Protocol of a dose response trial of IV immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (DRIP study)

Individualizing Therapy in CIDP: A Mini-Review Comparing the Pharmacokinetics of Ig With SCIg and IVIg

Immunoglobulin (Ig) therapy is a first-line treatment for CIDP, which can be administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg) and is often required long term. The differences between these modes of administration and how they can affect dosing strategies and treatment optimization need to be understood. In general, the efficacy of IVIg and SCIg appear comparable in CIDP, but SCIg may offer some safety and quality of life advantages to some patients. The differences in pharmacokinetic (PK) profile and infusion regimens account for many of the differences between IVIg and SCIg. IVIg is administered as a large bolus every 3–4 weeks resulting in cyclic fluctuations in Ig concentration that have been linked to systemic adverse events (AEs) (potentially caused by high Ig levels) and end of dose “wear-off” effects (potentially caused by low Ig concentration). SCIg is administered as a smaller weekly, or twice weekly, volume resulting in near steady-state Ig levels that have been linked to continuously maintained function and reduced systemic AEs, but an increase in local reactions at the infusion site. The reduced frequency of systemic AEs observed with SCIg is likely related to the avoidance of high Ig concentrations. Some small studies in immune-mediated neuropathies have focused on serum Ig data to evaluate its potential use as a biomarker to aid clinical decision-making. Analyzing dose data may help understand how establishing and monitoring patients' Ig concentration could aid dose optimization and the transition from IVIg to SCIg therapy.

Quantifying Treatment-Related Fluctuations in CIDP: Results of the GRIPPER Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the extent of IV immunoglobulin (IVIG) treatment-related fluctuations (TRFs) by using home collection of daily grip strength in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and to use that information to develop evidence-based treatment optimization strategies.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 25 patients with well-defined CIDP. Participants recorded grip strength daily for 6 months. Disability and gait metrics were collected weekly. Serum immunoglobulin G levels were obtained at peak, trough, and midcycle IVIG intervals. Day-to-day grip strength changes <10% were considered random. To identify patients with TRFs, 3-day averaged grip strength was calculated on each consecutive day after an IVIG infusion. TRFs were defined as ≥10% 3-day averaged grip strength difference compared to the pre-IVIG baseline.

RESULTS

Participants successfully recorded grip strength on all but 9% of recordable days. Twelve patients (48%) were classified as low/no fluctuaters and 13 (52%) as frequent fluctuaters. In the frequent fluctuating group, grip strength improved over 1 week and thereafter was relatively stable until the third week after infusion. Grip strength was significantly correlated with measures of disability.

CONCLUSIONS

Grip strength collection by patients at home is reliable, valid, and feasible. A change in grip strength by ≥10% is a useful, practical, and evidence-based approach that may be used to identify clinically meaningful TRFs. From these data, we propose a treatment optimization strategy for patients with CIDP on chronic IVIG that may be applied to routine clinic care during both face-to-face and virtual video or telephone patient encounters.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02414490.

Randomized trial of intravenous immunoglobulin maintenance treatment regimens in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

Background and purpose

High peak serum immunoglobulin G (IgG) levels may not be needed for maintenance intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and such high levels may cause side effects. More frequent lower dosing may lead to more stable IgG levels and higher trough levels, which might improve efficacy. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether high frequent low dosage IVIg treatment is more effective than low frequent high dosage IVIg treatment.

Methods

In this randomized placebo‐controlled crossover trial, we included patients with CIDP proven to be IVIg‐dependent and receiving an individually established stable dose and interval of IVIg maintenance treatment. In the control arm, patients received their individual IVIg dose and interval followed by a placebo infusion at half the interval. In the intervention arm, patients received half their individual dose at half the interval. After a wash‐out phase patients crossed over. The primary outcome measure was handgrip strength (assessed using a Martin Vigorimeter). Secondary outcome indicators were health‐related quality of life (36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey), disability (Inflammatory Rasch‐built Overall Disability Scale), fatigue (Rasch‐built Fatigue Severity Scale) and side effects.

Results

Twenty‐five patients were included and were treated at baseline with individually adjusted dosages of IVIg ranging from 20 to 80 g and intervals ranging from 14 to 35 days. Three participants did not complete the trial; the main analysis was therefore based on the 22 patients completing both treatment periods. There was no significant difference in handgrip strength change from baseline between the two treatment regimens (coefficient −2.71, 95% CI −5.4, 0.01). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes or side effects.

Conclusions

More frequent lower dosing does not further improve the efficacy of IVIg in stable IVIg‐dependent CIDP and does not result in fewer side effects.

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy-Diagnostic pitfalls and treatment approach

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is characterized by progressive weakness and sensory loss, often affecting patients' ability to walk and perform activities of daily living independently. With the lack of a diagnostic biomarker, the diagnosis relies on clinical suspicion, clinical findings, and the demonstration of demyelinating changes on electrodiagnostic (EDx) testing and nerve pathology. As a result, patients can often be misdiagnosed with CIDP and unnecessarily treated with immunotherapy. Interpreting the EDx testing and cerebrospinal fluid findings in light of the clinical phenotype, recognizing atypical forms of CIDP, and screening for CIDP mimickers are the mainstays of the approach to patients suspected of having CIDP, and are detailed in this review. We also review the currently available treatment options, including intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), corticosteroids (CCS), and plasma exchange (PE), and discuss how to approach treatment-refractory cases. Finally, we emphasize the need to adopt objective outcome measures to monitor treatment response.

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.

[Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Diagnosis and therapeutic update]

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathies are acquired demyelinating neuropathies belonging to the group of autoimmune neuropathies. Since specific biological markers are present in less than 10% of cases, the diagnosis is based on the clinical and electrophysiological analysis of each patient. Furthermore, a decision-making algorithm ranking all other available paraclinical tools will guide the physician to the diagnosis of atypical forms. In nearly 80% of cases, these dysimmune neuropathies are responsive to first-line treatments, namely intravenous immunoglobulins, corticosteroids and plasma exchanges. A second line treatment may be proposed in case of no response, intolerance or inaccessibility to the three reference treatments. While some immunosuppressants or monoclonal antibodies can sometimes be very effective, there is currently no predictive marker or recommendation available to determine which treatment will be most appropriate for which patient.