Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

Clinical outcome of CIDP one year after start of treatment: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical outcome in treatment-naive patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP).

METHODS

We included adult treatment-naive patients participating in the prospective International CIDP Outcome Study (ICOS) that fulfilled the European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) diagnostic criteria for CIDP. Patients were grouped based on initial treatment with (1) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), (2) corticosteroid monotherapy or (3) IVIg and corticosteroids (combination treatment). Outcome measures included the inflammatory Rasch-built overall disability scale (I-RODS), grip strength, and Medical Research Council (MRC) sum score. Treatment response, treatment status, remissions (improved and untreated), treatment changes, and residual symptoms or deficits were assessed at 1 year.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included of whom 18 (45%) initially received IVIg, 6 (15%) corticosteroids, and 16 (40%) combination treatment. Improvement on ≥ 1 of the outcome measures was seen in 31 (78%) patients. At 1 year, 19 (48%) patients were still treated and fourteen (36%) patients were in remission. Improvement was seen most frequently in patients started on IVIg (94%) and remission in those started on combination treatment (44%). Differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Residual symptoms or deficits ranged from 25% for neuropathic pain to 96% for any sensory deficit.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement was seen in most patients. One year after the start of treatment, more than half of the patients were untreated and around one-third in remission. Residual symptoms and deficits were common regardless of treatment.

FTY720 controls disease severity and attenuates sciatic nerve damage in chronic experimental autoimmune neuritis

Background

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an autoimmune-mediated inflammatory disease of the peripheral nervous system characterized by a response directed against certain myelin proteins and for which therapies are limited. Previous studies have suggested a beneficial role of FTY720, a sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P) receptor agonist, known to deplete lymphocytes from the peripheral blood by sequestering them into lymph nodes, in the treatment of experimental autoimmune neuritis (EAN). Therefore, we investigated whether FTY720 is also beneficial in chronic experimental autoimmune neuritis (c-EAN), a recently developed rat model mimicking human CIDP.

Methods

c-EAN was induced in Lewis rats by immunization with S-palm P0(180–199) peptide. Rats were treated with FTY720 (1 mg/kg) or vehicle intraperitoneally once daily from the onset of clinical signs for 18 days; clinical signs were assessed daily until 60 days post-immunization (dpi). Electrophysiological and histological features were examined at different time points. We also evaluated the serum levels of different pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines by ELISA or flow cytometry at 18, 40, and 60 dpi.

Results

Our data demonstrate that FTY720 decreased the severity and abolished the chronicity of the disease in c-EAN rats. Therapeutic FTY720 treatment reversed electrophysiological and histological anomalies, suggesting that myelinated fibers were subsequently preserved, it inhibited macrophage and IL-17⁺ cell infiltration in PNS, and it significantly reduced circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Conclusions

FTY720 treatment has beneficial effects on c-EAN, a new animal model mimicking human CIDP. We have shown that FTY720 is an effective immunomodulatory agent, improving the disease course of c-EAN, preserving the myelinated fibers, attenuating the axonal degeneration, and decreasing the number of infiltrated inflammatory cells in peripheral nerves. These data confirm the interest of testing FTY720 or molecules targeting S1P in human peripheral neuropathies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12974-019-1441-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Corticosteroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a progressive or relapsing and remitting paralysing illness, probably due to an autoimmune response, which should benefit from corticosteroid treatment. Non-randomised studies suggest that corticosteroids are beneficial. Two commonly used corticosteroids are prednisone and prednisolone. Both are usually given as oral tablets. Prednisone is converted into prednisolone in the liver so that the effect of the two drugs is usually the same. Another corticosteroid, dexamethasone, is more potent and is used in smaller doses. The review was first published in 2001 and last updated in 2015; we undertook this update to identify any new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of corticosteroid treatment for CIDP compared to placebo or no treatment, and to compare the effects of different corticosteroid regimens.

SEARCH METHODS

On 8 November 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised trials of corticosteroids for CIDP. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of treatment with any corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone for CIDP, diagnosed by an internationally accepted definition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias independently. The intended primary outcome was change in disability, with change in impairment after 12 weeks and side effects as secondary outcomes. We assessed strength of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One non-blinded RCT comparing prednisone with no treatment in 35 eligible participants did not measure the primary outcome for this systematic review. The trial had a high risk of bias. Neuropathy Impairment Scale scores after 12 weeks improved in 12 of 19 participants randomised to prednisone, compared with five of 16 participants randomised to no treatment (risk ratio (RR) for improvement 2.02 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 4.52; very low-quality evidence). The trial did not report side effects in detail, but one prednisone-treated participant died.A double-blind RCT comparing daily standard-dose oral prednisolone with monthly high-dose oral dexamethasone in 40 participants reported none of the prespecified outcomes for this review. The trial had a low risk of bias, but the quality of evidence was limited as it came from a single small study. There was little or no difference in number of participants who achieved remission (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.50 to 2.45 in favour of monthly dexamethasone; moderate-quality evidence), or change in disability or impairment after one year (low-quality evidence). Change of grip strength or Medical Research Council (MRC) scores demonstrated little or no difference between groups (moderate-quality to low-quality evidence). Eight of 16 people in the prednisolone group and seven of 24 people in the dexamethasone group deteriorated. Side effects were similar with each regimen, except that sleeplessness was less common with monthly dexamethasone (low-quality evidence) as was moon facies (moon-shaped appearance of the face) (moderate-quality evidence).Experience from large non-randomised studies suggests that corticosteroids are beneficial, but long-term use causes serious side effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effects of oral prednisone compared with no treatment, because the quality of evidence from the only RCT that exists is very low. Nevertheless, corticosteroids are commonly used in practice, supported by very low-quality evidence from observational studies. We also know from observational studies that corticosteroids carry the long-term risk of serious side effects. The efficacy of high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone is probably little different from that of daily standard-dose oral prednisolone. Most side effects occurred with similar frequencies in both groups, but with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone moon facies is probably less common and sleeplessness may be less common than with oral prednisolone. We need further research to identify factors that predict response.

Immunomodulatory treatment other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin and plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a disease that causes progressive or relapsing and remitting weakness and numbness. It is probably caused by an autoimmune process. Immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory drugs would be expected to be beneficial. This review was first published in 2003 and has been updated most recently in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive agents other than corticosteroids, immunoglobulin, and plasma exchange in CIDP.

SEARCH METHODS

On 24 May 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS for completed trials, and clinical trial registers for ongoing trials. We contacted the authors of the trials identified and other disease experts seeking other published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomised and quasi-randomised trials of all immunosuppressive agents, such as azathioprine, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, ciclosporin, mycophenolate mofetil, and rituximab, and all immunomodulatory agents, such as interferon (IFN) alfa and IFN beta, in participants fulfilling standard diagnostic criteria for CIDP. We included all comparisons of these agents with placebo, another treatment, or no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We wanted to measure the change in disability after one year as our primary outcome. Our secondary outcomes were change in disability after four or more weeks (from randomisation); change in impairment after at least one year; change in maximum motor nerve conduction velocity and compound muscle action potential amplitude after one year; and for participants who were receiving corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), the amount of this medication given during at least one year after randomisation. Participants with one or more serious adverse events during the first year was also a secondary outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials fulfilled the selection criteria: one of azathioprine (27 participants), two of IFN beta-1a (77 participants in total) and one of methotrexate (60 participants). The risk of bias was considered low in the trials of IFN beta-1a and methotrexate but high in the trial of azathioprine. None of the trials showed significant benefit in any of the outcomes selected by their authors. The results of the outcomes which approximated most closely to the primary outcome for this review were as follows.In the azathioprine trial there was a median improvement in the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (scale range 0 to 280) after nine months of 29 points (range 49 points worse to 84 points better) in the azathioprine and prednisone treated participants compared with 30 points worse (range 20 points worse to 104 points better) in the prednisone alone group. There were no reports of adverse events.In a cross-over trial of IFN beta-1a with 20 participants, the treatment periods were 12 weeks. The median improvement in the Guy's Neurological Disability Scale (range 1 to 10) was 0.5 grades (interquartile range (IQR) 1.8 grades better to zero grade change) in the IFN beta-1a treatment period and 0.5 grades (IQR 1.8 grades better to 1.0 grade worse) in the placebo treatment period. There were no serious adverse events in either treatment period.In a parallel group trial of IFN beta-1a with 67 participants, none of the outcomes for this review was available. The trial design involved withdrawal from ongoing IVIg treatment. The primary outcome used by the trial authors was total IVIg dose administered from week 16 to week 32 in the placebo group compared with the IFN beta-1a groups. This was slightly but not significantly lower in the combined IFN beta-1a groups (1.20 g/kg) compared with the placebo group (1.34 g/kg, P = 0.75). There were four participants in the IFN beta-1a group and none in the placebo group with one or more serious adverse events, risk ratio (RR) 4.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 80.05).The methotrexate trial had a similar design involving withdrawal from ongoing corticosteroid or IVIg treatment. At the end of the trial (approximately 40 weeks) there was no significant difference in the change in the Overall Neuropathy Limitations Scale, a disability scale (scale range 0 to 12), the median change being 0 (IQR -1 to 0) in the methotrexate group and 0 (IQR -0.75 to 0) in the placebo group. These changes in disability might have been confounded by the reduction in corticosteroid or IVIg dose required by the protocol. There were three participants in the methotrexate group and one in the placebo with one or more serious adverse events, RR 3.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 32.23).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence from randomised trials does not show significant benefit from azathioprine or interferon beta-1a and moderate-quality evidence from one randomised trial does not show significant benefit from a relatively low dose of methotrexate for the treatment of CIDP. None of the trials was large enough to rule out small or moderate benefit. The evidence from observational studies is insufficient to avoid the need for randomised controlled trials to discover whether these drugs are beneficial. Future trials should have improved designs, more sensitive outcome measures relevant to people with CIDP, and longer treatment durations.

Treatments for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP): an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic progressive or relapsing and remitting disease that usually causes weakness and sensory loss. The symptoms are due to autoimmune inflammation of peripheral nerves. CIPD affects about 2 to 3 per 100,000 of the population. More than half of affected people cannot walk unaided when symptoms are at their worst. CIDP usually responds to treatments that reduce inflammation, but there is disagreement about which treatment is most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of any treatment for CIDP and to compare the effects of treatments.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any treatment for any form of CIDP. We reported their primary outcomes, giving priority to change in disability after 12 months.Two overview authors independently identified published systematic reviews for inclusion and collected data. We reported the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. Two other review authors independently checked review selection, data extraction and quality assessments.On 31 October 2016, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (in theCochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus for systematic reviews of CIDP. We supplemented the RCTs in the existing CSRs by searching on the same date for RCTs of any treatment of CIDP (including treatment of fatigue or pain in CIDP), in the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Plus.

MAIN RESULTS

Five CSRs met our inclusion criteria. We identified 23 randomised trials, of which 15 had been included in these CSRs. We were unable to compare treatments as originally planned, because outcomes and outcome intervals differed. CorticosteroidsIt is uncertain whether daily oral prednisone improved impairment compared to no treatment because the quality of the evidence was very low (1 trial, 28 participants). According to moderate-quality evidence (1 trial, 41 participants), six months' treatment with high-dose monthly oral dexamethasone did not improve disability more than daily oral prednisolone. Observational studies tell us that prolonged use of corticosteroids sometimes causes serious side-effects. Plasma exchangeAccording to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 59 participants), twice-weekly plasma exchange produced more short-term improvement in disability than sham exchange. In the largest observational study, 3.9% of plasma exchange procedures had complications. Intravenous immunoglobulinAccording to high-quality evidence (5 trials, 269 participants), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) produced more short-term improvement than placebo. Adverse events were more common with IVIg than placebo (high-quality evidence), but serious adverse events were not (moderate-quality evidence, 3 trials, 315 participants). One trial with 19 participants provided moderate-quality evidence of little or no difference in short-term improvement of impairment with plasma exchange in comparison to IVIg. There was little or no difference in short-term improvement of disability with IVIg in comparison to oral prednisolone (moderate-quality evidence; 1 trial, 29 participants) or intravenous methylprednisolone (high-quality evidence; 1 trial, 45 participants). One unpublished randomised open trial with 35 participants found little or no difference in disability after three months of IVIg compared to oral prednisone; this trial has not yet been included in a CSR. We know from observational studies that serious adverse events related to IVIg do occur. Other immunomodulatory treatmentsIt is uncertain whether the addition of azathioprine (2 mg/kg) to prednisone improved impairment in comparison to prednisone alone, as the quality of the evidence is very low (1 trial, 27 participants). Observational studies show that adverse effects truncate treatment in 10% of people.According to low-quality evidence (1 trial, 60 participants), compared to placebo, methotrexate 15 mg/kg did not allow more participants to reduce corticosteroid or IVIg doses by 20%. Serious adverse events were no more common with methotrexate than with placebo, but observational studies show that methotrexate can cause teratogenicity, abnormal liver function, and pulmonary fibrosis.According to moderate-quality evidence (2 trials, 77 participants), interferon beta-1a (IFN beta-1a) in comparison to placebo, did not allow more people to withdraw from IVIg. According to moderate-quality evidence, serious adverse events were no more common with IFN beta-1a than with placebo.We know of no other completed trials of immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory agents for CIDP. Other treatmentsWe identified no trials of treatments for fatigue or pain in CIDP. Adverse effectsNot all trials routinely collected adverse event data; when they did, the quality of evidence was variable. Adverse effects in the short, medium, and long term occur with all interventions. We are not able to make reliable comparisons of adverse events between the interventions included in CSRs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We cannot be certain based on available evidence whether daily oral prednisone improves impairment compared to no treatment. However, corticosteroids are commonly used, based on widespread availability, low cost, very low-quality evidence from observational studies, and clinical experience. The weakness of the evidence does not necessarily mean that corticosteroids are ineffective. High-dose monthly oral dexamethasone for six months is probably no more or less effective than daily oral prednisolone. Plasma exchange produces short-term improvement in impairment as determined by neurological examination, and probably produces short-term improvement in disability. IVIg produces more short-term improvement in disability than placebo and more adverse events, although serious side effects are probably no more common than with placebo. There is no clear difference in short-term improvement in impairment with IVIg when compared with intravenous methylprednisolone and probably no improvement when compared with either oral prednisolone or plasma exchange. According to observational studies, adverse events related to difficult venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes occur in 3% to17% of plasma exchange procedures.It is uncertain whether azathioprine is of benefit as the quality of evidence is very low. Methotrexate may not be of benefit and IFN beta-1a is probably not of benefit.We need further research to identify predictors of response to different treatments and to compare their long-term benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness. There is a need for more randomised trials of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory agents, routes of administration, and treatments for symptoms of CIDP.

Corticosteroids for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves, which corticosteroids would be expected to benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the ability of corticosteroids to hasten recovery and reduce the long-term morbidity from GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 12 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of any form of corticosteroid or adrenocorticotrophic hormone versus placebo or supportive care alone in GBS. Our primary outcome was change in disability grade on a seven-point scale after four weeks. Secondary outcomes included time from randomisation until recovery of unaided walking, time from randomisation until discontinuation of ventilation (for those ventilated), death, death or disability (inability to walk without aid) after 12 months, relapse, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

The review authors discovered no new trials in the new searches in June 2009, November 2011, or January 2016. Six trials with 587 participants provided data for the primary outcome. According to moderate quality evidence, the disability grade change after four weeks in the corticosteroid groups was not significantly different from that in the control groups, mean difference (MD) 0.36 less improvement (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.16 more to 0.88 less improvement). In four trials of oral corticosteroids with 120 participants in total, there was very low quality evidence of less improvement after four weeks with corticosteroids than without corticosteroids, MD 0.82 disability grades less improvement (95% CI 0.17 to 1.47 grades less). In two trials with a combined total of 467 participants, there was moderate quality evidence of no significant difference of a disability grade more improvement after four weeks with intravenous corticosteroids (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.39). According to moderate quality evidence, there was also no significant difference between the corticosteroid treated and control groups for improvement by one or more grades after four weeks (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.24) or for death or disability after one year (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.5). We found high quality evidence that the occurrence of diabetes was more common (RR 2.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 4.12) and hypertension less common (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.41) in the corticosteroid-treated participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to moderate quality evidence, corticosteroids given alone do not significantly hasten recovery from GBS or affect the long-term outcome. According to very low quality evidence, oral corticosteroids delay recovery. Diabetes requiring insulin was more common and hypertension less common with corticosteroids based on high quality evidence.

The Importance of Rare Subtypes in Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Neuropathy: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Peripheral neuropathy is a prevalent condition that usually warrants a thorough history and examination but has limited diagnostic evaluation. However, rare localizations of peripheral neuropathy often require more extensive diagnostic testing and different treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To describe rare localizations of peripheral neuropathy, including the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and available treatments.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

References were identified from PubMed searches conducted on May 29, 2015, with an emphasis on systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials. Articles were also identified through the use of the authors' own files. Search terms included common rare neuropathy localizations and their causes, as well as epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment.

FINDINGS

Diffuse, nonlength-dependent neuropathies, multiple mononeuropathies, polyradiculopathies, plexopathies, and radiculoplexus neuropathies are rare peripheral neuropathy localizations that often require extensive diagnostic testing. Atypical neuropathy features, such as acute/subacute onset, asymmetry, and/or motor predominant signs, are frequently present. The most common diffuse, nonlength-dependent neuropathies are Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, multifocal motor neuropathy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Effective disease-modifying therapies exist for many diffuse, nonlength-dependent neuropathies including Guillain-Barré syndrome, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, multifocal motor neuropathy, and some paraprotein-associated demyelinating neuropathies. Vasculitic neuropathy (multiple mononeuropathy) also has efficacious treatment options, but definitive evidence of a treatment effect for IgM anti-MAG neuropathy and diabetic amyotrophy (radiculoplexus neuropathy) is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Recognition of rare localizations of peripheral neuropathy is essential given the implications for diagnostic testing and treatment. Electrodiagnostic studies are an important early step in the diagnostic evaluation and provide information on the localization and pathophysiology of nerve injury.

Steroids for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: evidence base and clinical practice

Evidence-based therapies for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) consist of corticosteroids, intravenous immunglobulins (IVIg), and plasma exchange. Steroids represent the oldest treatment used historically. In countries where readily available and affordable, IVIg tends to be favored as first-line treatment. The reason for this preference, despite substantially higher costs, is the perception that IVIg is more efficacious and safer than corticosteroids. However, the unselected use of IVIg as a first-line treatment option in all cases of CIDP raises issues of cost-effectiveness in the long-term. Furthermore, serious although rare, particularly thromboembolic side effects may result from their use. Recent data from randomized trials suggest pulsed corticosteroids to have a higher potential in achieving therapy-free remission or longer remission-free periods compared with IVIg, as well as relatively low rates of serious side effects when given as pulsed intravenous infusions during short periods of time. These specific advantages suggest that pulsed steroids could in many cases be used, as the first, rather than second choice of treatment when initiating immunomodulation in CIDP, primarily in hopes of achieving a remission after the short-term use. This article reviews the evidence base for the use of corticosteroids in its various forms in CIDP and factors that may influence clinicians' choice between IVIg and pulsed steroid treatment. The issue of efficacy, relapse rate and time, and side effect profile are analyzed, and some aspects from the authors' experience are discussed in relation to the possibility of using the steroid option as first-line therapy in a large proportion of patients with CIDP.

Novel immunotherapeutic strategies in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is a chronic immune-mediated neuropathy: it is clinically heterogeneous (relapsing-remitting form, chronic progressive form, monophasic form or CIDP having a Guillain-Barré syndrome-like onset), but potentially treatable. Although its pathophysiology remains largely unknown, CIDP is considered an immune-mediated neuropathy. Therefore, many immunotherapies have been proposed in this peripheral nervous system disorder, the most known efficient treatments being intravenous immunoglobulin, corticosteroids and plasma exchange. However, these therapies remain unsatisfactory for many patients, so numerous other immunotherapeutic strategies have been evaluated, based on their immunosuppressant or immunomodulatory potency. We have performed a large review of the literature about treatment in CIDP, with a special emphasis on novel and alternative immunotherapeutic strategies.

Peripheral neuropathies

Peripheral neuropathies are diseases of the peripheral nervous system that can be divided into mononeuropathies, multifocal neuropathies, and polyneuropathies. Symptoms usually include numbness and paresthesia. These symptoms are often accompanied by weakness and can be painful. Polyneuropathies can be divided into axonal and demyelinating forms, which is important for diagnostic reasons. Most peripheral neuropathies develop over months or years, but some are rapidly progressive. Some patients only suffer from mild, unilateral, slowly progressive tingling in the fingers due to median nerve compression in the wrist (carpal tunnel syndrome), while other patients can be tetraplegic, with respiratory insufficiency within 1-2 days due to Guillain-Barré syndrome. Carpal tunnel syndrome, with a prevalence of 5% and incidence of 1-2 per 1000 person-years, is the most common mononeuropathy. Population-based data for chronic polyneuropathy are relatively scarce. Prevalence is estimated at 1% and increases to 7% in persons over 65 years of age. Incidence is approximately 1 per 1000 person-years. Immune-mediated polyneuropathies like Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy are rare diseases, with an annual incidence of approximately 1-2 and 0.2-0.5 per 100 000 persons respectively. Most peripheral neuropathies are more prevalent in older adults and in men, except for carpal tunnel syndrome, which is more common in women. Diabetes is a common cause of peripheral neuropathy and is associated with both mono- and polyneuropathies. Among the group of chronic polyneuropathies, in about 20-25% no direct cause can be found. These are slowly progressive axonal polyneuropathies.