4.2 Article

Current usage of intravenous immune globulin and the rationale behind it: the Massachusetts General Hospital data and a review of the literature

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 46, Issue 5, Pages 741-753

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00792.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in 6 conditions: immune thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), primary immunodeficiency, secondary immunodeficiency, pediatric HIV infection, Kawasaki disease, prevention of graft versus host disease (GVHD) and infection in bone marrow transplant recipients. However, most usage is for off-label indications, and for some of these comprehensive guidelines have been published. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all approved IVIG transfusions at Massachusetts General Hospital in 2004 to identify the current usage pattern and completed a literature review. RESULTS: IVIG was most commonly used in the treatment of chronic neuropathy, which included chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) and multifocal motor neuropathy. For such patients, the annual cost of IVIG can exceed $50,000 per patient. Other common indications were the treatment of hypogammaglobulinemia, ITP, renal transplant rejection, myasthenia gravis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, and Kawasaki disease. IVIG was administered in a variety of other indications each representing < 3% of the total treated patients. CONCLUSION: Only a few indications account for most of the usage for IVIG. Reports concerning IVIG continue to grow at a tremendous pace but few high-quality randomized controlled trials have been reported. Randomized trials are especially needed for conditions such as CIDP, which consume large quantities of product.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available