Plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

A pathophysiological and mechanistic review of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy therapy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an immune-mediated disease of the peripheral nerves characterized by proximal and distal muscle weakness and sensory abnormalities. CIDP has been associated with various pathophysiological mechanisms that are not fully understood and that likely differ across groups of patients. It has been proposed that an interplay of different immunopathological mechanisms including the cellular, humoral and complement pathways play a key role in peripheral nerve damage in CIDP. Currently approved treatments and therapies in research often target different potential pathophysiological mechanisms. The efficacy of these different treatments can shed light on the prominence of particular pathophysiological pathways in subsets of patients with CIDP. For example, the complement pathway plays a key role in promoting macrophage-mediated demyelination, and complement inhibitors are under development as new targets in CIDP treatment, with mixed results. The neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) has also been targeted as a promising treatment avenue due to its role in immunoglobulin G degradation. Efgartigimod is the first FcRn blocker approved for the treatment of CIDP. This review provides an overview of key proposed mechanisms of action in CIDP pathophysiology in the context of both basic scientific findings and treatment targets in recent clinical studies.

Rituximab versus placebo for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: a randomized trial

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) often requires prolonged ongoing treatment to prevent worsening. The efficacy of rituximab in preventing worsening after the discontinuation of immunoglobulin therapy in patients with CIDP was assessed. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, conducted at seven Italian hospitals, CIDP patients under immunoglobulin therapy were assigned to receive either rituximab (1 g on Days 1, 15 and 180 ± 7) or placebo. Both groups continued their regular immunoglobulin doses for 6 months post-intervention. The primary end point was the proportion of patients who worsened in any of the following three measures at Month 12, within 6 months after immunoglobulin discontinuation: a decrease of at least one point on the adjusted INCAT score, two points on the MRC sum score, or four points on the RODS centile score. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients deteriorating at Month 18 (within 12 months after immunoglobulin discontinuation), treatment cessation due to adverse events or voluntary reasons, and the time until deterioration after immunoglobulin discontinuation. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06325943) and EUDRACT (number 2017-005034-36), and is now complete. From April 2019 to March 2022, 39 patients were recruited; two withdrew consent. The remaining 37 patients were assigned to rituximab (n = 19) or placebo (n = 18). Median age was 53 (interquartile range 45-64), with 11 (30%) females. A similar proportion of patients in both the rituximab (12/19, 63.2%) and placebo (12/18, 66.6%) groups worsened at Month 12 [odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-3.32]. No significant differences were noted at Month 18 (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.14-2.70), or in the mean scores of each scale at Months 6, 12 and 18. The median time to worsening was 5 months for rituximab and 2 months for placebo (Log-rank P = 0.4372). Treatment was suspended due to adverse events in one rituximab patient. In this study, rituximab was not more effective than placebo in preventing clinical deterioration following the discontinuation of immunoglobulin therapy in CIDP. Further studies might evaluate the efficacy of more frequent or earlier administration of rituximab.

Efficacy and safety of combined low-dose rituximab regimen for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy and safety of combined low-dose rituximab with conventional therapy for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) treatment.

METHODS

Total 73 patients with CIDP were enrolled for the retrospective cohort study, and divided into conventional first-line therapy cohort (n = 40) and combined low-dose rituximab (100 mg per infusion) cohort (n = 33). The outcome measures include scores of I-RODS, mRS, INCAT, ONLS, TSS, and COMPASS 31 scale at baseline and regular four visits (4, 16, 28, and 52 weeks), as well as proportion of favorable response and outcome, corticosteroids dosage, and deterioration occurrence during follow-up.

RESULTS

Compared to conventional therapy cohort, combined rituximab cohort presented better improvements and higher proportion of favorable response in scales assessments at each visit, as well as significantly reduced corticosteroids dosage and deterioration occurrence during the follow-up. Analyses of subgroups showed better improvements in both typical CIDP and CIDP variants in combined rituximab cohort than those in conventional therapy cohort, but had no differences between each other. Early initiating combined rituximab regimen (<10 weeks) showed better improvements than delayed initiation (≥10 weeks) at the first three visits within 28 weeks, while had no difference in favorable prognoses at the last visit of 52 weeks after once reinfusion. No rituximab correlated serious adverse events were reported in our patients.

INTERPRETATION

Our simplified regimen of combined low-dose rituximab has been firstly demonstrated for the better efficacy and safety than conventional therapy in CIDP treatment.

Novel therapies in CIDP

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a heterogeneous but clinically well-described disease within circumscribed parameters. It is immunologically mediated through several poorly understood mechanisms. First-line therapies with steroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) or plasma exchange are each effective in about two-thirds of patients. These treatments are seldom associated with complete resolution or cure, and often pose considerable practical, financial and medical implications.Our understanding of many of the key pathological processes in autoimmune diseases is expanding, and novel targeted therapeutics are being developed with promise in several autoimmune neurological disorders.This narrative review looks first at detailing key pathogenic mechanisms of disease in CIDP, followed by an in-depth description of potential novel therapies and the current evidence of their application in clinical practice.

Pediatric Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: Challenges in Diagnosis and Therapeutic Strategies

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a rare autoimmune neurological disorder seen in both pediatric and adult populations. CIDP typically presents with progressive and persistent weakness over at least 4 weeks in addition to sensory symptoms in the extremities. Although CIDP shares common clinical features between children and adults, it sometimes presents as a distinct clinical entity in children that requires close attention and recognition. A major caveat when diagnosing a child with CIDP is the clinical and diagnostic overlap with inherited neuropathies, most commonly Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). Demyelinating CMT (dCMT) and CIDP might share similar clinical presentations, and sometimes it might be difficult to differentiate them on the basis of the electrodiagnostic findings or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) albumino-cytological dissociation. This indeed merits early consideration for genetic testing in patients who do not respond to conventional CIDP therapies. Current treatment options for CIDP include intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), corticosteroids (CS), and plasmapheresis (PLEX). The need for novel therapies is essential in instances where patients continue to have symptoms despite the standard therapies or due to adverse effects of long-term use of standard therapies such as CS. This paper reviews the challenges in the diagnosis of CIDP in children and the current as well as novel therapies for CIDP.

Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy: Current Therapeutic Approaches and Future Outlooks

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a treatable autoimmune disorder, for which different treatment options are available. Current first-line evidence-based therapies for CIDP include intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulins, corticosteroids and plasma exchanges. Despite lack of evidence, cyclophosphamide, rituximab and mycophenolate mofetil are commonly used in circumstances of refractoriness and, more debatably, of perceived overdependence on first-line therapies. Rituximab is currently the object of a randomized controlled trial for CIDP. Based on case series, and although rarely considered, haematopoietic autologous stem cell transplants may be effective in refractory disease, with low mortality and high remission rates. A new therapeutic option has appeared with efgartigimod, a neonatal Fc receptor blocker, recently shown to significantly lower relapse rate versus placebo, after withdrawal from previous immunotherapy. Other neonatal Fc receptor blockers, nipocalimab and batoclimab, are under study. The C1 complement-inhibitor SAR445088, acting in the proximal portion of the classical complement system, is currently the subject of a new study in treatment-responsive, refractory and treatment-naïve subjects. Finally, Bruton Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors, which exert anti-B cell effects, may represent another future research avenue. The widening of the therapeutic armamentarium enhances the need for improved evaluation of treatment effects and reliable biomarkers in CIDP.

Challenges in the Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy in Adults: Current Perspectives

Diagnosing Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP) poses numerous challenges. The heterogeneous presentations of CIDP variants, its mimics, and the complexity of interpreting electrodiagnostic criteria are just a few of the many reasons for misdiagnoses. Early recognition and treatment are important to reduce the risk of irreversible axonal damage, which may lead to permanent disability. The diagnosis of CIDP is based on a combination of clinical symptoms, nerve conduction study findings that indicate demyelination, and other supportive criteria. In 2021, the European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the Peripheral Nerve Society (PNS) published a revision on the most widely adopted guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of CIDP. This updated guideline now includes clinical and electrodiagnostic criteria for CIDP variants (previously termed atypical CIDP), updated supportive criteria, and sensory criteria as an integral part of the electrodiagnostic criteria. Due to its many rules and exceptions, this guideline is complex and misinterpretation of nerve conduction study findings remain common. CIDP is treatable with intravenous immunoglobulins, corticosteroids, and plasma exchange. The choice of therapy should be tailored to the individual patient's situation, taking into account the severity of symptoms, potential side effects, patient autonomy, and past treatments. Treatment responses should be evaluated as objectively as possible using disability and impairment scales. Applying these outcome measures consistently in clinical practice aids in recognizing the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a treatment and facilitates timely consideration of alternative diagnoses or treatments. This review provides an overview of the current perspectives on the diagnostic process and first-line treatments for managing the disease.

Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIDP): Current Therapies and Future Approaches

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is an acquired immune-mediated polyradiculoneuropathy leading to disability via inflammatory demyelination of peripheral nerves. Various therapeutic approaches with different mechanisms of action are established for the treatment of CIDP. Of those, corticosteroids, intravenous or subcutaneous immunoglobulin, or plasma exchange are established first-line therapies as suggested by the recently revised EAN/PNS guidelines for the management of CIDP. In special cases, immunosuppressants or rituximab may be used. Novel therapeutic approaches currently undergoing clinical studies include molecules or monoclonal antibodies interacting with Fc receptors on immune cells to alleviate immune-mediated neuronal damage. Despite various established therapies and the current development of novel therapeutics, treatment of CIDP remains challenging due to an inter-individually heterogeneous disease course and the lack of surrogate parameters to predict the risk of clinical deterioration.

CIDP: Current Treatments and Identification of Targets for Future Specific Therapeutic Intervention

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is an acquired immune-mediated inflammatory disorder of the peripheral nervous system. This clinically heterogeneous neurological disorder is closely related to Guillain–Barré syndrome and is considered the chronic counterpart of that acute disease. Currently available treatments are mostly empirical; they include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasma exchange and chronic immunosuppressive agents, either alone or in combination. Recent advances in the understanding of the underlying pathogenic mechanisms in CIDP have brought a number of novel ways of possible intervention for use in CIDP. This review summarizes selected pre-clinical and clinical findings, highlights the importance of using adapted animal models to evaluate the efficacy of novel treatments, and proposes the outlines of future directions to ameliorate the conditions of patients with CIDP.

Tacrolimus Combined with Corticosteroids Improved the Outcome of CIDP Patients with Autoantibodies Against Paranodal Proteins

PURPOSE

To investigate the response of tacrolimus to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) with autoantibodies against paranodal proteins, including neurofascin-155 (NF155), contactin-1 (CNTN1) and contactin-associated protein 1 (Caspr1).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all CIDP patients who carried anti-NF155, CNTN1 and Caspr1 antibodies and were treated with tacrolimus at Tongji hospital from Jan 2018 to Apr 2021.

RESULTS

There were 58 patients with CIDP and only 9 patients had autoantibodies against paranodal proteins (17.2%). Five of the 9 patients received tacrolimus treatment with an initial dose of 2-3 mg once daily. One patient with anti-CNTN1 antibody started tacrolimus and corticosteroid treatment, at the first episode and eventually achieved full clinical remission without relapse. Four patients with anti-NF155 or -Caspr1 antibodies experienced relapse during corticosteroids tapering. Then, they were given oral tacrolimus and presented with clinical improvement. During follow-up, only one patient developed worsening weakness due to unreasonable tacrolimus discontinuation. Moreover, 3 patients were successfully withdrawn from corticosteroids and 2 patients took corticosteroids at low maintenance dose (10mg/d) after tacrolimus treatment. No severe adverse events were observed in all the patients.

CONCLUSION

Patients with autoantibodies against paranodal proteins had a better long-term outcome after adding tacrolimus. Combination therapy with corticosteroids and tacrolimus may be an effective therapeutic regimen.

The Role of Plasma Exchange in the Treatment of Refractory Autoimmune Neurological Diseases: a Narrative Review

Autoimmune neurological disorders are commonly treated with immunosuppressive therapy. In patients with refractory conditions, standard immunosuppression is often insufficient for complete recovery or to prevent relapses. These patients rely on other treatments to manage their disease. While treatment of refractory cases differs between diseases, intravenous immunoglobulin, plasma exchange (PLEX), and immune-modulating treatments are commonly used. In this review, we focus on five autoimmune neurological disorders that were the themes of the 2018 Midlands Neurological Society meeting on PLEX in refractory neurology: Autoimmune Encephalitis (AE), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum disorders (NMOSD), Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and Myasthenia Gravis (MG). The diagnosis of inflammatory neuropathies is often challenging, and while PLEX can be very effective in refractory autoimmune diseases, its ineffectiveness can be confounded by misdiagnosis. One example is POEMS syndrome (characterized by Polyneuropathy Organomegaly, Endocrinopathy, Myeloma protein, Skin changes), which is often wrongly diagnosed as CIDP; and while CIDP responds well to PLEX, POEMS does not. Accurate diagnosis is therefore essential. Success rates can also differ within 'one' disease: e.g. response rates to PLEX are considerably higher in refractory relapsing remitting MS compared to primary or secondary progressive MS. When sufficient efforts are made to correctly pinpoint the diagnosis along with the type and subtype of refractory autoimmune disease, PLEX and other immunotherapies can play a valuable role in the patient management.

Novel Immunological and Therapeutic Insights in Guillain-Barré Syndrome and CIDP

Inflammatory neuropathies are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases of the peripheral nervous system that include acute and chronic diseases, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). The etiology and pathophysiological mechanisms of inflammatory neuropathies are only partly known, but are considered autoimmune disorders in which an aberrant immune response, including cellular and humoral components, is directed towards components of the peripheral nerve causing demyelination and axonal damage. Therapy of these disorders includes broad-spectrum immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive treatments, such as intravenous immunoglobulin, corticosteroids, or plasma exchange. However, a significant proportion of patients do not respond to any of these therapies, and treatment selection is not optimized according to disease pathophysiology. Therefore, research on disease pathophysiology aiming to reveal clinically and functionally relevant disease mechanisms and the development of new treatment approaches are needed to optimize disease outcomes in CIDP and GBS. This topical review describes immunological progress that may help guide therapeutic strategies in the future in these two disorders.

Clinical outcome of CIDP one year after start of treatment: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical outcome in treatment-naive patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP).

METHODS

We included adult treatment-naive patients participating in the prospective International CIDP Outcome Study (ICOS) that fulfilled the European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) diagnostic criteria for CIDP. Patients were grouped based on initial treatment with (1) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), (2) corticosteroid monotherapy or (3) IVIg and corticosteroids (combination treatment). Outcome measures included the inflammatory Rasch-built overall disability scale (I-RODS), grip strength, and Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score. Treatment response, treatment status, remissions (improved and untreated), treatment changes, and residual symptoms or deficits were assessed at 1 year.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included of whom 18 (45%) initially received IVIg, 6 (15%) corticosteroids, and 16 (40%) combination treatment. Improvement on ≥ 1 of the outcome measures was seen in 31 (78%) patients. At 1 year, 19 (48%) patients were still treated and fourteen (36%) patients were in remission. Improvement was seen most frequently in patients started on IVIg (94%) and remission in those started on combination treatment (44%). Differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Residual symptoms or deficits ranged from 25% for neuropathic pain to 96% for any sensory deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement was seen in most patients. One year after the start of treatment, more than half of the patients were untreated and around one-third in remission. Residual symptoms and deficits were common regardless of treatment.

Efficacy of rituximab treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current standard treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) has been proved effective, but it is poorly effective in refractory patients and unclear for anti-IgG4 antibody-associated CIDP. Rituximab is a B cell-depleting monoclonal antibody. It has been applied as one of the management strategies in CIDP, but its efficacy is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of the efficacy of rituximab treatment in CIDP patients.

METHODS

Through searches in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, BIOSOS, Web of Science, and Cochrane library on March 31st, 2021, 15 studies were identified. Patients' characteristics, treatment regime and outcome measure were extracted.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients in 15 studies were included. The pooled estimate of responsiveness was 75% (95% CI 72-78%). The standard mean difference (SMD) of Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability score improvement was 1.7 (95% CI 1.0-2.3, p value < 0.0001) and the Medical Research Council (MRC) score for muscle power is 1.3 (95% CI - 2.6 to - 0.1, p value 0.04). All of the anti-IgG4 antibody-positive patients showed excellent responses to rituximab treatment.

CONCLUSION

Rituximab was effective in the treatment in CIDP patients, especially in anti-IgG4 antibody-positive patients. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab in CIDP patients.

Comprehensive approaches for diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is the most common chronic inflammatory neuropathy. CIDP is diagnosed according to the European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) criteria, which combine clinical features with the electrophysiological evidence of demyelination. However, firstly, diagnosis is challenging, as some patients e.g. with severe early axonal damage do not fulfil the criteria. Secondly, objective and reliable tools to monitor the disease course are lacking. Thirdly, about 25% of CIDP patients do not respond to evidence-based first-line therapy. Recognition of these patients is difficult and treatment beyond first-line therapy is based on observational studies and case series only. Individualized immunomodulatory treatment does not exist due to the lack of understanding of essential aspects of the underlying pathophysiology.

Novel diagnostic imaging techniques and molecular approaches can help to solve these problems but do not find enough implementation. This review gives a comprehensive overview of novel diagnostic techniques and monitoring approaches for CIDP and how these can lead to individualized treatment and better understanding of pathophysiology.

Diagnostic challenges in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) consists of a spectrum of autoimmune diseases of the peripheral nerves, causing weakness and sensory symptoms. Diagnosis often is challenging, because of the heterogeneous presentation and both mis- and underdiagnosis are common. Nerve conduction study (NCS) abnormalities suggestive of demyelination are mandatory to fulfil the diagnostic criteria. On the one hand, performance and interpretation of NCS can be difficult and none of these demyelinating findings are specific for CIDP. On the other hand, not all patients will be detected despite the relatively high sensitivity of NCS abnormalities. The electrodiagnostic criteria can be supplemented with additional diagnostic tests such as CSF examination, MRI, nerve biopsy, and somatosensory evoked potentials. However, the evidence for each of these additional diagnostic tests is limited. Studies are often small without the use of a clinically relevant control group. None of the findings are specific for CIDP, meaning that the results of the diagnostic tests should be carefully interpreted. In this update we will discuss the pitfalls in diagnosing CIDP and the value of newly introduced diagnostic tests such as nerve ultrasound and testing for autoantibodies, which are not yet part of the guidelines.

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy in clinical practice: A survey among Dutch neurologists

The diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is often a challenge. The clinical presentation is diverse, accurate biomarkers are lacking, and the best strategy to initiate and maintain treatment is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine how neurologists diagnose and treat CIDP. We conducted a cross‐sectional survey on diagnostic and treatment practices among Dutch neurologists involved in the clinical care of CIDP patients. Forty‐four neurologists completed the survey (44/71; 62%). The respondents indicated to use the European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) 2010 CIDP guideline for the diagnosis in 77% and for treatment in 50%. Only 57% of respondents indicated that the presence of demyelinating electrophysiological findings was mandatory to confirm the diagnosis of CIDP. Most neurologists used intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) as first choice treatment, but the indications to start, optimize, or withdraw IVIg, and the use of other immune‐modulatory therapies varied. University‐affiliated respondents used the EFNS/PNS 2010 diagnostic criteria, nerve imaging tools, and immunosuppressive drugs more often. Despite the existence of an international guideline, there is considerable variation among neurologists in the strategies employed to diagnose and treat CIDP. More specific recommendations regarding: (a) the minimal set of electrophysiological requirements to diagnose CIDP, (b) the possible added value of nerve imaging, especially in patients not meeting the electrodiagnostic criteria, (c) the most relevant serological examinations, and (d) the clear treatment advice, in the new EFNS/PNS guideline, would likely support its implementation in clinical practice.

Immunoadsorption and Plasma Exchange in Seropositive and Seronegative Immune-Mediated Neuropathies

The inflammatory neuropathies are disabling conditions with diverse immunological mechanisms. In some, a pathogenic role for immunoglobulin G (IgG)-class autoantibodies is increasingly appreciated, and immunoadsorption (IA) may therefore be a useful therapeutic option. We reviewed the use of and response to IA or plasma exchange (PLEx) in a cohort of 41 patients with nodal/paranodal antibodies identified from a total of 573 individuals with suspected inflammatory neuropathies during the course of routine diagnostic testing (PNAb cohort). 20 patients had been treated with PLEx and 4 with IA. Following a global but subjective evaluation by their treating clinicians, none of these patients were judged to have had a good response to either of these treatment modalities. Sequential serology of one PNAb+ case suggests prolonged suppression of antibody levels with frequent apheresis cycles or adjuvant therapies, may be required for effective treatment. We further retrospectively evaluated the serological status of 40 patients with either Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) or chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and a control group of 20 patients with clinically-isolated syndrome/multiple sclerosis (CIS/MS), who had all been treated with IgG-depleting IA (IA cohort). 32 of these patients (8/20 with CIDP, 13/20 with GBS, 11/20 with MS) were judged responsive to apheresis despite none of the serum samples from this cohort testing positive for IgG antibodies against glycolipids or nodal/paranodal cell-adhesion molecules. Although negative on antigen specific assays, three patients' pre-treatment sera and eluates were reactive against different components of myelinating co-cultures. In summary, preliminary evidence suggests that GBS/CIDP patients without detectable IgG antibodies on routine diagnostic tests may nevertheless benefit from IA, and that an unbiased screening approach using myelinating co-cultures may assist in the detection of further autoantibodies which remain to be identified in such patients.

Perspective: Is therapeutic plasma exchange a viable option for treating Alzheimer's disease?

Therapeutic plasma exchange, consisting of removing blood plasma and exchanging it with donated blood products, has been proposed for treating Alzheimer's disease (AD) to remove senescent or toxic factors. In preclinical studies, administration of plasma from young healthy mice to AD transgenic mice improved cognitive deficits without affecting brain amyloid plaques. Initial encouraging results have been collected in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in nine AD patients receiving young plasma. In a 14-month double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 322 AD patients, multiple infusions with plasma enriched with albumin with or without immunoglobulins slowed cognitive, functional, and clinical decline, especially in moderately affected patients. Clinical trials of plasma fractions containing hypothetically beneficial proteins are also under way. These initial positive clinical results need to be confirmed in larger and more rigorous controlled studies in which the possible benefits of plasma exchange approaches can be weighed against the intrinsic side effects of repetitive infusion procedures.

Polyneuropathies

BACKGROUND

Polyneuropathies (peripheral neuropathies) are the most common type of disorder of the peripheral nervous system in adults, and specifically in the elderly, with an estimated prevalence of 5-8%, depending on age. The options for treatment depend on the cause, which should therefore be identified as precisely as possible by an appropriate diagnostic evaluation.

METHODS

This review is based on the current guidelines and on large-scale cohort studies and randomized, controlled trials published from 2000 to 2017, with an emphasis on non-hereditary types of polyneuropathy, that were retrieved by a selective search in PubMed.

RESULTS

Diabetes is the most common cause of polyneuropathy in Europe and North America. Alcohol-associated polyneuropathy has a prevalence of 22-66% among persons with chronic alcoholism. Because of the increasing prevalence of malignant disease and the use of new chemotherapeutic drugs, chemotherapy-induced neuropathies (CIN) have gained in clinical importance; their prevalence is often stated to be 30-40%, with high variation depending on the drug(s) and treatment regimen used. Polyneuropathy can also arise from genetic causes or as a consequence of vitamin deficiency or overdose, exposure to toxic substances and drugs, and a variety of immunological processes. About half of all cases of polyneu - ropathy are associated with pain. Neuropathic pain can be treated symptomatically with medication. Exercise, physiotherapy, and ergotherapy can also be beneficial, depending on the patient's symptoms and functional deficits.

CONCLUSION

A timely diagnosis of the cause of polyneuropathy is a prerequisite for the initiation of appropriate specific treatment. Patients with severe neuropathy of unidentified cause should be referred to a specialized center for a thorough diagnostic evaluation.

Plasma exchange in neurological disease

Plasma exchange is a highly efficient technique to remove circulating autoantibodies and other humoral factors rapidly from the vascular compartment. It was the first effective acute treatment for peripheral disorders such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and myasthenia gravis before intravenous immunoglobulin became available. The recent recognition of rapidly progressive severe antibody-mediated central nervous system disorders, such as neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders and anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate-receptor encephalitis, has renewed interest in using plasma exchange for their acute treatment also. In this review we explain the principles and technical aspects of plasma exchange, review its current indications, and discuss the implications for its provision in the UK.

Treatment Patterns and Costs of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: A Claims Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroids, plasma exchange, and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) have been standard-of-care treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) for more than 2 decades. Despite guideline recommendations for best clinical practices, heterogeneity in patient presentation and the course of treatment for CIDP remains. There is limited literature regarding the real-world treatment patterns of and costs associated with CIDP.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze and describe the real-world treatment patterns of and economic burden associated with CIDP.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the treatment patterns and CIDP-related healthcare costs over a 2-year follow-up period for patients with newly diagnosed CIDP who had commercial insurance, using claims data from the IMS LifeLink PharMetrics Plus Claims database between 2009 through 2014. Treatment-naïve patients with newly diagnosed CIDP were evaluated for 2 years postdiagnosis, which captured the treatments used and the resource utilization. The patients were defined as receiving active CIDP therapy (ie, IVIG, immunosuppressants, oral or intravenous steroids, or plasma exchange) or active surveillance.

RESULTS

Of the 525 patients identified with newly diagnosed CIDP, 55.2% of patients were prescribed only steroid therapy, and 25.3% of patients were prescribed an IVIG therapy during the 2-year follow-up. The median time to the initial treatment was shortest for patients receiving plasma exchange alone (0.03 months) or in combination with a steroid (0.03 months), followed by IVIG plus another therapy (0.53 months), and then IVIG alone (0.71 months). Initiating therapy with steroids alone took the longest mean time (6.51 months) to start the treatment. The median length of time to receive therapy was longest for the steroid plus plasma exchange cohort (21.8 months), followed by the steroid plus immunosuppressant cohort (10.1 months), and the 2 IVIG cohorts (9.04 months for IVIG alone and 9.82 months for IVIG plus another therapy). The mean total CIDP-specific 2-year follow-up costs were highest for the cohort that received IVIG alone ($119,928) or with an additional therapy ($133,334) and lowest for patients who received active surveillance ($3723) or steroids alone ($3101).

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid therapy was initiated later and resulted in a shorter duration of treatment than other treatment options for patients with CIDP, which may reflect diagnostic uncertainty, disease severity or remission, therapeutic challenge to determine diagnosis, or the side-effect profile of steroids. The use of steroids alone was the most common prescribed treatment for CIDP. Further research is needed to understand the rationale for treatment decisions in this patient population and their potential impact on patients and health plans.

Efficacy and Safety of Octagam® in Patients With Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy

Introduction

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a debilitating autoimmune neuropathy that is treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the sucrose-free IVIG Octagam® (Octapharma AG, Lachen, Switzerland) in patients with CIDP.

Methods

Data from 47 patients who received at least one dose of Octagam were collected from the records of 11 centres in France. Efficacy was assessed using Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale (ONLS). Safety was evaluated using adverse event rates.

Results

Data from 24 patients who were IVIG naïve (n = 11) or had stopped IVIG ≥ 12 weeks before   initiation of Octagam therapy (washout group; n  = 13) were included in the efficacy analysis. At 4 months post-initiation of Octagam treatment, 41.7% of patients had improved their functional status (decrease of ≥ 1 ONLS score) with a significant change   in the ONLS score from baseline (– 0.42; p = 0.04; signed test). Functional status was reduced in only two patients: one patient in the IVIG-naïve group and one patient in the IVIG-washout group. All 47 patients were included in the safety analysis, which showed that Octagam was well tolerated, with a frequency of 0.04 adverse events per Octagam course. The most common adverse drug reaction was headache.

Conclusions

These real-life results are consistent with the efficacy and safety of IVIG reported in randomised controlled studies. A long-term prospective study of Octagam in patients with CIDP is warranted.

Funding

Octapharma, France SAS.

Corticosteroids in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy : A retrospective, multicentre study, comparing efficacy and safety of daily prednisolone, pulsed dexamethasone, and pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone

Background

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) can be treated with corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulins. Various corticosteroid regimens are currently used in CIDP, but it is unknown whether they are equally efficacious. In this retrospective study, we compared efficacy and safety of three corticosteroid regimens in CIDP patients.

Methods

We included treatment naïve patients that fulfilled the EFNS/PNS criteria for CIDP. Patients were treated with corticosteroids according to the local protocol of three CIDP expertise centres. Corticosteroid regimens consisted of daily oral prednisolone, pulsed oral dexamethasone, or pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone. Outcomes were number of responders to treatment, remission rate of treatment responders, overall probability of 5-year remission, and the occurrence of adverse events.

Results

A total of 125 patients were included. Sixty-seven (54%) patients received daily prednisone or prednisolone, 37 (30%) pulsed dexamethasone, and 21 (17%) pulsed intravenous methylprednisolone. Overall, 60% (95% CI 51–69%) responded to corticosteroids, with no significant difference between the three treatment regimens (p = 0.56). From the 75 responders, 61% (95% CI 50–73%) remained in remission, during a median follow-up of 55 months (range 1–197 months). The probability of responders reaching 5-year remission was 55% (95% Cl 44–70%), with no difference between the three groups. Adverse events leading to a change in treatment occurred in ten patients (8%). Two patients had a serious adverse event.

Conclusion

Corticosteroids lead to improvement in 60% of patients and to remission in 61% of treatment responders. There were no differences between treatment modalities in terms of efficacy and safety.

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.

Antibodies against peripheral nerve antigens in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a heterogeneous disease in which diverse autoantibodies have been described but systematic screening has never been performed. Detection of CIDP-specific antibodies may be clinically useful. We developed a screening protocol to uncover novel reactivities in CIDP. Sixty-five CIDP patients and 28 controls were included in our study. Three patients (4.6%) had antibodies against neurofascin 155, four (6.2%) against contactin-1 and one (1.5%) against the contactin-1/contactin-associated protein-1 complex. Eleven (18.6%) patients showed anti-ganglioside antibodies, and one (1.6%) antibodies against peripheral myelin protein 2. No antibodies against myelin protein zero, contactin-2/contactin-associated protein-2 complex, neuronal cell adhesion molecule, gliomedin or the voltage-gated sodium channel were detected. In IgG experiments, three patients (5.3%) showed a weak reactivity against motor neurons; 14 (24.6%) reacted against DRG neurons, four of them strongly (7.0%), and seven (12.3%) reacted against Schwann cells, three of them strongly (5.3%). In IgM experiments, six patients (10.7%) reacted against DRG neurons, while three (5.4%) reacted against Schwann cells. However, results were not statistically significant when compared to controls. Immunoprecipitation experiments identified CD9 and L1CAM as potential antigens, but reactivity could not be confirmed with cell-based assays. In summary, we describe a diverse autoantibody repertoire in CIDP patients, reinforcing the hypothesis of CIDP’s pathophysiological heterogeneity.

Autoantibodies in chronic inflammatory neuropathies: diagnostic and therapeutic implications

The chronic inflammatory neuropathies (CINs) are rare, very disabling autoimmune disorders that generally respond well to immune therapies such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). The most common forms of CIN are chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), multifocal motor neuropathy, and polyneuropathy associated with monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance. The field of CIN has undergone a major advance with the identification of IgG4 autoantibodies directed against paranodal proteins in patients with CIDP. Although these autoantibodies are only found in a small subset of patients with CIDP, they can be used to guide therapeutic decision-making, as these patients have a poor response to IVIg. These observations provide proof of concept that identifying the target antigens in tissue-specific antibody-mediated autoimmune diseases is important, not only to understand their underlying pathogenic mechanisms, but also to correctly diagnose and treat affected patients. This state-of-the-art Review focuses on the role of autoantibodies against nodes of Ranvier in CIDP, a clinically relevant emerging field of research. The role of autoantibodies in other immune-mediated neuropathies, including other forms of CIN, primary autoimmune neuropathies, neoplasms, and systemic diseases that resemble CIN, are also discussed.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a disease that causes progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably caused by an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. This review was first published in 2003 and has been updated most recently in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and plasma exchange in CIDP.

SEARCH METHODS

On 24 May 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS for completed trials, and clinical trial registers for ongoing trials. We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab, and all immunomodulatory agents, such as interferon (IFN) alfa and IFN beta, in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for CIDP. We included all comparisons of these agents with placebo, another treatment, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation); change in impairment after at least one year; change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year; and for participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria: one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of IFN beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). The risk of bias was considered low in the trials of IFN beta-1a and methotrexate but high in the trial of azathioprine. None of the trials showed significant benefit in any of the outcomes selected by their authors. The results of the outcomes which approximated most closely to the primary outcome for this review were as follows.In the azathioprine trial there was a median improvement in the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (scale range 0 to 280) after nine months of 29 points (range 49 points worse to 84 points better) in the azathioprine and prednisone treated participants compared with 30 points worse (range 20 points worse to 104 points better) in the prednisone alone group. There were no reports of adverse events.In a cross-over trial of IFN beta-1a with 20 participants, the treatment periods were 12 weeks. The median improvement in the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (range 1 to 10) was 0.5 grades (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8 grades better to zero grade change) in the IFN beta-1a treatment period and 0.5 grades (IQR 1.8 grades better to 1.0 grade worse) in the placebo treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment period.In a parallel group trial of IFN beta-1a with 67 participants, none of the outcomes for this review was available. The trial design involved withdrawal from ongoing IVIg treatment. The primary outcome used by the trial authors was total IVIg dose administered from week 16 to week 32 in the placebo group compared with the IFN beta-1a groups. This was slightly but not significantly lower in the combined IFN beta-1a groups (1.20 g/kg) compared with the placebo group (1.34 g/kg, P = 0.75). There were four participants in the IFN beta-1a group and none in the placebo group with one or more serious adverse events, risk ratio (RR) 4.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 80.05).The methotrexate trial had a similar design involving withdrawal from ongoing corticosteroid or IVIg treatment. At the end of the trial (approximately 40 weeks) there was no significant difference in the change in the Overall Neuropathy Limitations Scale, a disability scale (scale range 0 to 12), the median change being 0 (IQR -1 to 0) in the methotrexate group and 0 (IQR -0.75 to 0) in the placebo group. These changes in disability might have been confounded by the reduction in corticosteroid or IVIg dose required by the protocol. There were three participants in the methotrexate group and one in the placebo with one or more serious adverse events, RR 3.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 32.23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine or interferon beta-1a and moderate-quality evidence from one randomised trial does not show significant benefit from a relatively low dose of methotrexate for the treatment of CIDP. None of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures relevant to people with CIDP, and longer treatment durations.

Treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP): an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.

MAIN RESULTS

Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.