Safety and Tolerability of Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: Results of the ProCID Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ) in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). This report describes the safety findings. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive a 2.0 g/kg induction dose followed by maintenance doses of either 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg IVIg every 3 weeks over 24 weeks. RESULTS: All 142 enrolled patients were included in the safety analyses. In total, 286 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 89 patients, of which 173 (60.5%) were considered treatment-related. Most TEAEs were of mild severity. Eleven serious TEAEs were reported in 6 patients. Two serious TEAEs in one patient (headache and vomiting) were considered related to treatment, which resolved without study discontinuation. No treatment-related thrombotic events, haemolytic transfusion reactions or deaths occurred. One patient discontinued the study due to a TEAE (allergic dermatitis) probably related to IVIg. Headache was the only dose-dependent TEAE, with incidences ranging from 2.9 to 23.7%, the incidence of all other TEAEs was similar across treatment groups. Most TEAEs were associated with the induction dose infusion, and the rate of TEAEs decreased thereafter. The median (IQR) daily IVIg dose was 78 (64-90) g, and 94.4% of patients tolerated the maximal infusion rate of 0.12 ml/kg/min without pre-medication. INTERPRETATION: Infusions of 10% IVIg at doses up to 2.0 g/kg with high infusion rates were safe and well tolerated in patients with CIDP. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: EudraCT 2015-005443-14, NCT02638207.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".