Efficacy and safety of IVIG in CIDP: Combined data of the PRIMA and PATH studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is a potential therapy for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). To investigate the efficacy and safety of the IVIG IgPro10 (Privigen) for treatment of CIDP, results from Privigen Impact on Mobility and Autonomy (PRIMA), a prospective, open-label, single-arm study of IVIG in immunoglobulin (Ig)-naïve or IVIG pre-treated subjects (NCT01184846, n = 28) and Polyneuropathy And Treatment with Hizentra (PATH), a double-blind, randomized study including an open-label, single-arm IVIG phase in IVIG pre-treated subjects (NCT01545076, IVIG restabilization phase n = 207) were analyzed separately and together (n = 235). Efficacy assessments included change in adjusted inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (INCAT) score, grip strength and Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and ADRs/infusion were recorded. Adjusted INCAT response rate was 60.7% in all PRIMA subjects at Week 25 (76.9% in IVIG pre-treated subjects) and 72.9% in PATH. In the pooled cohort (n = 235), INCAT response rate was 71.5%; median time to INCAT improvement was 4.3 weeks. No clear demographic differences were noticed between early (responding before Week 7, n = 148) and late responders (n = 21). In the pooled cohort, median change from baseline to last observation was -1.0 (interquartile range -2.0; 0.0) point for INCAT score; +8.0 (0.0; 20.0) kPa for maximum grip strength; +3.0 (1.0; 7.0) points for MRC sum score. In the pooled cohort, 271 ADRs were reported in 105 subjects (44.7%), a rate of 0.144 ADRs per infusion. This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of IgPro10, a recently FDA-approved IVIG for CIDP, in a population of mainly pre-treated subjects with CIDP [Correction added on 14 March 2019 after first online publication: the INCAT response rate has been corrected.].
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".