2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.intimp.2005.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences between IGIV products: Impact on clinical outcome

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
64
0
5

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 92 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
64
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Different IVIg preparations are frequently treated as interchangeable products clinically, but it is well-known that significant differences in product preparations exist that may impact tolerability and activity in selected clinical applications (9). At the current maximal dosing regimens, only partial and unsustained responses are obtained in many instances (2,4).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different IVIg preparations are frequently treated as interchangeable products clinically, but it is well-known that significant differences in product preparations exist that may impact tolerability and activity in selected clinical applications (9). At the current maximal dosing regimens, only partial and unsustained responses are obtained in many instances (2,4).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In clinical practice, different preparations of IVIG or different batches may result in variable beneficial effects. For a biological study, it is therefore very important to describe the reasons for choosing a preparation of IVIG and to consider the specific characteristics of the product that are relevant to a particular clinical response (Elluru et al, 2006;Gelfand, 2006;Gürcan, Keskin, Ahmed, 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the IVIG produced, consumption of the complement was not greater than 50%, as required by the European Pharmacopoeia. The product was kept at pH 4.0 -4.5, which is optimal for maintaining IgG in an unaggregated state (Gelfand, 2006). Initially developed to produce a stable IgG solution, a low pH formulation was also used to achieve a final step involving inactivation of the virus.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Restriction to high-quality studies with a low risk of confounding factors did not show any benefit from IVIG administration with both standard and IgMenriched preparations [10]. Most importantly, the heterogeneous quality of IVIG preparations may represent a major but non-measurable bias across studies [13]. The main conclusion from the meta-analysis was that the current evidence for benefits was inconsistent and inconclusive, and indeed the latest version of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines in 2012 stated: ''we suggest not using intravenous immunoglobulins in adult patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (grade 2B)'' [14].…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%