ArticleAutoimmune diseases2014
Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in chronic neurological diseases: do we have maintenance dose right?
Article in Autoimmune diseases, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A pathophysiological and mechanistic review of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Chronic low-dose intravenous immunoglobulins as steroid-sparing therapy in myasthenia gravis.Journal of neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives. We tried to define, on individual basis, minimal effective maintenance dose of intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) in 26 patients with chronic neurological conditions requiring long-term IVIG treatment. Methods. Clinical criteria were reviewed in individual cases (Phase 1) followed by titration phase (Phase 2, 12 months) and posttitration/follow-up phase (Phase 3, 3 months). Objective neurological examination and patient self-reports were used for clinical follow-up. Results. 69.2% of patients reported condition as stable, 26.9% as better, and 3.9% as mildly worse. Original mean monthly dose was 1 g/kg; over the period of 12 months we reduced dose of IVIG to mean dose 0.67 g/kg (range 0.3-2.5 g/kg, P < 0.0001) which meant reduction by 36.4%. We identified 4 nonresponders and diagnosis in one case was reclassified to degenerative disease. In follow-up phase we reduced dose further to 0.60 g/kg. Cumulative monthly dose dropped from 2040 g to 1298 g and to 991 g, respectively. Financial expenses were reduced significantly (by -36.4% during titration phase and by -51.4% during follow-up phase) (comparing with baseline) (P < 0.0001). Conclusion. Individual dose titration leads to significant maintenance IVIG dose reduction with preserved clinical efficacy. Maintenance dose below 1 g/kg (in our study around 0.7 g/kg) has acceptable risk/benefit ratio.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.