Subcutaneous immunoglobulin replacement therapy in patients with immunodeficiencies – impact of drug packaging and administration method on patient reported outcomes

Table 3 SCIg dosing of the vial and PFS cohorts overall, and stratified by SCIg administration method (pump and manual push).

Dosing	Vial cohort (A)		PFS cohort (B)		p values
Dosing	Summary	n	Summary	n	A vs. B
All respondents
SCIg dose (g/week) (median [IQR])	12 [9, 16]	63	10 [8, 12]	110	0.02
SCIg dose per bodyweight (g/week/kg) (median [IQR])	0.15 [0.11, 0.19]	56	0.13 [0.10, 0.17]	100	0.06
Pump subgroup
SCIg dose (g/week) (median [IQR])	12 [10, 14]	37	10 [8, 16]	37	0.30
SCIg dose per bodyweight (g/week/kg) (median [IQR])	0.15 [0.12, 0.19]	32	0.15 [0.11, 0.20]	34	0.66
Manual push subgroup
SCIg dose (g/week) (median [IQR])	10 [8, 16]	26	10 [8, 12]	73	0.18
SCIg dose per bodyweight (g/week/kg) (median [IQR])	0.14 [0.11, 0.30]	24	0.12 [0.10, 0.16]	66	0.14

Data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test due to the non-normality (skewness) of the distributions. Significant p-values are highlighted in bold. g grams, IQR interquartile range, kg kilogram, PFS pre-filled syringes, SCIg subcutaneous immunoglobulin

ISSN: 1471-2172