Restabilization treatment after intravenous immunoglobulin withdrawal in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: Results from the pre‐randomization phase of the Polyneuropathy And Treatment with Hizentra study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is recommended to be periodically reduced to assess the need for ongoing therapy. However, little is known about the effectiveness of restabilization with IVIG in patients who worsen after IVIG withdrawal. In the Polyneuropathy And Treatment with Hizentra (PATH) study, the pre-randomization period included sudden stopping of IVIG followed by 12 weeks of observation. Those deteriorating were then restabilized with IVIG. Of 245 subjects who stopped IVIG, 28 did not show signs of clinical deterioration within 12 weeks. Two hundred and seven received IVIG restabilization with an induction dose of 2 g/kg bodyweight (bw) IgPro10 (Privigen, CSL Behring, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania) and maintenance doses of 1 g/kg bw every 3 weeks for up to 13 weeks. Signs of clinical improvement were seen in almost all (n = 188; 91%) subjects. During IVIG restabilization, 35 subjects either did not show CIDP stability (n = 21, analyzed as n = 22 as an additional subject was randomized in error) or withdrew for other reasons (n = 14). Of the 22 subjects who did not achieve clinical stability, follow-up information in 16 subjects after an additional 4 weeks was obtained. Nine subjects were reported to have improved, leaving a maximum of 27 subjects (13%) who either showed no signs of clinical improvement during the restabilization phase and 4 weeks post-study or withdrew for other reasons. In conclusion, sudden IVIG withdrawal was effective in detecting ongoing immunoglobulin G dependency with a small risk for subjects not returning to their baseline 17 weeks after withdrawal.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".