Clinical and economic comparison of an individualised immunoglobulin protocol vs. standard dosing for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Background The clinical and economic implications of an individualised intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) protocol for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) are unknown. Comparison with standard dosing regimens has not been performed. Methods We retrospectively studied 47 IVIg-treated subjects with CIDP over 4 years with an individualised, outcome-measured, dose-modifying protocol. We evaluated responder and remission rates, clinical improvement levels and dose requirements. We compared clinical benefits and costs with those reported with standard dosing at 1 g/kg every 3 weeks. Results The IVIg-responder rate was 83% and the 4-year remission rate was 25.6%. Mean IVIg dose requirements were 22.06 g/week (SD:15.29) in patients on ongoing therapy. Dose range was wide (5.83–80 g/week). Mean infusion frequency was every 4.34 weeks (SD:1.70) and infusion duration of 2.79 days (SD:1.15). Mean Overall Neuropathy Limitation Scale improvement was 2.54 (SD:1.89) and mean MRC sum score improvement of 12.23 (SD:7.17) in IVIg-responders. Mean modified-INCAT (Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment) score improvement was similar (p = 0.47) and mean MRC sum score improvement greater (p < 0.001) in our cohort, compared to the IVIg-treated arm of the ICE Study. Mean drug costs were GBP 37,660/patient/year (€ 43,309) and mean infusion-related costs of GBP 17,115/patient/year (€ 19,682), totalling GBP 54,775/patient/year (€ 62,991). Compared to standard dosing using recorded weight, mean savings were of GBP 13,506/patient/year (€ 15,532). Compared to standard dosing using dosing weight, savings were of GBP 6,506/patient/year (€ 7,482). Conclusion Our results indicate that an individualised IVIg treatment protocol is clinically non-inferior and 10–25% more cost-effective than standard dosing regimens in CIDP

The RUDY study platform – a novel approach to patient driven research in rare musculoskeletal diseases

Background: Research into rare diseases is becoming more common, with recognition of the significant diagnostic and therapeutic care gaps. Registries are considered a key research methodology to address rare diseases. This report describes the structure of the Rare UK Diseases Study (RUDY) platform that aims to improve research processes and address many of the challenges of carrying out rare musculoskeletal disease research. RUDY is an internet-based platform with online registration, initial verbal consent, online capture of patient reported outcome measures and events within a dynamic consent framework. The database structure, security and governance framework are described. Results: There have been 380 participants recruited into RUDY with completed questionnaire rates in excess of 50 %. There has been one withdrawal and two participants have amended their consent options. Conclusions: The strengths of RUDY include low burden for the clinical team, low research administration costs with high participant recruitment and ease of data collection and access. This platform has the potential to be used as the model for other rare diseases globally

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Grip strength comparison in immune-mediated neuropathies: Vigorimeter vs. Jamar

The Jamar dynamometer and Vigorimeter have been used to assess grip strength in immune-mediated neuropathies, but have never been compared to each other. Therefore, we performed a comparison study between these two devices in patients with immune-mediated neuropathies. Grip strength data were collected in 102 cross-sectional stable and 163 longitudinal (new diagnoses or changing condition) patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), gammopathy-related polyneuropathy (MGUSP), and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). Stable patients were assessed twice (validity/reliability studies). Longitudinal patients were assessed 3-5 times during 1 year. Responsiveness comparison between the two tools was examined using combined anchor-/distribution-based minimum clinically important difference (MCID) techniques. Patients were asked to indicate their preference for the Jamar or Vigorimeter. Both tools correlated highly with each other (ρ = 0.86, p < 0.0001) and showed good intra-class correlation coefficients (Jamar [Right/Left hands]: ICC 0.997/0.96; Vigori: ICC 0.95/0.98). Meaningful changes were comparable between the two instruments, being higher in GBS compared to CIDP patients. In MGUSP/MMN poor responsiveness was seen. Significant more patients preferred the Vigorimeter. In conclusion, validity, reliability, and responsiveness aspects were comparable between the Jamar dynamometer and Vigorimeter. However, based on patients' preference, the Vigorimeter is recommended in future studies in immune-mediated neuropathies