Retrospective study reveals social deprivation affects pre-treatment disability in CIDP patients, suggesting a need for better referral practices.
Whether social deprivation may affect diagnosis, management, and outcomes of subjects with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is unknown. We conducted a retrospective study of subjects with CIDP attending University Hospitals Birmingham, UK. Demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment data, post-treatment outcomes and Index of Multiple Deprivation 2019 were collected. Postcodes were categorised in local vs. non-local and travelling distances to the hospital were ascertained. We included 155 consecutive subjects with CIDP. Mean age was 62.2 years (SD: 15.1). Male to female ratio was 1.67:1. One-hundred and eighteen subjects (76.1%) had typical CIDP. Greater pre-treatment disability was independently associated with greater social deprivation (p = 0.031) and longer pre-treatment disease duration (p = 0.001). Neither use of high-cost first-line therapies, nor immunosuppressant usage, were associated with social deprivation. Post-treatment outcomes were not associated with social deprivation. Greater social deprivation was independently associated with younger age (p = 0.002), having a local post-code (p = 0.001) and living closer to the hospital (p < 0.001). Subjects from the two most socially deprived deciles were younger (p = 0.025) and more disabled pre-treatment (p = 0.028) than those from the two least deprived deciles. Significantly fewer tertiary referrals were received for the two most socially deprived deciles compared to the two least deprived deciles (9.9% vs. 31.3%; p = 0.001). Despite a publicly funded healthcare system with universal access, social deprivation independently contributed to greater pre-treatment disability in subjects with CIDP in this UK cohort. Social deprivation did not impact on treatments administered and post-treatment outcomes but may have influenced tertiary referral decisions to our centre.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajabally et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: