CIDP Overdiagnosis and IVIG Stewardship: Are We Treating the Right Patients for the Right Duration?

Introduction: The Stewardship Challenge in CIDP Management

CIDP presents an unusual stewardship challenge because both undertreatment and overtreatment carry meaningful consequences for the patient. Individuals with active CIDP may develop progressive weakness and irreversible disability if effective therapy is delayed. Conversely, patients with an incorrect diagnosis may undergo prolonged, expensive, and potentially risky treatment without ever addressing the actual underlying cause of their neuropathy.

This distinction is particularly important when discussing IVIG, as its efficacy in appropriately selected CIDP patients is well established. In a comprehensive 2024 Cochrane review, IVIG increased the probability of significant disability improvement within six weeks compared with placebo, yielding a pooled risk ratio of 2.40 and an estimated number needed to treat of just 4.

Therefore, the most clinically useful question is not simply whether IVIG is being overused in a general sense. The more practical questions are whether the patient truly meets contemporary CIDP criteria, whether the treatment produces objectively demonstrable improvement, whether active disease is still present, and whether the current dose and interval remain strictly necessary.

Understanding Why CIDP Remains Vulnerable to Overdiagnosis

It is crucial to remember that typical CIDP is not simply synonymous with any chronic neuropathy that happens to show slowing on nerve conduction studies.

Under the 2021 EAN/PNS framework, typical CIDP is characterized by progressive or relapsing symmetric proximal and distal weakness of the upper and lower limbs, sensory involvement of at least two limbs, evolution over a minimum of eight weeks, and absent or reduced tendon reflexes. A published 2022 correction clarified portions of the electrodiagnostic tables and certain sensory nerve interpretation details, but it did not alter this central clinical phenotype.

For typical CIDP, electrodiagnostic criteria supportive of demyelination must ordinarily be fulfilled in at least two motor nerves, while sensory conduction abnormalities must be demonstrated in at least two nerves. When clinical criteria are met but minimal electrodiagnostic requirements are not, objective improvement following IVIG, corticosteroids, or plasma exchange can only contribute to a classification of “possible CIDP” if at least one additional supportive criterion is also fulfilled.

This distinction is fundamental to good stewardship. A positive treatment response serves as supportive evidence within an already established diagnostic framework; it is not an independent test that can magically convert an otherwise incompatible neuropathy into CIDP.

Insights from Tertiary Referral Studies on Misdiagnosis

A landmark 2015 tertiary referral study evaluated 59 consecutive patients referred with an existing diagnosis of CIDP. Strikingly, 47% of these patients failed to meet minimal CIDP diagnostic requirements upon expert review.

Among the patients judged not to have CIDP, CSF cytoalbuminologic dissociation was present in half of the cases, although the protein elevations were generally mild. Furthermore, many of these misdiagnosed patients frequently reported subjective improvement after immunotherapy, despite ultimately being proven not to have CIDP.

A subsequent Dutch tertiary center study highlighted that both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis occur in practice. Among 96 patients referred with CIDP, 31 (or 32%) ultimately had their diagnosis revised. Conversely, 16 patients who were ultimately diagnosed with CIDP had originally been referred with an entirely different diagnosis.

When looking closely at the overdiagnosed group, 48% lacked proximal weakness, 29% had only distal weakness, 65% did not fulfill electrodiagnostic criteria, 74% had elevated CSF protein, and 97% ultimately received another neuropathy diagnosis.

It is important to contextualize these numbers. They should not be interpreted to mean that one-third to one-half of all patients in the community carrying a CIDP diagnosis are misdiagnosed. Both studies were conducted in specialty referral settings heavily enriched for diagnostic uncertainty, and they largely predated the 2021 EAN/PNS criteria. The more defensible conclusion is that CIDP misdiagnosis follows recurring, identifiable, and preventable patterns.

Diagnostic Pitfall 1: When the Clinical Phenotype Does Not Fit

A CIDP diagnosis must always begin with the clinical phenotype. Typical CIDP includes symmetric proximal and distal weakness, sensory involvement, a chronic progressive or relapsing course lasting at least eight weeks, and reduced or absent reflexes.

While recognized CIDP variants can certainly depart from this classic pattern, an atypical presentation must neatly fit the appropriate variant criteria rather than being forced into the typical CIDP category. This distinction has immense practical relevance. In the Dutch referral cohort, the absence of proximal weakness and the presence of isolated distal weakness were substantially more common among patients whose CIDP diagnosis was subsequently revised.

Diagnostic Pitfall 2: Assuming Any Demyelination Indicates CIDP

Nerve conduction studies are central to the diagnostic process, but measurable slowing does not automatically establish immune-mediated demyelination.

A retrospective electrodiagnostic analysis found that interpretive errors were particularly likely when slowing occurred alongside low response amplitudes in length-dependent axonal neuropathy or motor neuron disease. Errors also frequently occurred in patients with diabetes, at common nerve compression sites, or when isolated fibular nerve findings drove the entire interpretation. Clinicians must therefore account for the specific pattern and magnitude of nerve conduction abnormalities rather than simply labeling any degree of slowing as demyelination.

Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of the 2021 Criteria

A 2022 validation study involving 120 patients with suspected CIDP (who also had an objective treatment response) and 100 controls found an 83.3% sensitivity and 94% specificity for the strict EAN/PNS “CIDP” category. When “CIDP” and “possible CIDP” were combined, sensitivity increased to 93.3% while specificity decreased to 79%.

A larger 2026 analysis provides a more contemporary assessment. Investigators evaluated 339 patients with CIDP and 339 matched controls. For the 2021 EAN/PNS criteria, sensitivity was 83% and specificity was 86% when restricted to the definitive CIDP category. Including possible CIDP increased sensitivity to 94% but dropped specificity to 66%.

Importantly, the 2026 study also found that the extent of nerve conduction testing directly affected diagnostic performance. Relying solely on unilateral testing would have missed 77 possible CIDP diagnoses. These findings perfectly illustrate the inherent tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. Diagnostic criteria improve consistency, but they can never replace sound clinical judgment, adequate nerve sampling, and the rigorous exclusion of competing diagnoses.

Diagnostic Pitfall 3: Overinterpreting Cerebrospinal Fluid Protein

Elevated CSF protein may support a CIDP diagnosis in the appropriate clinical context, but it is never diagnostic by itself.

This limitation is glaringly evident in the misdiagnosis literature. Half of the patients judged not to have CIDP in the 2015 referral series nevertheless had cytoalbuminologic dissociation, generally involving relatively mild protein elevations. Similarly, 74% of overdiagnosed patients in the Dutch cohort had an elevated CSF protein concentration. An abnormal CSF result should therefore only modify diagnostic confidence when combined with a compatible clinical phenotype, convincing electrodiagnostic findings, and an appropriate evaluation for alternative diagnoses.

Diagnostic Pitfall 4: Relying on Subjective Treatment Response as Proof of Diagnosis

Therapeutic response can easily create circular reasoning. A clinician suspects CIDP, administers IVIG, the patient reports feeling better, and that reported improvement is then used to confirm the original diagnosis.

The 2015 misdiagnosis study demonstrated exactly why this approach is unreliable. Patients frequently perceived improvement following immunotherapy even when subsequent expert review concluded that they did not have CIDP. While the EAN/PNS guideline permits an objective treatment response to contribute to the diagnosis of possible CIDP in selected circumstances, this is only allowed within a defined diagnostic framework and alongside additional supportive evidence. Treatment response should increase confidence in an already plausible diagnosis, not substitute for one.

The 2026 Shift Toward Standardized Definitions of Response and Relapse

In 2026, an international CIDP Workshop Task Force published consensus definitions intended to standardize terminology for disease activity and clinical outcomes. The Task Force developed clear definitions for minimal, partial, and optimal treatment response, as well as relapse, possible relapse, refractory disease, remission, residual symptoms, and no evidence of disease activity.

A central feature of this new framework is that treatment response must combine the patient’s perception of improvement with objectively measured changes in disability or impairment. For a minimal response, the consensus requires patient-perceived improvement plus a qualifying change on at least one objective measure within 12 weeks. Examples include at least a 1-point INCAT improvement, at least a 4-centile-point I-RODS improvement, at least a 2-point MRC sum-score improvement, or a qualifying change in grip strength.

While this consensus should not be interpreted as a newly validated diagnostic test (it was developed through a modified Delphi process rather than prospective diagnostic validation), its immediate practical value is immense. Treatment response can now be documented longitudinally and objectively, rather than being summarized in the chart simply as “patient feels better after IVIG.”

Reaffirming IVIG Efficacy When the Diagnosis Is Correct

Concerns regarding CIDP overdiagnosis should never obscure the profound efficacy of IVIG in correctly selected patients.

The 2024 Cochrane review included nine randomized controlled trials involving 372 participants. Compared with placebo, IVIG significantly increased the probability of short-term disability improvement, with the evidence for this outcome rated as high certainty. Consequently, the EAN/PNS Task Force strongly recommends IVIG for the treatment of CIDP, listing it alongside corticosteroids as an initial treatment approach for typical CIDP and its variants.

Diagnostic stewardship, therefore, means improving patient selection and reassessment. It is not about creating arbitrary barriers to an effective, life-altering treatment for appropriately diagnosed disease.

Ensuring Initial IVIG Therapy Produces a Measurable Result

The EAN/PNS guideline describes a usual total IVIG induction dose of 2 g/kg divided over two to five days. However, not every responder improves after just one course. The guideline notes that two to five additional 1 g/kg doses at three-week intervals may sometimes be required before a patient improves or IVIG can reasonably be judged ineffective. Another approach, based on clinical experience, is administering a second 2 g/kg course several weeks after the first.

The central stewardship principle here is straightforward: treatment must have an objectively defined target. Before initiating therapy, clinicians should document reproducible baseline impairment and disability measures relevant to the individual patient. Subsequent assessments should utilize those exact same measures whenever feasible.

The GRIPPER study beautifully illustrates one approach to this. Twenty-five patients with well-defined CIDP recorded their grip strength daily for six months. A change of at least 10% in their three-day averaged grip strength was used to characterize treatment-related fluctuations, demonstrating the clear feasibility of repeated, objective assessment between IVIG infusions.

Distinguishing Between Two Types of Potential IVIG Overtreatment

When discussing IVIG stewardship, it is vital to recognize that overtreatment generally falls into two distinct categories.

1. Treating a Patient Who Does Not Have CIDP

This is principally a diagnostic error problem. Potential contributors include an incompatible clinical phenotype, nonspecific CSF abnormalities, misinterpretation of nerve conduction findings, failure to adequately evaluate another neuropathy, and a reliance on subjective treatment response as proof of diagnosis. Dose optimization alone cannot solve this problem; the underlying CIDP diagnosis requires fundamental reassessment.

2. Continuing More IVIG Than a Correctly Diagnosed Patient Currently Requires

This is primarily a disease activity and maintenance management problem. CIDP activity can naturally change over time, and treatment requirements may decrease even when the original diagnosis and initial decision to treat were entirely appropriate. Successful withdrawal in this scenario does not prove that the patient was originally misdiagnosed or that earlier treatment was unnecessary.

Keeping this distinction clear is essential for having productive conversations about IVIG stewardship.

Optimizing Maintenance IVIG to Achieve the Lowest Effective Burden

The EAN/PNS guideline readily acknowledges that the optimal IVIG maintenance dose and schedule are not universally known. While a commonly used clinical trial regimen is 1 g/kg every three weeks, lower doses and longer intervals may maintain maximal sustained improvement in individual patients. The guideline suggests 0.4 to 1 g/kg every two to six weeks as an example of individualized clinical practice dosing.

When objective end-of-dose deterioration occurs, increasing the dose or shortening the interval is appropriate. Conversely, when a patient is clinically stable, the guideline recommends periodically determining whether the dose can be reduced, the treatment interval extended, or treatment discontinued entirely. Based on clinical experience, the Task Force suggests considering this optimization every 6 to 12 months during the first few years, and less frequently thereafter.

Longer-term follow-up of the GRIPPER cohort reinforces the importance of this objective reassessment. While treatment-related fluctuations were useful for real-time optimization, they poorly predicted long-term disease activity. Furthermore, drug-free remission occurred in approximately one-third of the small follow-up cohort. The investigators strongly encouraged periodic, objective IVIG optimization trials to identify the lowest effective dose and frequency for each individual.

Clinical Outcomes When Stable Patients Discontinue IVIG

The most direct randomized evidence regarding treatment cessation comes from a 2022 withdrawal trial involving 60 clinically stable adults who had received maintenance IVIG for at least six months. Twenty-nine participants were assigned to IVIG withdrawal, while 31 continued their therapy.

It is important to note that the trial failed to demonstrate the prespecified noninferiority of withdrawal, largely because the estimate was imprecise and the study was underpowered for its primary question. Nevertheless, 41% of the patients assigned to withdrawal remained clinically stable through 24 weeks. Furthermore, 28% remained stable through the subsequent extension period, maintaining stability for a combined 76 weeks after withdrawal began.

These percentages should not be misinterpreted as the proportion of all CIDP patients who are currently being overtreated, as the study population consisted specifically of highly selected, clinically stable patients receiving chronic maintenance therapy. Reassuringly, among the patients in the withdrawal group who did experience a relapse, 94% successfully restabilized on both I-RODS and grip strength metrics within a 12-week restabilization phase.

Ultimately, this study supports the periodic assessment of IVIG dependency in appropriately selected stable patients, but it does not support routine, unmonitored withdrawal regardless of underlying disease activity.

How FDA Labeling Reinforces Product-Specific Individualization

FDA labeling should always be interpreted at the individual product level, as it provides specific guidance on treatment duration.

GAMUNEX-C FlexBag Current prescribing information revised in April 2026 includes CIDP in adults as an FDA-approved indication. For CIDP, the label describes a loading dose of 2 g/kg divided over two to four consecutive days, followed by a maintenance dose of 1 g/kg every three weeks. Crucially, the label states that not all patients require continued maintenance therapy beyond the initial six months to maintain their therapeutic response.

PRIVIGEN Current prescribing information revised in April 2025 also includes CIDP in adults. The loading and maintenance dosing schedules are similar to GAMUNEX-C. However, the PRIVIGEN label explicitly states that maintenance therapy beyond six months has not been formally studied, and that treatment duration beyond six months should be individualized based on patient response.

Neither label establishes a universal, hard-stop requirement to discontinue IVIG after six months. Instead, prolonged treatment should be individualized and periodically justified by continuing clinical need.

Safety Considerations That Strengthen the Case for Stewardship

Current prescribing information for both GAMUNEX-C FlexBag and PRIVIGEN carry boxed warnings for thrombosis, renal dysfunction, and acute renal failure.

Listed thrombotic risk factors include advanced age, prolonged immobilization, hypercoagulable conditions, a history of venous or arterial thrombosis, estrogen use, indwelling vascular catheters, hyperviscosity, and cardiovascular risk factors. Thrombosis can occur even in the complete absence of recognized risk factors. Similarly, patients predisposed to renal dysfunction include those with pre-existing renal insufficiency, diabetes mellitus, older age, volume depletion, sepsis, paraproteinemia, or exposure to nephrotoxic drugs. The labels strongly recommend adequate hydration before administration and minimum practicable infusion rates in patients at increased risk.

Additional important IVIG warnings across the reviewed labels include severe hypersensitivity, aseptic meningitis syndrome, hemolysis, hyperproteinemia, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and volume overload. These risks do not undermine the favorable efficacy of IVIG in appropriately selected CIDP patients, but they make avoidable or excessive exposure clinically consequential.

A Practical Checklist for CIDP and IVIG Stewardship

Clinical Checkpoint	Potential Problem	Appropriate Response
Does the phenotype fit?	Typical CIDP is assigned despite a pattern better fitting another neuropathy or a different CIDP variant.	Reconstruct the clinical phenotype carefully before interpreting supportive tests.
Do nerve conduction studies fulfill criteria?	Nonspecific or physiologic slowing is misinterpreted as acquired demyelination.	Review the actual parameters, nerves tested, amplitudes, compression sites, and the overall distribution of abnormalities.
Is CSF being given excessive weight?	A mild protein elevation becomes the primary anchor for a CIDP diagnosis.	Use CSF only as supportive evidence within a highly compatible diagnostic framework.
Was pretreatment function measured?	Subjective improvement is the only evidence of a treatment response.	Document reproducible disability and impairment measures both before and after treatment.
Is maintenance still required?	Stable therapy continues indefinitely without formal reassessment.	Consider dose reduction, interval extension, or supervised withdrawal when clinically appropriate.
Is apparent deterioration truly CIDP activity?	Fatigue, residual symptoms, pain, or subjective wear-off are automatically labeled as a relapse.	Combine patient perception with objective disability measurements and assess for competing explanations.
Has treatment risk changed?	Renal, thrombotic, or volume-related risks have increased during chronic therapy.	Reassess hydration, renal function, infusion parameters, and the continuing necessity of treatment.

A Four-Question Framework for IVIG Stewardship

1. Is the Diagnosis Sufficiently Secure? Confirm that the clinical phenotype and electrodiagnostic findings satisfy contemporary criteria, and ensure that alternative neuropathies have been adequately considered and excluded.
2. Did Treatment Produce an Objective Benefit? Define clinically relevant treatment targets before initiating therapy, and measure them after treatment using reproducible disability or impairment metrics.
3. What Dose and Interval Are Currently Necessary? Once meaningful benefit has been demonstrated, individualize the maintenance treatment rather than assuming that the initial clinical trial regimen must continue unchanged indefinitely.
4. Is the Patient Still Treatment Dependent? In cases of clinically stable disease, periodically consider dose reduction, interval extension, or supervised withdrawal using objective monitoring and a clear plan for treatment restoration if clinically important deterioration occurs.

This structured approach protects patients with active, treatment-dependent CIDP while significantly reducing the risk of therapeutic inertia.

Special Considerations for Older and Higher-Risk Patients

Age profoundly affects both diagnostic interpretation and treatment risk. The correction to the EAN/PNS guideline specifically notes that age-dependent reference values are advisable when interpreting sural sensory nerve action potential amplitudes after age 60.

Furthermore, current IVIG labeling identifies advanced age and renal or cardiovascular comorbidity among the primary factors associated with increased renal or thrombotic risk. Older patients with multimorbidity may therefore benefit immensely from rigorous confirmation of their diagnosis, objective documentation of treatment benefit, and periodic assessment of whether their current IVIG burden remains truly necessary.

Clinical Triggers That Should Prompt Diagnostic Reassessment

The CIDP diagnosis deserves renewed scrutiny whenever the evolving phenotype no longer resembles the syndrome that originally justified treatment. Reassessment is also warranted if formal electrodiagnostic criteria were never clearly documented, if the diagnosis depends heavily on a modest CSF protein elevation, or if the treatment benefit remains entirely subjective.

Additionally, if objective deterioration continues despite apparently adequate therapy, or if a more plausible alternative diagnosis emerges, the clinician must pivot. Failure to demonstrate objective improvement should prompt a reconsideration of both treatment efficacy and diagnostic accuracy, rather than an automatic escalation of immunosuppression. Notably, the 2026 consensus also cautions against interpreting treatment-specific refractoriness as absolute proof that a patient will fail every available therapy.

Broader Clinical Implications for Practice

The current body of evidence supports neither unrestricted IVIG continuation nor indiscriminate withdrawal. IVIG remains an incredibly effective treatment for appropriately diagnosed CIDP. At the same time, referral studies demonstrate that patients without CIDP may acquire the diagnosis through recognizable errors involving phenotype interpretation, electrodiagnostic assessment, CSF interpretation, and an overreliance on subjective treatment response.

A second stewardship checkpoint naturally arises after the diagnosis is secured. A patient who required IVIG previously may not continue to require the exact same dose, interval, or treatment indefinitely. Objective longitudinal measurement elegantly links these two problems. It helps determine whether initial treatment actually works, whether apparent end-of-dose deterioration is reproducible, whether dose reduction produces a clinically meaningful decline, and whether stable patients remain truly treatment dependent.

Acknowledging the Limitations of Current Evidence

The best-known estimates of CIDP overdiagnosis come from tertiary referral populations that are heavily enriched for diagnostic uncertainty, meaning they cannot establish the true prevalence of misdiagnosis in the general population. Furthermore, much of the foundational misdiagnosis literature predates the 2021 EAN/PNS diagnostic framework.

While more recent diagnostic studies provide better information about contemporary criteria, they also demonstrate that no single threshold perfectly resolves the inherent tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the evidence addressing treatment withdrawal is substantially smaller than the evidence establishing IVIG efficacy, and the principal randomized withdrawal trial did not establish strict noninferiority for withdrawal.

Finally, the 2026 disease activity and treatment response framework is an expert consensus generated through a modified Delphi process, rather than a prospectively validated universal outcome standard. Current evidence also does not permit a reliable estimate of the exact percentage of all IVIG-treated CIDP patients who are currently receiving unnecessary therapy.

Future Directions and Unanswered Questions in CIDP Research

Moving forward, the medical community needs more robust data to guide our most difficult clinical decisions. Prospective validation of the 2026 response, relapse, remission, and disease activity definitions is a critical priority. Future studies must determine how effectively these composite patient-reported, disability, and strength measures can distinguish active inflammatory disease from residual deficits or nonspecific daily fluctuations.

Further research should also evaluate standardized IVIG optimization and withdrawal protocols. Identifying reliable predictors of successful dose reduction or discontinuation would vastly improve patient care, as would determining how the 2021 diagnostic criteria affect real-world rates of both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis in community settings.

Perhaps most importantly, the field desperately needs biomarkers capable of independently identifying ongoing CIDP disease activity. Current clinical practice relies heavily on longitudinal treatment response or carefully monitored treatment reduction to establish continuing dependency, a process that is both time-consuming and burdensome for the patient.

Conclusion: Moving Toward Precision and Stewardship

CIDP overdiagnosis is a well-documented clinical problem, particularly in specialty referral populations, but current evidence does not establish exactly what proportion of all IVIG-treated patients are receiving unnecessary therapy. IVIG remains an evidence-based, guideline-recommended treatment for appropriately diagnosed CIDP.

Therefore, the most defensible stewardship strategy is not the broad restriction of IVIG. Instead, it requires a coherent clinical phenotype, correctly interpreted electrodiagnostic evidence, appropriate use of supportive testing, the exclusion of credible alternatives, and an objectively demonstrable treatment response.

For patients who clearly benefit from IVIG, the next question is not simply whether the treatment works. Clinicians must periodically determine what dose and interval remain necessary, and whether continued treatment dependency can still be objectively demonstrated. The 2026 consensus definitions of response, relapse, remission, and disease activity provide a highly practical framework for moving CIDP management away from subjective impressions and toward reproducible, longitudinal assessment.

References

1. Van den Bergh PYK, van Doorn PA, Hadden RDM, et al. European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy: report of a joint Task Force, second revision. Eur J Neurol. 2021;28(11):3556-3583. doi:10.1111/ene.14959. PMID: 34327760.
2. Allen JA, Lewis RA. CIDP diagnostic pitfalls and perception of treatment benefit. Neurology. 2015;85(6):498-504. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001833. PMID: 26180143.
3. Broers MC, Bunschoten C, Drenthen J, et al. Misdiagnosis and diagnostic pitfalls of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Eur J Neurol. 2021;28(6):2065-2073. doi:10.1111/ene.14796. PMID: 33657260. PMCID: PMC8252611.
4. Adrichem ME, Lucke IM, Vrancken AFJE, et al. Withdrawal of intravenous immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Brain. 2022;145(5):1641-1652. doi:10.1093/brain/awac054. PMID: 35139161. PMCID: PMC9166547.
5. Bus SRM, de Haan RJ, Vermeulen M, van Schaik IN, Eftimov F. Intravenous immunoglobulin for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;2(2). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001797.pub4. PMID: 38353301. PMCID: PMC10865446.
6. Allen JA, Ney J, Lewis RA. Electrodiagnostic errors contribute to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy misdiagnosis. Muscle Nerve. 2018;57(4):542-549. doi:10.1002/mus.25997. PMID: 29053880.
7. Allen JA, Eftimov F, Querol L, et al; CIDP Workshop Task Force. Consensus definitions of disease activity and clinical outcomes in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Neurology. 2026;107(1). doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000218159. PMID: 42302218. PMCID: PMC13312943.
8. Correction to: European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on diagnosis and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Eur J Neurol. 2022;29(4):1288. doi:10.1111/ene.15225. PMID: 35032084.
9. Rajabally YA, Afzal S, Loo LK, Goedee HS. Application of the 2021 EAN/PNS criteria for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022;93(12):1247-1252. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2022-329633. PMID: 36190956.
10. van Doorn IN, Baars AE, Wieske L, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of the second revision of the European Academy of Neurology/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline for diagnosing chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy. Eur J Neurol. 2026;33(8). doi:10.1111/ene.70726. PMID: 42549490. PMCID: PMC13434837.
11. Allen JA, Pasnoor M, Dimachkie MM, et al. Quantifying treatment-related fluctuations in CIDP: results of the GRIPPER study. Neurology. 2021;96(14). doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000011703. PMID: 33593867. PMCID: PMC8105962.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. GAMUNEX-C FlexBag [immune globulin injection (human), 10%, caprylate/chromatography purified]. Prescribing information. Revised April 2026. Accessed August 7, 2026. Current DailyMed prescribing information.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. PRIVIGEN, Immune Globulin Intravenous (Human), 10% Liquid. Prescribing information. Revised April 2025. Accessed August 7, 2026. Current FDA prescribing information.
14. Cook M, Pasnoor M, Ajroud-Driss S, Brannagan TH, Dimachkie MM, Allen JA. CIDP prognosis in patients with IVIG treatment-related fluctuations. Muscle Nerve. 2023;67(1):69-73. doi:10.1002/mus.27746. PMID: 36330716. PMCID: PMC10098814.