Intravenous immunoglobulin for severe infections: a survey of Canadian specialists

Role of Immunoglobulin Therapy to Prevent and Treat Infections

Immunoglobulins have been used widely in medicine for a variety of diseases including infectious diseases. While the main clinical applications of immunoglobulin therapy concern their use as replacement for patients with primary immunodeficiencies, or as treatment for autoimmune and inflammatory disorders, their role in infectious disease is limited largely to viral and toxin neutralization and replacement therapy in patients with immunoglobulin deficiencies. Many aspects of the therapeutic regimen of immunoglobulins even in the established indications remain open. Recently, due to the worldwide surge of immunosuppression caused by AIDS, organ transplantation, cancer, and autoimmune therapies, as well as the emergence of multidrug-resistant bacteria, there has been renewed interest in the use of antibody preparation to prevent infections in high-risk groups.

Knowing the limitations of the current anti-infective armamentarium, approaches that target the host through manipulations to augment the host immune response provide a helpful aid to conventional treatment options. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that strategies aiming to support or stimulate immune response could be feasible approaches that would benefit immunocompromised patients. In the present chapter, we present contemporary indications of immunoglobulin administration for therapy and prophylaxis of infections in the immunocompromised population.

Intravenous immunoglobulin in critically ill adults: When and what is the evidence?

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) use is growing dramatically internationally due to the increasing numbers of acute and chronic conditions that may benefit from IVIg. Patients with conditions that may benefit from IVIg might require intensive care unit (ICU) admission, supporting the need to review IVIg use in the critical care setting. The most common clinical indications for IVIg in adults that may require ICU admission and are commonly supported under clinical practice guidelines are Guillain-Barré syndrome, myasthenia gravis and Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome, inflammatory myopathies, and primary or secondary immunodeficiency diseases complicated by severe bacterial sepsis. Other emerging indications include necrotizing fasciitis, toxic epidermal necrolysis/Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxic shock syndrome. The evidence for IVIg use in sepsis and septic shock remains controversial and insufficient to recommend its routine use. Intravenous immunoglobulin is expensive and also carries risks of adverse effects, including common and benign infusion-related reactions, as well as relatively rare and more serious problems, such as thromboembolic events, renal failure, and aseptic meningitis. In this article, we review the literature on conditions requiring ICU admission and IVIg, and we classify them as supported, emerging, or unsupported indications based on the available evidence and guidelines for clinical use of IVIg.

Clinical applications of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg)--beyond immunodeficiencies and neurology

The clinical use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has expanded beyond its traditional place in the treatment of patients with primary immunodeficiencies. Due to its multiple anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory properties, IVIg is used successfully in a wide range of autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. Recognized autoimmune indications include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), Kawasaki disease, Guillain-Barré syndrome and other autoimmune neuropathies, myasthenia gravis, dermatomyositis and several rare diseases. Several other indications are currently under investigation and require additional studies to establish firmly the benefit of IVIg treatment. Increasing attention is being turned to the use of IVIg in combination with other agents, such as immunosuppressive agents or monoclonal antibodies. For example, recent studies suggest that combination therapy with IVIg and rituximab (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) may be effective for treatment of autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases (AMBDs), with sustained clinical remission. The combination of IVIg and rituximab has also been used in the setting of organ transplantation. Firstly, IVIg +/- rituximab has been administered to highly human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-sensitized patients to reduce anti-HLA antibody levels, thereby allowing transplantation in these patients. Secondly, IVIg in combination with rituximab is effective in the treatment of antibody-mediated rejection following transplantation. Treatment with polyclonal IVIg is a promising adjunctive therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock, but its use remains controversial and further study is needed before it can be recommended routinely. This review covers new developments in these fields and highlights the broad range of potential therapeutic areas in which IVIg may have a clinical impact.

A survey of physician's attitudes regarding management of severe group A streptococcal infections

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) use in the management of streptococcal toxic shock syndrome remains highly controversial. To evaluate the current management of severe group A streptococcal infections and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing immunoglobulins versus placebo for streptococcal toxic shock syndrome and/or necrotizing fasciitis, a 32-question mail and web-based survey of Canadian infectious disease specialists was conducted between December 2003 and February 2004. Overall, 172 respondents (90.5%) recommended immunoglobulins as adjunctive treatment of streptococcal toxic shock compared to 67 (35.3%) for fasciitis without toxic shock and 93 (48.9%) for invasive group A streptococcal infections with hypotension. A considerable proportion of respondents agreed that a randomized clinical trial in streptococcal toxic shock (70.1%, 131/187) and necrotizing fasciitis without toxic shock (88.2%, 162/186) would be ethical. From these, a great majority would be willing to enroll patients in a trial comparing IVIG to placebo for streptococcal toxic shock (125/131, 95.4%) and necrotizing fasciitis without shock (152/162, 93.8%). These initial results clearly demonstrate ambivalence in the utilization of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in invasive group A streptococcal infections in Canada and emphasize the need for further clinical data on immunoglobulin use in streptococcal toxic shock syndrome. They also demonstrate that, although the majority of physicians recommend immunoglobulins, there is important variability between physician recommendations with regard to the indications of use, dose, and time of administration.