4.2 Article

Current clinical practice and challenges in the management of secondary immunodeficiency in hematological malignancies

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 102, 期 6, 页码 447-456

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.13223

关键词

chronic lymphocytic leukemia; hematological disorders; immunoglobulins; infection; international survey; IVIG; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin lymphoma; SCIG; secondary immunodeficiency

资金

  1. Octapharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Despite long-standing safe and effective use of immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) in primary immunodeficiency, clinical data on IgRT in patients with secondary immunodeficiency (SID) due to B-cell lymphoproliferative diseases are limited. Here, we examine the correlation between approved IgRT indications, treatment recommendations, and clinical practice in SID. Methods An international online survey of 230 physicians responsible for the diagnosis of SID and the prescription of IgRT in patients with hematological malignancies was conducted. Results Serum immunoglobulin was measured in 83% of patients with multiple myeloma, 76% with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 69% with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Most physicians (85%) prescribed IgRT after >= 2 severe infections. In Italy, Germany, Spain, and the United States, immunoglobulin use was above average in patients with hypogammaglobulinemia, while in the UK considerably fewer patients received IgRT. The use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin was highest in France (34%) and lowest in Spain (19%). Immunologists measured specific antibody responses, performed test immunization, implemented IgRT, and used subcutaneous immunoglobulin more frequently than physicians overall. Conclusions The management of SID in hematological malignancies varied regionally. Clinical practice did not reflect treatment guidelines, highlighting the need for robust clinical studies on IgRT in this population and harmonization between countries and disciplines.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据