Joshua Alpers, MD

Partial response, wearing off, and fluctuating control can signal that an FcRn strategy needs to be reconsidered. Emerging switching experience suggests that inadequate response to one therapy may not represent failure of an entire class.

There is no single targeted therapy pathway for every patient with MG. Antibody status, disease history, comorbidities, and practical treatment considerations all shape mechanism selection.

The decision to escalate MG therapy is driven by more than numerical disease severity. Persistent functional impairment may justify earlier targeted treatment even when symptoms appear clinically modest.

Treatment success in MG depends on what matters to the individual patient. Shared decision-making may also help identify patients who warrant earlier targeted treatment.

A rapid response does not always equal an adequate response. The panel considers depth, durability, patient-reported control, and steroid reduction when defining success with FcRn therapy.

Clinical response to FcRn therapy involves more than reaching an endpoint once. The panel examines sustained symptom control, minimal symptom expression, and rapid improvement across FcRn studies.

FcRn-targeted therapies share a therapeutic pathway but are not identical. Molecular design, dosing strategy, route of administration, and patient preference can all shape treatment selection.

FcRn inhibition targets the persistence of pathogenic IgG rather than its production. The panel explains why this downstream mechanism can provide relatively rapid control in MG.

Controlling MG symptoms and modifying its underlying immunology are related but distinct treatment goals. The panel explores how targeted therapies are changing the way clinicians think about remission and disease modification.

Understanding where immune dysfunction occurs in MG provides the foundation for selecting increasingly targeted therapies. The panel connects disease biology with upstream and downstream treatment strategies.

Following the FDA's expanded approval of efgartigimod, the neuromuscular physician at Erlanger Health Systems discusses the implications for seronegative disease, treatment sequencing, and the evolving definition of antibody-negative MG. [WATCH TIME: 5 minutes]

Experts weigh CIDP care: IVIG limits, emerging therapies, early-yet-accurate diagnosis, objective response checks, and screening for paraproteins.

Clinicians explain long-term CIDP care: set expectations for ongoing therapy, taper safely, reassess often, and add rehab, mental health, nutrition.

Learn how clinicians partner with CIDP patients to choose IVIG, steroids or SCIG, set expectations, and tailor treatment to real life.

Learn how clinicians set CIDP treatment goals: gradual strength gains, managing residual deficits, IVIG tapering, and defining remission.

Objective CID

FcRn inhibitors emerge for CIDP relapse prevention, yet biomarker gaps and careful transitions from IVIG shape who benefits.

Explore subcutaneous immunoglobulin for CIDP: HYQVIA and HYZENTRA data, who benefits most, and how it compares with IVIG side effects.

Experts discuss tailoring IVIG for CIDP—optimizing dose and intervals, monitoring relapse risk, and overcoming access and tolerability barriers.

Real-world CIDP data show IVIG slows disability progression and may ease pain, with insights on study limits and patient outcomes.

Explore evidence-based CIDP therapy: IVIG dosing from the ICE trial, steroid tradeoffs, and how clinicians tailor treatment to comorbidities.

CIDP management tackles fatigue, pain, mood, and rehab—plus the hunt for early biomarkers and more effective therapies.

In this episode, "Navigating CIDP Guidelines, Misdiagnosis, and Disease Variants," the panelists in neurology and neuromuscular medicine explore the practical utility of the 2021 EAN/PNS CIDP guidelines and the considerable complexity introduced by disease variants. The discussion opens with a question about monophasic CIDP, with one expert noting that 20–30% of patients can achieve drug-free remission after initial treatment, suggesting a subset of patients experience a self-limiting course that nonetheless meets the diagnostic threshold of progression or relapse beyond two months.

Welcome back to another NeurologyLive Peer Exchange series. The panel opens with a discussion of CIDP prevalence, noting that estimates vary depending on the diagnostic criteria used. A strict case definition from a New South Wales population study places prevalence at approximately 1 per 100,000, while a more clinically based study from Olmsted County suggests a higher figure of around 1 in 10,000. One expert contextualizes this further, estimating that roughly 40,000–50,000 patients in the U.S. are affected, and that CIDP accounts for approximately 20% of patients presenting to peripheral neuropathy centers with initially unrecognized neuropathy. The panel characterizes CIDP as rare but not ultra-rare.