Treatment with Hizentra in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiencies: a real-life, non-interventional trial

A Phase 1 Open-Label Study to Assess the Tolerability, Safety, and Immunogenicity of Hyaluronidase-Facilitated Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin 20% in Healthy Adults

PURPOSE

Hyaluronidase-facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin (fSCIG) 20% will allow reduced infusion volumes and frequency versus existing subcutaneous therapies such as fSCIG 10% and conventional subcutaneous immunoglobulin 20%, respectively. We assessed the tolerability, safety, and immunogenicity of warmed and unwarmed fSCIG 20%.

METHODS

This phase 1, single-dose, open-label, three-arm study enrolled healthy adults aged 19-50 years (inclusive) at a single US center (NCT05059977). Post-screening, participants received a single fSCIG 20% dose comprising recombinant human hyaluronidase and varying doses of in-line warmed or unwarmed immunoglobulin G (IgG) during a 4-day treatment period in a sentinel and sequential dosing design (treatment arm 1, warmed IgG 20% 0.4 g/kg; treatment arm 2, warmed IgG 20% 1.0 g/kg; treatment arm 3, unwarmed IgG 20% 1.0 g/kg). Participants were followed for 12 (± 1) weeks post-infusion. The primary endpoint was tolerability ("tolerable" infusions were not interrupted, stopped, or reduced in rate owing to fSCIG 20%-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)). Secondary endpoints included occurrence of TEAEs.

RESULTS

Overall, 24 participants were included, 8 per treatment arm (mean age 39.0 years, 54.2% men). All participants tolerated the infusions. All TEAEs were mild (107 events, in all participants), and all participants experienced fSCIG 20%-related (105 events) and local (102 events) TEAEs. Infusion site erythema and infusion site swelling were most frequently reported. No serious TEAEs occurred, and no participants discontinued the study owing to TEAEs.

CONCLUSION

fSCIG 20% was well-tolerated with a favorable safety profile in healthy adults. Future studies will evaluate fSCIG 20% in primary immunodeficiency diseases. Trial registration number (ClinicalTrials.gov): NCT05059977 (registered 28 September 2021).

Management of secondary immunodeficiency in hematological malignancies in the era of modern oncology

Secondary immunodeficiency (SID) in patients with B-cell hematological malignancies is a common condition that presents with recurrent infection. SID is due to both the inherent immune defects due to the malignancy, as well as secondary to cancer therapies, many of which have B-cell depleting properties. The early diagnosis of SID and the optimization of intervention strategies are key to delivering the most effective cancer treatments and reducing infection-related morbidity and mortality. This review discusses current practice, recommendations, and challenges for SID diagnosis, based on the evaluation of clinical history and laboratory assessments, and the effectiveness of specific vaccines and immunoglobulin replacement therapy in reducing the frequency and recurrence of infections in patients with SID, and the healthcare system-associated costs.

Infections in secondary immunodeficiency patients treated with Privigen® or Hizentra®: a retrospective US administrative claims study in patients with hematological malignancies

B cell-derived lymphoproliferative disorders are associated with secondary immunodeficiency (SID); some patients require immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) to mitigate infections. Using IQVIA's PharMetrics^® Plus database, patients with SID who received IgPro10/IgPro20 in the 12 months post-diagnosis (IgRT users) were matched to patients with SID not receiving IgRT (non-IgRT users). The risk of severe infection was compared using within-patient change from baseline to follow-up as well as between cohorts. Overall, 277 IgRT users were matched to 1019 non-IgRT users. Before IgRT, more IgRT users experienced any bacterial infection (88.4% vs. 72.9%; p<.0001) or ≥1 severe bacterial infection (SBI) (42.2% vs. 31.8%; p=.0011) vs. non-IgRT users. During follow-up, risk of SBI among IgRT users (21.7%) reached parity with non-IgRT users (21.2%). IgRT was associated with a reduction in SBIs to levels comparable with the lower 'baseline infection risk' of non-IgRT users. These criteria help define SID patients who may benefit from IgRT.