4.6 Article

Long-term effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in CIDP

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 118, 期 9, 页码 1980-1984

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.05.001

关键词

CIDP; IVIg; conduction block

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an acquired demyelinating disease of the peripheral nervous system characterized by muscle weakness, areflexia or hyporeflexia, and sensory disturbances. Although short-term efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has been demonstrated in randomized-controlled trials, the data pertaining to long-term outcome in CIDP are limited. Consequently, the aim of the present study was to assess the long-term effects of IVIg on neurophysiological parameters in CIDP. Methods: Neurophysiological records from 11 CIDP patients, treated with IVIg for >= 12 months, were reviewed. Nerve conduction studies were assessed at baseline, 1-year, and last follow-up. Results: There was a significant reduction in the frequency of conduction blocks (pre-treatment nerve segments affected 61%; last follow-up 39%, P < 0.01) and a reduction in ongoing axonal loss (pre-treatment regions with spontaneous activity, 47%; post-treatment 29%, P < 0.01) with IVIg treatment. Further, there was significant improvement in sensory nerve conduction studies with IVIg treatment (sensory amplitudes reduced pre-treatment, 90% nerves tested; post-treatment, 62%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: The present study suggests that long-term IVIg maintenance therapy improves neurophysiological parameters in CIDP. However, CIDP patients remain IVIg dependent and new conduction blocks may develop. Significance: The present study suggests that long-term IVIg maintenance therapy improves neuro physiological parameters in CIDP, possibly by reducing the immune response and thereby fostering nerve healing. (C) 2007 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据