Randomized trial of three IVIg doses for treating chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy usually starts with a 2.0 g/kg induction dose followed by 1.0 g/kg maintenance doses every 3 weeks. No dose-ranging studies with intravenous immunoglobulin maintenance therapy have been published. The Progress in Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating polyneuropathy (ProCID) study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III study investigating the efficacy and safety of 10% liquid intravenous immunoglobulin (Panzyga®) in patients with active chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Patients were randomized 1:2:1 to receive the standard intravenous immunoglobulin induction dose and then either 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg maintenance doses every 3 weeks. The primary end point was the response rate in the 1.0 g/kg group, defined as an improvement ≥1 point in adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment score at Week 6 versus baseline and maintained at Week 24. Secondary end points included dose response and safety. This trial was registered with EudraCT (Number 2015-005443-14) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02638207). Between August 2017 and September 2019, the study enrolled 142 patients. All 142 were included in the safety analyses. As no post-infusion data were available for three patients, 139 were included in the efficacy analyses, of whom 121 were previously on corticosteroids. The response rate was 80% (55/69 patients) [95% confidence interval (CI): 69-88%] in the 1.0 g/kg group, 65% (22/34; CI: 48-79%) in the 0.5 g/kg group, and 92% (33/36; CI: 78-97%) in the 2.0 g/kg group. While the proportion of responders was higher with higher maintenance doses, logistic regression analysis showed that the effect on response rate was driven by a significant difference between the 0.5 and 2.0 g/kg groups, whereas the response rates in the 0.5 and 2.0 g/kg groups did not differ significantly from the 1.0 g/kg group. Fifty-six per cent of all patients had an adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment score improvement 3 weeks after the induction dose alone. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (45.7%), 32 (46.4%) and 20 (52.6%) patients in the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 g/kg dose groups, respectively. The most common adverse reaction was headache. There were no treatment-related deaths. Intravenous immunoglobulin (1.0 g/kg) was efficacious and well tolerated as maintenance treatment for patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Further studies of different maintenance doses of intravenous immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".