TY - JOUR
T1 - Refractory CIDP
T2 - Clinical characteristics, antibodies and response to alternative treatment
AU - Godil, Jamila
AU - Barrett, Matthew J.
AU - Ensrud, Erik
AU - Chahin, Nizar
AU - Karam, Chafic
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to thank Dr. Richard Lewis for his critical review of this paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Alan Pestronk for antibody analysis. Chafic Karam has served on advisory boards for Acceleron, Akcea, Alexion, Alnylam, Argenx, Biogen, CSL Behring, Cytokinetics and Sanofi-Genzyme. Jamila Godil has no financial disclosure. Nizar Chahin has served on advisory board for Sarepta. Erik Ensrud has no financial disclosure. Matthew J. Barrett has no financial disclosure. Authors takes full responsibility for the data, the analyses and interpretation, and the conduct of this study; authors have full access to all the data and have the right to publish any and all data. All authors and contributors have agreed to conditions noted on the Authorship Agreement Form. The authors confirm that all data gathered and analyzed to support the findings of this case series are available within the article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2020/11/15
Y1 - 2020/11/15
N2 - Objective: To review the clinical characteristics, antibodies, and response to alternative treatments in a cohort of patients with refractory CIDP. Methods: We reviewed the charts of all CIDP patients seen at the Oregon Health & Science University neuromuscular clinic between 2017 and 2019. We collected demographics, clinical characteristics, antibodies, and response to treatments. Results: Among 45 CIDP patients studied, 34 (76%) showed improvement with first-line therapy (steroids, IVIG and/or plasmapheresis) and 11 (24%) were considered refractory to first line therapy. Of the latter, 7 of 11 patients (64%) responded to alternative treatment (cyclophosphamide or rituximab). Three were refractory to all treatment. Most patients were ambulatory without aid and a few were in remission. One patient died from complications of alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Thrombosis was seen in three patients receiving IVIG. Six patients (13%) tested positive for Neurofascin (NF) antibodies. Four tested positive for NF155 IgM antibodies only and of those, one responded to IVIG, two partially responded to IVIG and one was refractory. One patient tested positive for NF155 IgG4. Another tested positive for NF155 IgG4 and NF155 IgM. Both patients with IgG4 antibodies were refractory to IVIG, one responded to rituximab and one was refractory to all treatment. Conclusion: Less than a quarter of our CIDP patients did not respond to steroids, IVIG, and/or plasmapheresis. Most of the refractory patients responded to rituximab or cyclophosphamide. Patients with IgG4 NF antibodies were resistant to IVIG. The majority of refractory CIDP patients were seronegative and disease management relied on clinical judgement.
AB - Objective: To review the clinical characteristics, antibodies, and response to alternative treatments in a cohort of patients with refractory CIDP. Methods: We reviewed the charts of all CIDP patients seen at the Oregon Health & Science University neuromuscular clinic between 2017 and 2019. We collected demographics, clinical characteristics, antibodies, and response to treatments. Results: Among 45 CIDP patients studied, 34 (76%) showed improvement with first-line therapy (steroids, IVIG and/or plasmapheresis) and 11 (24%) were considered refractory to first line therapy. Of the latter, 7 of 11 patients (64%) responded to alternative treatment (cyclophosphamide or rituximab). Three were refractory to all treatment. Most patients were ambulatory without aid and a few were in remission. One patient died from complications of alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Thrombosis was seen in three patients receiving IVIG. Six patients (13%) tested positive for Neurofascin (NF) antibodies. Four tested positive for NF155 IgM antibodies only and of those, one responded to IVIG, two partially responded to IVIG and one was refractory. One patient tested positive for NF155 IgG4. Another tested positive for NF155 IgG4 and NF155 IgM. Both patients with IgG4 antibodies were refractory to IVIG, one responded to rituximab and one was refractory to all treatment. Conclusion: Less than a quarter of our CIDP patients did not respond to steroids, IVIG, and/or plasmapheresis. Most of the refractory patients responded to rituximab or cyclophosphamide. Patients with IgG4 NF antibodies were resistant to IVIG. The majority of refractory CIDP patients were seronegative and disease management relied on clinical judgement.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089694548&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089694548&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117098
DO - 10.1016/j.jns.2020.117098
M3 - Article
C2 - 32841917
AN - SCOPUS:85089694548
SN - 0022-510X
VL - 418
JO - Journal of the neurological sciences
JF - Journal of the neurological sciences
M1 - 117098
ER -