Trial reportJournal of clinical apheresis2026
Centrifugal Plasma Exchange Versus Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis in Chronic CIDP: A Randomized Crossover Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Biological Effects, Procedure Times, and Costs-The Lymphoapheresis Study.
Trial report in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct comparisons between centrifugal therapeutic plasma exchange (cTPE) and double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) remain scarce. We compared cTPE and DFPP in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), regarding clinical outcomes, biological effects, tolerability, session times and hospital costs. Lymphoapheresis was a prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover ancillary study. At study entry, 5 patients with idiopathic CIDP on long-term therapeutic plasmapheresis were randomized to start with either cTPE or DFPP, then undergo 6 alternating sessions, for 30 sessions (15 cTPE, 15 DFPP) in all. Two patients had central venous access (CVA), and 3 had peripheral (PVA). Target treated plasma volume was identical for all patients. Clinical outcomes, intraprocedural tolerance, session-related biological changes, total session times, and procedure-related costs were compared using within-patient analyses and mixed-effects models. All 5 patients were men, median age 62 [56-68] years. The median treated plasma volume was similar for cTPE and DFPP sessions (4500 mL [4400-5000]). No difference was observed between modalities regarding short-term clinical outcomes or adverse events. Total session time differed insignificantly between modalities, but was longer with PVA than with CVA (201 [189-209] vs. 177 [163-192] minutes; p = 0.01). Compared with DFPP, cTPE induced greater per-session reductions in platelets, fibrinogen, prothrombin time, and IgG but not in IgM or Hb. Albumin use was markedly higher with cTPE than with DFPP (180 g vs. 20 g per session). By contrast, weight gain was greater with DFPP than with cTPE (1.0 [0.5-1.5] vs. 0.4 [0.0-0.5] kg; p = 0.04). Estimated hospital costs per session were higher with DFPP than with cTPE using HSA rather than FFP as fluid replacement, based on French blood product costs. The cost of DFPP is mainly due to material and platform costs and cTPE to blood products and staff requirements. In chronically treated CIDP patients, cTPE and DFPP showed similar short-term clinical efficacy and safety. Total session time depended on vascular access rather than the plasmapheresis modality. The cost of DFPP is mainly due to material and platform costs and cTPE to blood products and staff requirements.
Indexed as
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.