as an understanding of the epidemiology and viral aetiology of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis led to the exclusion of high-risk groups from the donor population and the development of a blood screening test for hepatitis B. Despite these measures, the first plasma concentrates to treat haemophilia transmitted hepatitis B and other, poorly understood, forms of parenterally transmitted hepatitis. These risks were considered to be acceptable given the life-saving nature of the haemophilia treatment products. The emergence of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a transfusion-transmitted infection in the early 1980s shifted the focus of attention to this virus, which proved to be vulnerable to a number of inactivation methods introduced during manufacture. Further developments in the field obviated the risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) which had also infected chronic recipients of plasma products, including haemophilia patients and immunodeficient patients receiving immunoglobulin. The convergence of appropriate donor selection driven by knowledge of viral epidemiology, the development of blood screening now based on molecular diagnostics, and the incorporation of viral inactivation techniques in the manufacturing process are now recognised as constituting a "safety tripod" of measures contributing to safety from pathogen transmission. Of these three components, viral inactivation during manufacture is the major contributor and has proven to be the bulwark securing the safety of plasma derivatives over the past thirty years. Concurrently, the safety of banked blood and components continues to depend on donor selection and screening, in the absence of universally adopted pathogen reduction technology. This has resulted in an inversion in the relative safety of the products of blood banking compared to plasma products. Overall, the experience gained in the past decades has resulted in an absence of pathogen transmission from the current generation of plasma derivatives, but maintaining vigilance, and the surveillance of the emergence of infectious agents, is vital to ensure the continued efficacy of the measures in place and the development of further interventions aimed at obviating safety threats.

Convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have low certainty evidence for our primary outcomes. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

Subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% for the treatment of pediatric patients with primary antibody immunodeficiency

INTRODUCTION

Human immunoglobulin (IG) administered intravenously (IVIG) or subcutaneously (SCIG) is used to prevent infections in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDDs) such as primary antibody immunodeficiencies.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of PIDD with a focus on SCIG treatment, including the properties and clinical trial results of a new SCIG 16.5% (Cutaquig, Octapharma) in pediatric patients. We also discuss the various benefits of SCIG including stable serum immunoglobulin G levels, high tolerability with fewer systemic side effects, and the flexibility of self-administration.

EXPERT OPINION

Individualized treatment for PIDD in children is necessary given the different factors that affect administration of SCIG. Variables such as the dose, dosing interval, administration sites, and ancillary equipment can be adjusted to impact the long-term satisfaction with SCIG administration in pediatric patients. The successful work that has been conducted by both professional and patient organizations to increase awareness of PIDD, especially in pediatric patients, is substantial and ongoing. The importance of early diagnosis and treatment in the pediatric patient population cannot be overstated. The safety, efficacy, and tolerability of SCIG 16.5% have been demonstrated in pediatric patients with PIDDs providing an additional therapeutic option in this vulnerable population.

Early Treatment with Monoclonal Antibodies or Convalescent Plasma Reduces Mortality in Non-Vaccinated COVID-19 High-Risk Patients

Vulnerable patients such as immunosuppressed or elderly patients are at high risk for a severe course of COVID-19 upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immunotherapy with SARS-CoV-2 specific monoclonal antibodies (mAb) or convalescent plasma represents a considerable treatment option to protect these patients from a severe or lethal course of infection. However, monoclonal antibodies are not always available or less effective against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. Convalescent plasma is more commonly available and may represent a good treatment alternative in low-income countries. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes in individuals treated with mAbs or convalescent plasma and compared the 30-day overall survival with a patient cohort that received supportive care due to a lack of SARS-CoV-2 specific therapies between March 2020 and April 2021. Our data demonstrate that mAb treatment is highly effective in preventing severe courses of SARS-CoV-2 infection. All patients treated with mAb survived. Treatment with convalescent plasma improved overall survival to 82% compared with 61% in patients without SARS-CoV-2 targeted therapy. Our data indicate that early convalescent plasma treatment may be an option to improve the overall survival of high-risk COVID-19 patients. This is especially true when other antiviral drugs are not available or their efficacy is significantly reduced, which may be the case with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

The Treatment of Primary Immune Deficiencies: Lessons Learned and Future Opportunities

Primary immunodeficiency is a group of disorders associated with susceptibility to infectious agents and the development of various comorbidities. Many primary immunodeficiencies are complicated by immune dysregulation, autoinflammation, or autoimmunity which impacts multiple organ systems. Major advances in the treatment of these disorders have occurred over the last half-century, and deeper molecular understanding of many disorders combined with clinically available genetic testing is allowing for use of precision therapy for several primary immunodeficiencies. Patients with antibody deficiencies who rely on immunoglobulin replacement therapy now have many treatment options with products that are much safer and better tolerated compared to the past. Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency, now implemented throughout the USA and in many countries worldwide, has lowered the age at which many patients are diagnosed with these diseases. Early diagnosis of severe combined immunodeficiency allows infants to proceed to definitive therapy such as stem cell transplantation or gene therapy prior to facing potentially life-threatening infections. While stem cell transplantation continues to carry significant risks, knowledge gained over recent decades is allowing for improved survival with less toxicity and less graft versus host disease.

Overview of subcutaneous immunoglobulin 16.5% in primary and secondary immunodeficiency diseases

Most primary immunodeficiency diseases, and select secondary immunodeficiency diseases, are treated with immunoglobulin (IG) therapy, administered intravenously or subcutaneously (SCIG). The first instance of IG replacement for primary immunodeficiency disease was a 16.5% formulation administered subcutaneously in 1952. While most SCIG products are now a 10 or 20% concentration, this review will focus on SCIG 16.5% products with a historical overview of development, including the early pioneers who initiated and refined IG replacement therapy, as well as key characteristics, manufacturing and clinical studies. In determining an appropriate IG regimen, one must consider specific patient needs, characteristics and preferences. There are advantages to SCIG, such as stable serum immunoglobulin G levels, high tolerability and the flexibility of self-administered home treatment.

Potential therapeutic approach of intravenous immunoglobulin against COVID-19

Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the therapeutic and management options to reduce the burden of the COVID-19 disease are under investigation. IVIG therapy is used as an effective treatment for immunodeficient patients and patients with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions. The therapeutic effect of IVIG in COVID-19 patients has been investigated. But, the results are controversial and some studies reported no benefit of IVIG therapy. More clinical trials on the effect of IVIG therapy in COVID-19 patients should be performed to establish a certain conclusion about IVIG effectiveness.

Combating Oxidative Stress and Inflammation in COVID-19 by Molecular Hydrogen Therapy: Mechanisms and Perspectives

COVID-19 is a widespread global pandemic with nearly 185 million confirmed cases and about four million deaths. It is caused by an infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which primarily affects the alveolar type II pneumocytes. The infection induces pathological responses including increased inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis. This situation results in impaired gas exchange, hypoxia, and other sequelae that lead to multisystem organ failure and death. As summarized in this article, many interventions and therapeutics have been proposed and investigated to combat the viral infection-induced inflammation and oxidative stress that contributes to the etiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19. However, these methods have not significantly improved treatment outcomes. This may partly be attributable to their inability at restoring redox and inflammatory homeostasis, for which molecular hydrogen (H2), an emerging novel medical gas, may complement. Herein, we systematically review the antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and antiapoptotic mechanisms of H2. Its small molecular size and nonpolarity allow H2 to rapidly diffuse through cell membranes and penetrate cellular organelles. H2 has been demonstrated to suppress NF-κB inflammatory signaling and induce the Nrf2/Keap1 antioxidant pathway, as well as to improve mitochondrial function and enhance cellular bioenergetics. Many preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of H2 in varying diseases, including COVID-19. However, the exact mechanisms, primary modes of action, and its true clinical effects remain to be delineated and verified. Accordingly, additional mechanistic and clinical research into this novel medical gas to combat COVID-19 complications is warranted.

Shaanxi Provincial Diagnosis and Treatment Center of Kawasaki Disease

Kawasaki disease is an acute, self-limited vascuitis that mainly occurs in children under 5 years of age. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has become an effective treatment regimen, which can effectively reduce the incidence of cardiovascular complications. However, there has been no consensus or clinical guidelines for the application of IVIG in children with Kawasaki disease till now. This consensus is developed based on the current research progress on the application of IVIG in children with Kawasaki disease in China and overseas, with reference to the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for Kawasaki disease in China and overseas, and the opinions of experts. This consensus provides recommendations on the clinical application strategy of IVIG in children with Kawasaki disease and the prevention and treatment of its adverse reactions. Citation.

SARS-CoV-2 therapeutics: how far do we stand from a remedy?

The SARS-CoV-2 has affected millions worldwide and has posed an immediate need for effective pharmacological interventions. Ever since the outbreak was declared, the medical fraternity across the world is facing a unique situation of offering assistance and simultaneously generating reliable data with high-quality evidence to extend the scope of finding a treatment. With no proven vaccine or other interventions available hitherto, there is a frenzied urgency of sharing preliminary data from laboratories and trials to shape a global response against the virus. Several clinical trials with investigational and approved repurposed therapeutics have shown promising results. This review aims to compile the information of the reported molecules approved for emergency use and those under clinical trials and still others with good results in the studies conducted so far. Being an RNA virus, SARS-CoV-2 is prone to mutation; thus, the possibility of gaining resistance to available drugs is high. Consequently, a cocktail therapy based on drug interaction with different stages of its replicative cycle is desirable to reduce the chances of evolving drug resistance. Since this virus encodes several proteins, including 16 nonstructural and 4 structural proteins, this review also offers an insight into potential drug targets within SARS-CoV-2.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are being investigated as potential therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of these interventions is required.  OBJECTIVES: Using a living systematic review approach, to assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence.

SEARCH METHODS

To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform, and trial registries. Searches were done on 17 March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. For safety assessments, we also included non-controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) if 500 or more participants were included. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias 2' tool for RCTs, and for NRSIs, the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach, for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, improvement and worsening of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease), quality of life (including fatigue and functional independence), grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies (12 RCTs, 1 NRSI) with 48,509 participants, of whom 41,880 received convalescent plasma. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We identified a further 100 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, and 33 studies reporting as being completed or terminated. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease Eleven RCTs and one NRSI investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 48,349 participants with moderate to severe disease. Nine RCTs compared convalescent plasma to placebo treatment or standard care alone, and two compared convalescent plasma to standard plasma (results not included in abstract). Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We included data on nine RCTs (12,875 participants) to assess the effectiveness of convalescent plasma compared to placebo or standard care alone.  Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.05; 7 RCTs, 12,646 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on clinical improvement for all participants when assessed by liberation from respiratory support (RR not estimable; 8 RCTs, 12,682 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on the chance of being weaned or liberated from invasive mechanical ventilation for the subgroup of participants requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.93; 2 RCTs, 630 participants; low-certainty evidence). It does not reduce the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.08; 4 RCTs, 11,765 participants; high-certainty evidence). We did not identify any subgroup differences.  We did not identify any studies reporting quality of life, and therefore, do not know whether convalescent plasma has any impact on quality of life. One RCT assessed resolution of fatigue on day 7, but we are very uncertain about the effect (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.42; 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Safety of convalescent plasma We included results from eight RCTs, and one NRSI, to assess the safety of convalescent plasma. Some of the RCTs reported on safety data only for the convalescent plasma group.  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma increases or reduces the risk of grade 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.41; 4 RCTs, 905 participants; low-certainty evidence), and serious adverse events (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.90; 2 RCTs, 414 participants; low-certainty evidence).  A summary of reported events of the NRSI (reporting safety data for 20,000 of 35,322 transfused participants), and four RCTs reporting safety data only for transfused participants (6125 participants) are included in the full text. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and asymptomatic or mild disease We identified one RCT reporting on 160 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo treatment (saline).  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma We are very uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on all-cause mortality (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.65; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of convalescent plasma on developing severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence).  We identified no study reporting quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma We do not know whether convalescent plasma is associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (very low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). This is a living systematic review. We search weekly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have high certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for the treatment of individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on measures of clinical improvement. We are uncertain about the adverse effects of convalescent plasma. While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes is still problematic. There are 100 ongoing studies and 33 studies reporting in a study registry as being completed or terminated. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around hyperimmune immunoglobulin therapy for people with any disease severity, and convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.

[Pediatric expert consensus on the application of intravenous immunoglobulin in children with hematological/neoplastic diseases]

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been widely used in chemotherapy for hematological malignancies, targeted therapy, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; however, there are still no available guidelines or consensus statements on the application of IVIG in pediatric hematological/neoplastic diseases at present in China and overseas. This consensus is developed based on the research advances in the application of IVIG in pediatric hematological/neoplastic diseases across the world and provides detailed recommendations for the clinical application of IVIG in pediatric hematological/neoplastic diseases and the prevention and treatment of related adverse reactions.

Importance of immunoglobulin therapy for COVID-19 patients with lymphocytopenia

BACKGROUND

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was announced as pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). With the increased number of infected and dead victims daily all over the world, it becomes necessary to stop or overcome its rapid spread.Main bodyAlthough the production of vaccine or even specified effective anti-virus may take about six months to a year, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) may be clinically used as a safe treatment to save and improve the quality of life of patients with a variety of immunodeficiency diseases such as lymphocytopenia, which is a common clinical feature in COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

Through the current review, it was concluded that this passive immunization may promote the immunity to better fight against the virus, so the survival of the patients could be kept longer. The efficacy of immunotherapy with IVIg would be greater if the immune IgG antibodies were collected from convalescent plasma therapy.

Role of immunoglobulin and antibodies in disease management

The immune system is a highly advanced and coordinated mechanism that allows a living organism to distinguish between "self" and "non-self". The host uses both innate and adaptive immune response mechanisms to identify and eliminate pathogenic microorganisms. Human immunoglobulin is the prominently used blood product in the clinical practice. Immunoglobulin applications have improved rapidly due to the exploration of its immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory properties. This made this blood product into a precious and advanced tool in the treatment of numerous disease conditions which are linked with humoral immune deficiency or that cause immune system dysfunction. Human immunoglobulin (Ig) is used for Ig replacement therapy in both primary and secondary immunodeficiency conditions, for prevention and treatment of certain infections. It also acts as an immunomodulatory agent for autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. Therapeutic antibodies have been successfully used for the treatment of diverse pathological conditions. Drug development programs exclusively select highly specific antibodies that recognize a single disease-associated target. Hopefully this review will give an insight towards the immune system, the involvement of the specialized immune cells, their products and involvement in various immune disorders and pathological conditions.

Intravenous Immune Globulin Uses in the Fetus and Neonate: A Review

Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) is made after processing plasma from healthy donors. It is composed mainly of pooled immunoglobulin and has clinical evidence-based applications in adult and pediatric populations. Recently, several clinical applications have been proposed for managing conditions in the neonatal population, such as hemolytic disease of the newborn, treatment, and prophylaxis for sepsis in high-risk neonates, enterovirus parvovirus and COVID-19 related neonatal infections, fetal and neonatal immune-induced thrombocytopenia, neonatal hemochromatosis, neonatal Kawasaki disease, and some types of immunodeficiency. The dosing, mechanism of action, effectiveness, side effects, and adverse reactions of IVIG have been relatively well studied in adults but are not well described in the neonatal population. This review aims to provide the most recent evidence and consensus guidelines about the use of IVIG in the fetus and neonate.

The utility of a monocyte monolayer assay in the assessment of intravenous immunoglobulin-associated hemolysis

BACKGROUND

Hemolysis following the administration of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is an important adverse event (AE). While the monocyte monolayer assay (MMA) has been used to predict in vivo hemolysis when serologically incompatible blood may be transfused, it has also been shown to correlate with IVIG-associated hemolysis. In this study, the MMA was examined for its utility in assessing the risk of hemolysis after IVIG.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Forty-two non-blood group O patients receiving high-dose IVIG (≥2 g/kg) were examined using an autologous and allogeneic MMA. Hemolysis was defined by a drop in hemoglobin of ≥1 g/L, a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) and eluate, and a decrease in haptoglobin or increase in lactate dehydrogenase and/or reticulocytes.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients provided 50 assessable postinfusion samples, with hemolysis observed in 20 (40%) of cases. Autologous MMA using post-IVIG red blood cells significantly correlated with clinical outcomes when compared to allogeneic MMA (P = .0320 vs .5806, t test). No significant difference in receiver operating characteristics was observed when comparing autologous MMA testing against DAT for the diagnosis of IVIG-associated hemolysis. However, when using samples collected 5 to 10 days after receipt of high-dose IVIG, the autologous MMA had higher sensitivity than the DAT.

CONCLUSION

MMA testing with autologous monocytes collected 5 to 10 days after receipt of high-dose IVIG can be used for the diagnosis of IVIG-associated hemolysis and may be of particular value in cases in which the Day 5 to 10 DAT is negative.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 19 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2.0 tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, mortality (time to event), improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs).

MAIN RESULTS

This is the second living update of our review. We included 19 studies (2 RCTs, 8 controlled NRSIs, 9 non-controlled NRSIs) with 38,160 participants, of whom 36,081 received convalescent plasma. Two completed RCTs are awaiting assessment (published after 19 August 2020). We identified a further 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are randomised (3 reported in a study registry as already being completed, but without results). We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We did not include data from controlled NRSIs in data synthesis because of critical risk of bias. The overall certainty of evidence was low to very low, due to study limitations and results including both potential benefits and harms.  Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from two RCTs (both stopped early) with 189 participants, of whom 95 received convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.34; 1 RCT, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma decreases mortality (time to event) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.25; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may result in little to no difference in improvement of clinical symptoms (i.e. need for respiratory support) at seven days (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 103 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may increase improvement of clinical symptoms at up to 15 days (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.11; 2 RCTs, 189 participants; low-certainty evidence), and at up to 30 days (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.43; 2 studies, 188 participants; low-certainty evidence).  No studies reported on quality of life.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from two RCTs, eight controlled NRSIs and nine non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of safety data and duration of follow-up was variable. The controlled studies reported on AEs and SAEs only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. Some, but not all, studies included death as a SAE.  The studies did not report the grade of AEs. Fourteen studies (566 participants) reported on AEs of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these AEs were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe AEs (very low-certainty evidence).  17 studies (35,944 participants) assessed SAEs for 20,622 of its participants. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (20,000 participants), which reported on SAEs within the first four hours and within an additional seven days after transfusion. There were 63 deaths, 12 were possibly and one was probably related to transfusion. There were 146 SAEs within four hours and 1136 SAEs within seven days post-transfusion. These were predominantly allergic or respiratory, thrombotic or thromboembolic and cardiac events. We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma therapy results in a clinically relevant increased risk of SAEs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. There was limited information regarding grade 3 and 4 AEs to determine the effect of convalescent plasma therapy on clinically relevant SAEs. In the absence of a control group, we are unable to assess the relative safety of convalescent plasma therapy.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies is problematic. The early termination of the first two RCTs investigating convalescent plasma, and the lack of data from 20 studies that have completed or were due to complete at the time of this update illustrate these challenges. Well-designed studies should be prioritised. Moreover, studies should report outcomes in the same way, and should consider the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 138 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 73 are RCTs (three already completed). This is the second living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. Future updates may show different results to those reported here.

Responsiveness to i.v. immunoglobulin therapy in patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis: A novel pharmaco-immunogenetic concept

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) represents a rare drug-induced autoimmune reaction with delayed-type hypersensitivity that initiates the process of developing massive keratinocyte apoptosis, dominantly in the dermoepidermal junction. Although the etiopathophysiology has not yet been fully elucidated, the binding of Fas ligand (FasL, CD95L) to the Fas receptor (CD95) was shown to play a key role in the induction of apoptosis in this syndrome. The knowledge of the role of immunoglobulin G (IgG) in inhibition of Fas-mediated apoptosis contributed to the introduction of i.v. Ig (IVIg) in the therapy of TEN patients. Despite great enthusiasm for this therapy at the end of the 1990s, subsequent studies in various populations and meta-analyses could not unequivocally confirm the efficacy of the IVIg-based treatment concept. Today, therefore, we are faced with the dilemmas of how to adjust therapy of TEN patients most effectively, which patients could benefit from IVIg therapy and what dose of the preparation should be administrated. The ground-breaking question is: do the host genetic profiles influence the responsiveness and side-effects of IVIg therapy in TEN patients? Based on recent pharmacological, immunological and genetic findings, we suggest that the variability of IVIg therapy outcomes in TEN patients may be related to functional variants in Fas, FasL and Fc-γ receptor genes. This novel concept could lead to improved quality of care for patients with TEN, facilitating personalized therapy to reduce mortality.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a living systematic review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To continually assess, as more evidence becomes available, whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trial registries to identify completed and ongoing studies on 4 June 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of study design, disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), and the assessment criteria for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer for non-controlled NRSIs.  MAIN RESULTS: This is the first living update of our review. We included 20 studies (1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs, 16 non-controlled NRSIs) with 5443 participants, of whom 5211 received convalescent plasma, and identified a further 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are randomised. We did not identify any completed studies evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. Overall risk of bias of included studies was high, due to study design, type of participants, and other previous or concurrent treatments. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19  We included results from four controlled studies (1 RCT (stopped early) with 103 participants, of whom 52 received convalescent plasma; and 3 controlled NRSIs with 236 participants, of whom 55 received convalescent plasma) to assess effectiveness of convalescent plasma. Control groups received standard care at time of treatment without convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (1 controlled NRSI, 21 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). Time to death (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma prolongs time to death (RCT: hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.82; controlled NRSI: HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96; very low-certainty evidence). Improvement of clinical symptoms, assessed by need for respiratory support (1 RCT, 103 participants; 1 controlled NRSI, 195 participants) We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma has any effect on improvement of clinical symptoms at seven days (RCT: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.19), 14 days (RCT: RR 1.85, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.77; controlled NRSI: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.29), and 28 days (RCT: RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.81; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life No studies reported this outcome.  Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 We included results from 1 RCT, 3 controlled NRSIs and 10 non-controlled NRSIs assessing safety of convalescent plasma. Reporting of adverse events and serious adverse events was variable. The controlled studies reported on adverse events and serious adverse events only in participants receiving convalescent plasma. The duration of follow-up varied. Some, but not all, studies included death as a serious adverse event.  Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (13 studies, 201 participants) The studies did not report the grade of adverse events. Thirteen studies (201 participants) reported on adverse events of possible grade 3 or 4 severity. The majority of these adverse events were allergic or respiratory events. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  Serious adverse events (14 studies, 5201 participants)  Fourteen studies (5201 participants) reported on serious adverse events. The majority of participants were from one non-controlled NRSI (5000 participants), which reported only on serious adverse events limited to the first four hours after convalescent plasma transfusion. This study included death as a serious adverse event; they reported 15 deaths, four of which they classified as potentially, probably or definitely related to transfusion. Other serious adverse events reported in all studies were predominantly allergic or respiratory in nature, including anaphylaxis, transfusion-associated dyspnoea, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma affects the number of serious adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is beneficial for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. For safety outcomes we also included non-controlled NRSIs. There was limited information regarding adverse events. Of the controlled studies, none reported on this outcome in the control group. There is only very low-certainty evidence for safety of convalescent plasma for COVID-19.  While major efforts to conduct research on COVID-19 are being made, problems with recruiting the anticipated number of participants into these studies are conceivable. The early termination of the first RCT investigating convalescent plasma, and the multitude of studies registered in the past months illustrate this. It is therefore necessary to critically assess the design of these registered studies, and well-designed studies should be prioritised. Other considerations for these studies are the need to report outcomes for all study arms in the same way, and the importance of maintaining comparability in terms of co-interventions administered in all study arms.  There are 98 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin, of which 50 are RCTs. This is the first living update of the review, and we will continue to update this review periodically. These updates may show different results to those reported here.

Cochrane corner: convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19

As the novel coronavirus continues to spread globally and across Africa, efforts are being accelerated to identify effective preventive and therapeutic measures to mitigate its burden. Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin are being considered as potential therapeutic options for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We highlight and contextualize the findings of a recent Cochrane rapid review that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19. From the eight studies it included, the review found limited and low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy in patients with COVID-19. The evidence was limited by the small number of participants and low-quality of included studies, as well as the inconsistency of outcome measures and reporting across studies. As African countries brace for the further spread of the virus, while exploring potential therapeutic options to mitigate its morbidity and mortality at peak, convalescent plasma transfusion may offer a therapeutic ray of hope for the continent. Considering the limited evidence of the effectiveness and safety in the treatment of COVID-19, it is imperative for this therapy to be investigated within African contexts to ascertain not only its effectiveness and safety, but also its practical implications within the capacity of national blood transfusion services and health systems in the region.

Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Convalescent plasma and hyperimmune immunoglobulin may reduce mortality in patients with respiratory virus diseases, and are currently being investigated in trials as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding the benefits and risks is required.  OBJECTIVES: To assess whether convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin transfusion is effective and safe in the treatment of people with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

The protocol was pre-published with the Center for Open Science and can be accessed here: osf.io/dwf53  We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 Research Article Database and trials registries to identify ongoing studies and results of completed studies on 23 April 2020 for case-series, cohort, prospectively planned, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology and performed all steps regarding study selection in duplicate by two independent review authors (in contrast to the recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group). We included studies evaluating convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and studies evaluating standard immunoglobulins.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed recommendations of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group regarding data extraction and assessment. To assess bias in included studies, we used the assessment criteria tool for observational studies, provided by Cochrane Childhood Cancer. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at hospital discharge, improvement of clinical symptoms (7, 15, and 30 days after transfusion), grade 3 and 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.  MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies (seven case-series, one prospectively planned, single-arm intervention study) with 32 participants, and identified a further 48 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma (47 studies) or hyperimmune immunoglobulin (one study), of which 22 are randomised. Overall risk of bias of the eight included studies was high, due to: study design; small number of participants; poor reporting within studies; and varied type of participants with different severities of disease, comorbidities, and types of previous or concurrent treatments, including antivirals, antifungals or antibiotics, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine and respiratory support. We rated all outcomes as very low certainty, and we were unable to summarise numerical data in any meaningful way. As we identified case-series studies only, we reported results narratively. Effectiveness of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 The following reported outcomes could all be related to the underlying natural history of the disease or other concomitant treatment, rather than convalescent plasma. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge All studies reported mortality. All participants were alive at the end of the reporting period, but not all participants had been discharged from hospital by the end of the study (15 participants discharged, 6 still hospitalised, 11 unclear). Follow-up ranged from 3 days to 37 days post-transfusion. We do not know whether convalescent plasma therapy affects mortality (very low-certainty evidence).  Improvement of clinical symptoms (assessed by respiratory support) Six studies, including 28 participants, reported the level of respiratory support required; most participants required respiratory support at baseline. All studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms in at least some participants. We do not know whether convalescent plasma improves clinical symptoms (very low-certainty evidence). Time to discharge from hospital Six studies reported time to discharge from hospital for at least some participants, which ranged from four to 35 days after convalescent plasma therapy.  Admission on the intensive care unit (ICU) Six studies included patients who were critically ill. At final follow-up the majority of these patients were no longer on the ICU or no longer required mechanical ventilation. Length of stay on the ICU Only one study (1 participant) reported length of stay on the ICU. The individual was discharged from the ICU 11 days after plasma transfusion. Safety of convalescent plasma for people with COVID-19 Grade 3 or 4 adverse events  The studies did not report the grade of adverse events after convalescent plasma transfusion. Two studies reported data relating to participants who had experienced adverse events, that were presumably grade 3 or 4. One case study reported a participant who had moderate fever (38.9 °C). Another study (3 participants) reported a case of severe anaphylactic shock. Four studies reported the absence of moderate or severe adverse events (19 participants). We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of moderate to severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). Serious adverse events One study (3 participants) reported one serious adverse event. As described above, this individual had severe anaphylactic shock after receiving convalescent plasma. Six studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred. We are very uncertain whether or not convalescent plasma therapy affects the risk of serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We identified eight studies (seven case-series and one prospectively planned single-arm intervention study) with a total of 32 participants (range 1 to 10). Most studies assessed the risks of the intervention; reporting two adverse events (potentially grade 3 or 4), one of which was a serious adverse event. We are very uncertain whether convalescent plasma is effective for people admitted to hospital with COVID-19 as studies reported results inconsistently, making it difficult to compare results and to draw conclusions. We identified very low-certainty evidence on the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma therapy for people with COVID-19; all studies were at high risk of bias and reporting quality was low. No RCTs or controlled non-randomised studies evaluating benefits and harms of convalescent plasma have been completed. There are 47 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, of which 22 are RCTs, and one trial evaluating hyperimmune immunoglobulin. We will update this review as a living systematic review, based on monthly searches in the above mentioned databases and registries. These updates are likely to show different results to those reported here.

IgY - turning the page toward passive immunization in COVID-19 infection (Review)

The world is facing one of the major outbreaks of viral infection of the modern history, however, as vaccine development workflow is still tedious and can not control the infection spreading, researchers are turning to passive immunization as a good and quick alternative to treat and contain the spreading. Within passive immunization domain, raising specific immunoglobulin (Ig)Y against acute respiratory tract infection has been developing for more than 20 years. Far from being an obsolete chapter we will revise the IgY-technology as a new frontier for research and clinic. A wide range of IgY applications has been effectively confirmed in both human and animal health. The molecular particularities of IgY give them functional advantages recommending them as good candidates in this endeavor. Obtaining specific IgY is sustained by reliable and nature friendly methodology as an alternative for mammalian antibodies. The aria of application is continuously enlarging from bacterial and viral infections to tumor biology. Specific anti-viral IgY were previously tested in several designs, thus its worth pointing out that in the actual COVID-19 pandemic context, respiratory infections need an enlarged arsenal of therapeutic approaches and clearly the roles of IgY should be exploited in depth.

Plasma Donors in the Southwestern United States Positively Contribute to the Diverse Therapeutic Antibody Profile of Immune Globulin Products

Human-plasma-derived immune globulin (IG) is used in augmentation therapy to provide protective levels of antibodies to patients with primary immune deficiency diseases (PIDD) and for prophylaxis against infectious diseases. To maintain the breadth of antibodies necessary for clinical protection, it is important to understand regional patterns of antibody seroprevalence in source plasma from which IG products are manufactured. In this study, source plasma from donation centers in various locations of the Southwestern quarter of the United States was surveyed for antibody titers to hepatitis A virus (HAV), measles virus (MeV), and cytomegalovirus (CMV). A broad range of anti-HAV Ig plasma titers was observed among these centers, with some centers exhibiting 3-5 times the titers of the others. Minor to no differences were observed for levels of anti-MeV and anti-CMV, respectively. Importantly, elevated anti-HAV Ig titers were broadly observed across plasma units obtained from the centers exhibiting high titers, indicative of a potential regional phenomenon among donors as opposed to few donors with singularly high titers. Plasma from these high-titer centers conferred significantly greater neutralization against HAV in vitro. The outcomes of this study give a glimpse of the antibody diversity inherent in human plasma used to manufacture IG products..

The growing importance of achieving national self-sufficiency in immunoglobulin in Italy. The emergence of a national imperative

Since the inception of industrial plasma fractionation during the Second World War, a succession of protein therapies isolated from plasma have determined the volume of plasma requiring collection, and have also shaped the economics of the industry. These so-called plasma drivers have successively included albumin, coagulation Factor VIII (FVIII) and, for the past thirty years, intravenously (IV) and subcutaneously (SC) administered immunoglobulin (IG) solutions. The sale of IG underpins the profitability of the industry and has experienced continuous growth over the past decades, as the result of growing clinical demand. Modelling this demand using decision analysis indicates that supplying the evidence-based indications for IG therapies will generate a need for IG which exceeds the current plasma collection capacity of most countries. A notable exception to this situation is the United States (US) of America, whose population of compensated plasma donors generates two thirds of the global supply of plasma for fractionation. The US is also the leading consumer of IG, and its health care providers pay the highest price for the product globally. Shortages of IG occur whenever the demand for the product outstrips the supply. Current shortages, following other historical periods of shortage, threaten the well-being of patients dependant on these products and incur heavy costs on health systems. In Italy, the national blood system, which is based on voluntary unpaid donors, reflects a policy of national self-sufficiency in blood-derived therapies (a strategic objective of the national blood system itself), based on solidarity as an ethical principle. This system has increased the collection of plasma for fractionation by 3.8% per annum over 2008-2017, in accordance to a plan for plasma procurement targeting a collection rate of 14.1 L of plasma per thousand (10³) population by 2020. Over the same period, IG usage has increased by 8.5/per annum, to 89.2 g IG/10³ population. In this paper, we review the factors which, increasingly, are causing an imbalance between the global supply and demand for IG, and we assess Italy's capacity to ensure that increasing this level of independence is no longer simply an ethical, but also an economic imperative, with implications for the security of Italy's health system.

[Use of intravenous and subcutaneous human immunoglobulins]

Immunoglobulin preparations are medicines derived from blood used as a replacement therapy for immunodeficiencies or as an immunomodulator. While they are generally well-tolerated, side effects, rarely severe, can nevertheless occur when administered intravenously. They are usually related to an excessive perfusion rate. The recent arrival of safer products administered subcutaneously represents progress in the treatment of patients.

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment: Where do dermatologists stand?

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) are therapeutic products, comprising polyclonal IgGs, which are obtained from human plasma pool of healthy blood donors. Despite the lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the experience of using IVIG in various dermatological diseases increases day by day and exciting results are reported. However, experience with the use of IVIG in dermatological indications are mostly case reports whereas randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicentric studies have not been performed. Dermatological diseases treated with IVIG are autoimmune bullous skin diseases, Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis, connective tissue diseases, pyoderma gangrenosum, severe atopic dermatitis, chronic urticaria, Kawasaki disease, pretibial myxoedema, scleredema, and graft-versus-host disease.

Mechanisms of action and historical facts on the use of intravenous immunoglobulins in systemic lupus erythematosus

The current existing therapies for severe cases of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients are still limited. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIGs), which are purified from the plasma of thousands of healthy human donors, have been profiled as efficacious and life-saving options for SLE patients refractory to conventional therapy. The specific mechanism of action by which IVIGs generate immunomodulation in SLE is not currently understood. In this manuscript, we reviewed some of the hypothesis that have been postulated to explain the IVIG effects, including those on T and B cell intracellular signalling and activation, as well as the interferon signalling pathways involved in the detection of nucleic acids and the defective removal of immune complexes and debris.

IgY antibodies for the immunoprophylaxis and therapy of respiratory infections

Emergence of drug resistance among the causative organisms for respiratory tract infections represents a critical challenge to the global health care community. Further, although vaccination can prevent disease, vaccine development is impeded by several factors. Therefore, novel approaches to treat and manage respiratory infections are urgently needed. Passive immunization represents a possible alternative to meet this need. Immunoglobulin Y antibodies (IgYs) from the yolk of chicken eggs have previously been used against bacterial and viral infections in human and animals. Their advantages include lack of reaction with mammalian Fc receptors, low production cost, and ease of extraction. Compared to mammalian IgGs, they have higher target specificity and greater binding avidity. They also possess remarkable pathogen-neutralizing activity in the respiratory tract and lungs. In this review, we provide an overview of avian IgYs and describe their potential therapeutic applications for the prevention and treatment of respiratory infections.

Adverse Effects of Immunoglobulin Therapy

Immunoglobulin has been widely used in a variety of diseases, including primary and secondary immunodeficiency diseases, neuromuscular diseases, and Kawasaki disease. Although a large number of clinical trials have demonstrated that immunoglobulin is effective and well tolerated, various adverse effects have been reported. The majority of these events, such as flushing, headache, malaise, fever, chills, fatigue and lethargy, are transient and mild. However, some rare side effects, including renal impairment, thrombosis, arrhythmia, aseptic meningitis, hemolytic anemia, and transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), are serious. These adverse effects are associated with specific immunoglobulin preparations and individual differences. Performing an early assessment of risk factors, infusing at a slow rate, premedicating, and switching from intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) to subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG) can minimize these adverse effects. Adverse effects are rarely disabling or fatal, treatment mainly involves supportive measures, and the majority of affected patients have a good prognosis.

II Brazilian Consensus on the use of human immunoglobulin in patients with primary immunodeficiencies

In the last few years, new primary immunodeficiencies and genetic defects have been described. Recently, immunoglobulin products with improved compositions and for subcutaneous use have become available in Brazil. In order to guide physicians on the use of human immunoglobulin to treat primary immunodeficiencies, based on a narrative literature review and their professional experience, the members of the Primary Immunodeficiency Group of the Brazilian Society of Allergy and Immunology prepared an updated document of the 1^st Brazilian Consensus, published in 2010. The document presents new knowledge about the indications and efficacy of immunoglobulin therapy in primary immunodeficiencies, relevant production-related aspects, mode of use (routes of administration, pharmacokinetics, doses and intervals), adverse events (major, prevention, treatment and reporting), patient monitoring, presentations available and how to have access to this therapeutic resource in Brazil.

Effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on the function of Treg cells derived from immunosuppressed mice with Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia

AIM

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) on regulatory T (Treg) cells derived from immunosuppressed mice with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) pneumonia.

METHODS

A total of 108 BALB/c mice were randomly divided into the following groups: control group (Control), immunosuppressed group (IS), PA pneumonia group (PA), PA pneumonia in immunosuppressed group (IS + PA), PA pneumonia with IVIG treatment in immunocompetent group (PA + IVIG) and PA pneumonia with IVIG treatment in immunosuppressed group (IS + PA + IVIG). Each group comprised 18 mice. The combined PA pneumonia in immunosuppressed model and the treatment models were established. The mice in each group were sacrificed at 4, 8, and 24 h time points. The general condition and pathological changes in the lung tissues of the mice were monitored. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction was used to detect the forkhead box P3 (FOXP3) mRNA relative expression level in the lung tissues. The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was used to detect the serum concentration of active transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β).

RESULTS

No inflammatory response were exhibited in the lung tissues of the mice in Control group and IS group, while varying degrees of acute lung injury were revealed in the mice in PA group, IS + PA group, PA + IVIG group and IS + PA + IVIG group. Lung tissue injury was most apparent at the 8 h time point, and it indicated the greatest effect in IS + PA group. Whereas tissue damages were alleviated in PA + IVIG group and IS + PA + IVIG group compared with IS + PA group. In addition, tissue damage lessened in PA + IVIG group compared with PA group and IS + PA + IVIG group. FOXP3 mRNA expression levels in the lung tissues and the serum concentration of TGF-β were lower in IS group, PA group, IS + PA group and IS + PA + IVIG group at the 4, 8 and 24 h time points, respectively compared with Control group. FOXP3 mRNA expression levels decreased in PA + IVIG group at the 4h time point and TGF-β serum concentrations decreased at the 4 and 8h time points compared with Control group, and subsequently increased.

CONCLUSIONS

In the immunosuppred model with PA pneumonia, the immune system was greatly compromised. IVIG partially restored the immunosuppressed functions of Treg cells, suppressed the overactivated immune system and ameliorated the development of the disease.

Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: A review of evidence

Human immunoglobulin preparations for intravenous or subcutaneous administration are the cornerstone of treatment in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases affecting the humoral immune system. Intravenous preparations have a number of important uses in the treatment of other diseases in humans as well, some for which acceptable treatment alternatives do not exist. We provide an update of the evidence-based guideline on immunoglobulin therapy, last published in 2006. Given the potential risks and inherent scarcity of human immunoglobulin, careful consideration of its indications and administration is warranted.

The long and winding road to IgA deficiency: causes and consequences

INTRODUCTION

The most common humoral immunodeficiency is IgA deficiency. One of the first papers addressing the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying IgA deficiency indicated that immature IgA-positive B-lymphocytes are present in these patients. This suggests that the genetic background for IgA is still intact and that class switching can take place. At this moment, it cannot be ruled out that genetic as well as environmental factors are involved. Areas covered: A clinical presentation, the biological functions of IgA, and the management of IgA deficiency are reviewed. In some IgA deficient patients, a relationship with a loss-of-function mutation in the TACI (transmembrane activator and calcium-modulating cyclophilin ligand interaction) gene has been found. Many other genes also have been associated. Gut microbiota are an important environmental trigger for IgA synthesis. Expert commentary: Expression of IgA deficiency is due to both genetic and environmental factors and a role for gut microbiota cannot be excluded.

Effect of IVIG Formulation on IgG Binding to Self- and Exo- Antigens In Vitro and In Vivo

In relation to the recent trials of Intravenous Immunoglobulin (IVIG) in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) it was demonstrated that different IgG preparations contain varying amounts of natural anti-amyloid β (Aβ) antibodies as measured by ELISA. We therefore investigated the relevance of ELISA data for measuring low-affinity antibodies, such as anti-Aβ. We analysed the binding of different commercial Immunoglobulin G (IgG) preparations to Aβ, actin and tetanus toxoid in different binding assays to further investigate the possible cause for observed differences in binding to Aβ and actin between different IgG preparations. We show that the differences of commercial IgG preparations in binding to Aβ and actin in ELISA assays are artefactual and only evident in in vitro binding assays. In functional assays and in vivo animal studies the different IVIG preparations exhibited very similar potency. ELISA data alone are not appropriate to analyse and rank the binding capacity of low-affinity antibodies to Aβ or other endogenous self-antigens contained in IgG preparations. Additional analytical methods should be adopted to complement ELISA data.

Clinical Experience with Octagam® 10 %, a solvent detergent virus inactivated intravenous immunoglobulin: a Canadian retrospective review of utilization

In Canada, intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) products are licensed for six disease indications, however it has been demonstrated that patients with a number of other conditions also benefit from IVIg. Here we report the routine clinical use of Octagam^® 10 % across three Canadian institutions. A total of 135 patients were treated with Octagam^®, for conditions represented by five distinct indication groups. The results of this review indicate that Octagam^® has been well adopted and is prescribed to Canadian patients similar to other IVIg products. In alignment with current practices, 85 % of Octagam’s utilization was classified as appropriate based on Canadian IVIg guidelines.

10% liquid human immunoglobulin (KIOVIG®) for immunomodulation in autoimmune disorders

Intravenous immunoglobulins have been used to treat autoimmune disorders (ADs) for over 50 years. The etiologies of various ADs are not fully understood and although intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has proved its immunomodulatory properties, the roles of proposed mechanisms of action also remain a matter of speculation. A systemic search of the literature regarding KIOVIG® (Baxalta US, Inc., MA, USA) use in clinical trials on patients with ADs and a detailed review of retrieved articles revealed eight relevant publications. These articles reported KIOVIG use in multifocal motor neuropathy, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Kawasaki disease, Guillain–Barré syndrome and other autoimmune and neurologic disorders and showed that KIOVIG is an effective, safe and well-tolerated treatment in the studied populations. Nevertheless, further studies on larger patient cohorts are needed.

Intravenous immune globulin and thromboembolic adverse events: A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Prior case reports and observational studies indicate that intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) products may cause thromboembolic events (TEEs), leading the FDA to require a boxed warning in 2013. The effect of IVIg treatment on the risk of serious TEEs (acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or venous thromboembolism) was assessed using adverse event data reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IVIg. RCTs of IVIg in adult patients from 1995 to 2015 were identified from Pubmed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.Gov, and two large prior reviews of IVIg's therapeutic applications. Trials at high risk of detection or reporting bias for serious adverse events were excluded. 31 RCTs with a total of 4,129 participants (2,318 IVIg-treated, 1,811 control) were eligible for quantitative synthesis. No evidence was found of increased TEE risk among IVIg-treated patients compared with control patients (odds ratio = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.44, 2.88; risk difference = 0.0%, 95% CI: -0.7%, 0.7%, I(2)  = 0%). No significant increase in risk was found when arterial and venous TEEs were analyzed as separate endpoints. Trial publications provided little specific information concerning the methods used to ascertain potential adverse events. Care should be taken in extrapolating the results to patients with higher baseline risks of TEE. Am. J. Hematol. 91:594-605, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Passive immunisation, an old idea revisited: Basic principles and application to modern animal production systems

Immunisation by administration of antibodies (immunoglobulins) has been known for more than one hundred years as a very efficient means of obtaining immediate, short-lived protection against infection and/or against the disease-causing effects of toxins from microbial pathogens and from other sources. Thus, due to its rapid action, passive immunisation is often used to treat disease caused by infection and/or toxin exposure. However immunoglobulins may also be administered prior to exposure to infection and/or toxin, although they will not provide long-lasting protection as is seen with active immunisation (vaccination) in which an immunological memory is established by controlled exposure of the host to the pathogen in question. With multi-factorial infectious diseases in production animals, especially those that have proven hard to control by vaccination, the potential of passive immunisation remains big. This review highlights a number of examples on the use of passive immunisation for the control of infectious disease in the modern production of a range of animals, including pigs, cattle, sheep, goat, poultry and fish. Special emphasis is given on the enablement of passive immunisation strategies in these production systems through low cost and ease of use as well as on the sources, composition and purity of immunoglobulin preparations used and their benefits as compared to current measures, including vaccination (also comprising maternal vaccination), antibiotics and feed additives such as spray-dried plasma. It is concluded that provided highly efficient, relatively low-price immunoglobulin products are available, passive immunisation has a clear role in the modern animal production sector as a means of controlling infectious diseases, importantly with a very low risk of causing development of bacterial resistance, thus constituting a real and widely applicable alternative to antibiotics.

The Production Processes and Biological Effects of Intravenous Immunoglobulin

Immunoglobulin is a highly diverse autologous molecule able to influence immunity in different physiological and diseased situations. Its effect may be visible both in terms of development and function of B and T lymphocytes. Polyclonal immunoglobulin may be used as therapy in many diseases in different circumstances such as primary and secondary hypogammaglobulinemia, recurrent infections, polyneuropathies, cancer, after allogeneic transplantation in the presence of infections and/or GVHD. However, recent studies have broadened the possible uses of polyclonal immunoglobulin showing that it can stimulate certain sub-populations of T cells with effects on T cell proliferation, survival and function in situations of lymphopenia. These results present a novel and considerable impact of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment in situations of severe lymphopenia, a situation that can occur in cancer patients after chemo and radiotherapy treatments. In this review paper the established and experimental role of polyclonal immunoglobulin will be presented and discussed as well as the manufacturing processes involved in their production.

Intravenous immune globulin and thromboembolic adverse events in patients with hematologic malignancy

In patients with hypogammaglobulinemia secondary to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or multiple myeloma (MM), intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) may be administered to reduce the risk of infection. Since 2013, IVIg products have carried a boxed safety warning about the risk of thromboembolic events (TEEs), with TEEs reported in 0.5% to 15% of patients treated with IVIg. In this retrospective cohort study of older patients with CLL or MM identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare Linked Database, we assessed rates of clinically serious TEEs in 2724 new users of IVIg and a propensity-matched comparison group of 8035 nonusers. For the primary end point, arterial TEE, we observed a transient increased risk of TEE during the day of an IVIg infusion and the day afterward (hazard ration = 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25, 9.25); this risk declined over the remainder of the 30-day treatment cycle. When considered in terms of absolute risk averaged over a 1-year treatment period, the increase in risk attributable to IVIg was estimated to be 0.7% (95% CI: -0.2%, 2.0%) compared with a baseline risk of 1.8% for the arterial TEE end point. A statistically nonsignificant risk increase of 0.3% (95% CI: -0.4%, 1.5%) compared with a baseline risk of 1.1% was observed for the venous TEE end point. Further research is needed to establish the generalizability of these results to patients receiving higher doses of IVIg for other indications.