Novel immunotherapeutic strategies in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Insights into refractory chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy: a comprehensive real-world study

Background

Refractory chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is a challenging subset of CIDP. It does not respond well to immune therapy and causes substantial disability. A comprehensive understanding of its clinical profile, electrophysiological characteristics and potential risk factors associated with refractoriness remains to be further elucidated.

Methods

Data in this cross-sectional study was collected and reviewed from the Huashan Peripheral Neuropathy Database (HSPN). Included patients were categorized into refractory CIDP and non-refractory CIDP groups based on treatment response. The clinical and electrophysiological characteristics were compared between refractory and non-refractory CIDP groups. Potential risk factors associated with refractory CIDP were explored with a multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

Fifty-eight patients with CIDP were included. Four disease course patterns of refractory CIDP are described: a relapsing-remitting form, a stable form, a secondary progressive form and a primary progressive form. Compared to non-refractory CIDP patients, refractory CIDP exhibited a longer disease duration (48.96 ± 33.72 vs. 28.33 ± 13.72 months, p = 0.038) and worse functional impairment (MRC sum score, 46.08 ± 12.69 vs. 52.81 ± 7.34, p = 0.018; mRS, 2.76 ± 0.93 vs. 2.33 ± 0.99, p = 0.082; INCAT, 3.68 ± 1.76 vs. 3.03 ± 2.28, p = 0.056, respectively). Electrophysiological studies further revealed greater axonal impairment (4.15 ± 2.0 vs. 5.94 ± 2.77 mv, p = 0.011, ulnar CMAP) and more severe demyelination (5.56 ± 2.86 vs. 4.18 ± 3.71 ms, p = 0.008, ulnar distal latency, 7.94 ± 5.62 vs. 6.52 ± 6.64 ms, p = 0.035, median distal latency; 30.21 ± 12.59 vs. 37.48 ± 12.44 m/s, p = 0.035, median conduction velocity; 58.66 ± 25.73 vs. 42.30 ± 13.77 ms, p = 0.033, median F-wave latency), compared to non-refractory CIDP. Disease duration was shown to be an independent risk factor for refractory CIDP (p < 0.05, 95%CI [0.007, 0.076]).

Conclusion

This study provided a comprehensive description of refractory CIDP, addressing its clinical features, classification of clinical course, electrophysiological characteristics, and prognostic factors, effectively elucidating its various aspects. These findings contribute to a better understanding of this challenging subset of CIDP and might be informative for management and treatment strategies.

CAR-T Cells for Cancer Treatment: Current Design and Next Frontiers

Immunotherapy has been growing in the past decade as a therapeutic alternative for cancer treatment. In this chapter, we deal with CAR-T cells, genetically engineered autologous T cells to express a chimeric receptor specific for an antigen expressed on tumor cell surface. While this type of personalized therapy is revolutionizing cancer treatment, especially B cell malignancies, it has some challenging limitations. Here, we discuss the basic immunological and technological aspects of CAR-T cell therapy, the limitations that have compromised its efficacy and safety, and the current proposed strategies to overcome these limitations, thereby allowing for greater therapeutic application of CAR-T cells.

Monoclonal gammopathy of undeterminated significance and endoneurial IgG deposition: A case report

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal gammopathy of undeterminated significance is the most common form of plasma cell dyscrasia, usually considered as benign. In rare cases it may have a malignant course, sometimes limited to an organ such as peripheral nerves.

METHODS

We describe clinical, electrophysiological and pathological findings in a patient presenting a immunoglobulin G (IgG) paraproteinemic polyneuropathy clinically mimicking a chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy.

RESULTS

Immuno-electron microscopy (immune-EM) demonstrated that the widenings of the myelin lamellae resulted from the infiltration of IgG between a significant number of myelin lamellae (with absence of inflammatory cells in the epineurium, endoneurium, and perineurium, and the lack signs of vasculitis). This patient was finally treated successfully with lenalidomide then mycophenolate mofetil.

CONCLUSIONS

In polyneuropathies associated to a monoclonal gammopathy, a nerve biopsy may clinch the diagnosis. Immuno-EM may be required to determine the role of the pathological immunoglobulin in the destruction of the peripheral nerve parenchyma. Diagnosis of such a direct involvement of peripheral nerve can endorse more aggressive treatment of real efficiency.