Treatment responsiveness in CIDP patients with diabetes is associated with unique electrophysiological characteristics, and not with common criteria for CIDP

Alon Abraham, Ari Breiner, Hans D. Katzberg, Leif E. Lovblom, Bruce A. Perkins, Vera Bril*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Characterize treatment responsiveness in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of CIDP subjects assessed between 1997 and 2013 and compared treatment response rates in those with and without DM, using different sets of criteria. Results: 99 CIDP patients were included, 34 CIDP+DM and 65 CIDP-DM patients, both having similar treatment response rates. CIDP patients fulfilling European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society (EFNS/PNS) criteria had higher treatment response rates. Responders fulfilled a higher number of American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and EFNS/PNS criteria and had a higher number of demyelinating features in the total cohort and in CIDP-DM but not in CIDP+DM patients. CIDP+DM responders, however, had unique electrophysiologic characteristics. Conclusion: Fulfilling EFNS/PNS and AAN criteria, and higher number of demyelinating features, are associated with higher treatment response rates in CIDP-DM but not in CIDP+DM patients, implying the need for adjusting current criteria to predict treatment response rates in CIDP-DM patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)537-546
Number of pages10
JournalExpert Review of Clinical Immunology
Volume11
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Apr 2015
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy
  • criteria
  • demyelination
  • diabetic neuropathy
  • type 1 diabetes
  • type 2 diabetes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Treatment responsiveness in CIDP patients with diabetes is associated with unique electrophysiological characteristics, and not with common criteria for CIDP'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this