Affiliation:
1. Aston Medical School, Aston University Birmingham UK
2. Department of Neurology Inflammatory Neuropathy Clinic, University Hospitals Birmingham Birmingham UK
3. Department of Translational Medicine Seoul National University College of Medicine Seoul South‐Korea
Abstract
AbstractBackground and purposeThe amplitude, timing, and determinants of improvement with available treatments are uncertain in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Our primary objective was to quantify categorized outcomes with routine care.MethodsWe retrospectively studied treatment response within 36 months from initiation in 112 consecutive subjects with CIDP. Response was classified into a proposed new "CIDP treatment‐response category" (CT‐RC), based on achieved endpoints. Determinants of the CT‐RC, of timing of maximum improvement, and of treatment discontinuation were ascertained.ResultsThe CT‐RC demonstrated high concurrent validity with current outcome measures. Thirty‐six subjects (32.1%) achieved a “complete response,” 37 (33%) a “good partial response,” 10 (8.9%) a “moderate partial response,” and 15 (13.4%) a “poor partial response.” Fourteen subjects (12.5%) were “nonresponsive.” The CT‐RC was independently predicted only by age. Mean time to maximum improvement was 12.1 months (range = 1–36) and was not associated with any pretreatment covariate. Treatment discontinuation occurred in 24 of 62 (38.2%) partial responders and was only associated with shorter pretreatment disease duration. Nonresponders were older and received a similar number of treatments compared to responders.ConclusionsCT‐RC classification indicates persistent disability in >60% of treatment responders in CIDP. Timing of maximum improvement is variable, frequently delayed, and unpredictable. Treatment withdrawal without deterioration is achievable in approximately 40% of subjects and may be more likely with prompt treatment. Treatment withdrawal in partial responders and limited escalation in nonresponders suggest implication of physician‐ and patient‐related factors in suboptimal response. More effective treatments/treatment methods and better understanding of other factors influencing response are needed in CIDP.