Access and use of immunoglobulins in secondary supportive cancer care: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT) benefits patients with primary immuno deficiency (PID) originating from the innate or polygenic defects in the immune system. However, evidence supporting their therapeutic role is not as explicit in secondary immuno deficiency (SID) resulting from the treatment of haematological malignancies. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) create a dataset of relevant research papers, which explore the use of IgRT in SID for analysis, (2) assess the risk of bias within this dataset and (3) study the characteristics of these papers. DESIGN: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. In addition to the risk of bias, the study characteristics explored in this article included study design, study geographical location and year of publication. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: To identify studies relevant to the research question, EMBASE and PubMed databases were searched. The Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) framework was used to assess study quality. Risk of bias and quality of studies were assessed in accordance with the study design. As one model was not appropriate to assess bias in all articles, several tools were used. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were identified from the literature search as relevant to the research objective. The most common study design was a retrospective case–control cohort study (n = 16/43), and randomised trials were among the least commonly used approaches (n = 1). Research in this area is occurring around the globe including the United States (n = 7), Italy (n = 7), China, India, Japan and throughout Europe. The annual number of papers in this area has varied from 2012 (n = 1) to 2021 (n = 7). The studies in this article demonstrated a varied risk of bias, with 9 of the 20 cohort studies scoring less than 5 out of 9 stars. CONCLUSIONS: Randomised controlled trials are less frequently used to assess access and use of immunoglobulins. More commonly, a retrospective case–control cohort study was used which correlates with the higher risk of bias seen in the studies in this article. Most of the research concerning immunoglobulin use and access occurs in higher-income countries.