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

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

Progress in inflammatory neuropathy —the legacy of Dr Jack Griffin

The past quarter of a century has brought incredible advances in our understanding of inflammatory neuropathies, and the insights into Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) began in the 1990s with the seminal work of Dr Jack Griffin and his colleagues. In this essay, we provide a tribute to Jack, and review the recent progress in a field that he termed his personal favourite. In particular, we discuss the new developments in our understanding and diagnosis of inflammatory neuropathies, the recent emergence of the node of Ranvier and the paranode as sites of intensive investigation, and the mechanistic evidence that is providing a platform for therapeutic development studies