Cited by 55Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersPeripheral Neuropathies and DisordersAutoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments

Intravenous Immunoglobulin Therapy in Refractory Autoimmune Dysautonomias: A Retrospective Analysis of 38 Patients

Schofield, Jill R., Chemali, Kamal R.·2019·American Journal of Therapeutics

Abstract

Background Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has recognized efficacy in autoimmune peripheral nerve disorders, but there has been limited study of the use of IVIG in autoimmune dysautonomias. Study question To determine the efficacy and safety of IVIG in patients with disabling, refractory autoimmune dysautonomias, including patients with postural tachycardia syndrome and gastrointestinal dysmotility. Study design Patients with one or more autonomic disorder(s) and persistent serological evidence for autoimmunity who were unable to work or attend school despite usual treatments for dysautonomia were treated with IVIG for at least 3 months at a dose of at least 1 gm/kg monthly. Measures and outcomes Outcome measures included the composite autonomic symptom scale 31 survey and a functional ability score. Results There were 38 patients, 84% female and mean age of 28.4 years. Of patients, 83.5% improved on IVIG as defined by at least 20% improvement in the composite autonomic symptom scale 31 and/or functional ability score. The mean pretreatment functional ability score was 21% (mostly bedridden), which improved to a mean of 74% (nearing able to return to work/school) for responsive patients after at least 1 year of IVIG. The mean time to the first sign of response was 5.3 weeks. There were no serious adverse events. The Mayo autoimmune dysautonomia panel antibodies and traditional Sjögren antibodies were present in only 13% and 8% of patients, respectively, but antiphospholipid…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mjt.0000000000000778

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schofield, J. R., & Chemali, K. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Department of Neurology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA.
Corresponding author
Schofield, Jill R.
Venue
American Journal of Therapeutics
Published
2019-09
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
e570-e582
ISSN
1075-2765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2804669447
Cited by
55
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Cardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Peripheral Neuropathies and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Autoimmune Neurological Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
intravenous immunoglobulin, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, gastrointestinal motility disorders, antiphospholipid antibodies, functional capacity, treatment response, adverse events
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Humans, Immunologic Factors, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Immunoglobulins, Intravenous, Treatment Outcome, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid, Autoimmune Diseases of the Nervous System, Primary Dysautonomias, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review