4.3 Article

Treatment with intravenous immunoglobulins in systemic lupus erythematosus: a single-center experience with 63 patients

期刊

LUPUS
卷 28, 期 13, 页码 1566-1570

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203319883680

关键词

Intravenous immunoglobulins; systemic lupus erythematosus; SLEDAI; immune thrombocytopenia; infection

资金

  1. Universidad Icesi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is prepared using purified human plasma. IVIG therapy has immunomodulatory effects on autoimmune diseases, including severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, reports of its effects on large cohorts are scarce. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included SLE patients treated with at least one IVIG cycle for SLE complications. Demographic data, indications, cycle numbers, and clinical improvement with IVIG were evaluated. SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K) scores were calculated at admission and after IVIG treatment in order to measure clinical improvement. Results: Sixty-three SLE patients treated with IVIG (median age: 29 years; interquartile range 21-36 years; 84.13% female) were included, who received 2 g/kg IVIG for two to five days. Main indications were immune thrombocytopenia, hypogammaglobulinemia, infection during a SLE flare, bicytopenia, and immune hemolytic anemia. Seven patients received more than one IVIG cycle without severe adverse effects. Significant differences were found in SLEDAI-2K scores when the indications were immune thrombocytopenia and hypogammaglobulinemia, with a trend for hemolytic anemia. Patients with concomitant infection, myopathy, and gastrointestinal involvement showed a considerable reduction in their last SLEDAI-2K scores. Fourteen patients died during hospitalization, mainly due to septic shock and active SLE. Conclusions: IVIG showed adequate tolerance and effectiveness in selected severe SLE manifestations, mainly hematological involvement. It was useful for concomitant infection.

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

4.3
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