Table 3

Randomised controlled studies in CIDP published in 2015–2018

StudyInterventionDesignPatients (n)Primary endpointResultsDurationReferences
PATHSCIg (2 dosage levels) vs placeboRandomised controlled, double-blindDefinite or probable CIDP, IVIg-responsive, n=172Proportion with relapse or withdrawn for other reason63% on placebo, 39% on low-dose SCIg and 33% on high-dose SCIg (p=0.0007)24 weeks 62
FORCIDPFingolimod vs placeboRandomised, controlled, double-blind,Definite or probable CIDP, n=106Time to worsening (≥1 adjusted INCAT score)Ended for futility, fingolimod (42%) vs placebo (43%)Flexible 66
Lieker et al IA vs PERandomised, controlled, not blindedCIDP, n=18 of 20Improvement in adjusted INCAT score and MRCssIA: 6/9 vs PE: 4/96 sessions 65
Danish CIDP and MMN study groupSCIg vs IVIgRandomised, controlled, crossover, single-blindedDefinite CIDP (EFNS/PNS), n=20cIKScIKS 7.4 (SCIg) vs 6.9 (IVIg) (p=0.80)20 weeks (10/treatment) 63
  • CIDP, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy; EFNS/PNS, European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society; IA, immunoadsorption; IVIg, intravenous immunoglobulin; MMN, Multifocal motor neuropathy; MRCss, Medical Research Council sum score; PE, plasma exchange; SCIg, subcutaneous immunoglobulin; cIKS, combined isokinetic muscle strength.