Treatment
The most common treatment for XLA is an intravenous infusion of immunoglobulin (IVIg, human IgG antibodies) every 3–4 weeks, for life. IVIg is a human product extracted and pooled from thousands of blood donations. IVIg does not cure XLA but increases the patient's lifespan and quality of life, by generating passive immunity, and boosting the immune system. With treatment, the number and severity of infections is reduced. With IVIg, XLA patients may live a relatively healthy life. A patient should attempt reaching a state where his IgG blood count exceeds 800 mg/kg. The dose is based on the patient's weight and IgG blood-count.
Muscle injections of immunoglobulin (IMIg) were common before IVIg was prevalent, but are less effective and much more painful; hence, IMIg is now uncommon.
Subcutaneous treatment (SCIg) was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is recommended in cases of severe adverse reactions to the IVIg treatment.
Antibiotics are another common supplementary treatment. Local antibiotic treatment (drops, lotions) are preferred over systemic treatment (pills) for long-term treatment, if possible.
One of the future prospects of XLA treatment is gene therapy, which could potentially cure XLA. Gene therapy technology is still in its infancy and may cause severe complications such as cancer and even death. Moreover, the long-term success and complications of this treatment are, as yet, unknown.
Read more about this topic: X-linked Agammaglobulinemia
Famous quotes containing the word treatment:
“[17th-century] Puritans were the first modern parents. Like many of us, they looked on their treatment of children as a test of their own self-control. Their goal was not to simply to ensure the child’s duty to the family, but to help him or her make personal, individual commitments. They were the first authors to state that children must obey God rather than parents, in case of a clear conflict.”
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“A regular council was held with the Indians, who had come in on their ponies, and speeches were made on both sides through an interpreter, quite in the described mode,—the Indians, as usual, having the advantage in point of truth and earnestness, and therefore of eloquence. The most prominent chief was named Little Crow. They were quite dissatisfied with the white man’s treatment of them, and probably have reason to be so.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“James’s great gift, of course, was his ability to tell a plot in shimmering detail with such delicacy of treatment and such fine aloofness—that is, reluctance to engage in any direct grappling with what, in the play or story, had actually “taken place”Mthat his listeners often did not, in the end, know what had, to put it in another way, “gone on.””
—James Thurber (1894–1961)