Human immune globulin 10% with recombinant human hyaluronidase in multifocal motor neuropathy

Immunoglobulin for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare, probably immune-mediated disorder characterised by slowly progressive, asymmetric, distal weakness of one or more limbs with no objective loss of sensation. It may cause prolonged periods of disability. Treatment options for MMN are few. People with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange. Uncontrolled studies have suggested a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg). This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2005, with an amendment in 2007. We updated the review to incorporate new evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous and subcutaneous immunoglobulin in people with MMN.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 20 April 2021: the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, and checked the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs and quasi-RCTs examining the effects of any dose of IVIg and subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) in people with definite or probable MMN for inclusion in the review. Eligible studies had to have measured at least one of the following outcomes: disability, muscle strength, or electrophysiological conduction block. We used studies that reported the frequency of adverse effects to assess safety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed the literature searches to identify potentially relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

Six cross-over RCTs including a total of 90 participants were suitable for inclusion in the review. Five RCTs compared IVIg to placebo, and one compared IVIg to SCIg. Four of the trials comparing IVIg versus placebo involved IVIg-naive participants (induction treatment). In the other two trials, participants were known IVIg responders receiving maintencance IVIg at baseline and were then randomised to maintenance treatment with IVIg or placebo in one trial, and IVIg or SCIg in the other. Risk of bias was variable in the included studies, with three studies at high risk of bias in at least one risk of bias domain. IVIg versus placebo (induction treatment): three RCTs including IVIg-naive participants reported a disability measure. Disability improved in seven out of 18 (39%) participants after IVIg treatment and in two out of 18 (11%) participants after placebo (risk ratio (RR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 10.12; 3 RCTs, 18 participants; low-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with an improvement in disability at 12 months was not reported. Strength improved in 21 out of 27 (78%) IVIg-naive participants treated with IVIg and one out of 27 (4%) participants who received placebo (RR 11.00, 95% CI 2.86 to 42.25; 3 RCTs, 27 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg treatment may increase the proportion of people with resolution of at least one conduction block; however, the results were also consistent with no effect (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 51.70; 4 RCTs, 28 participants; low-certainty evidence). IVIg versus placebo (maintenance treatment): a trial that included participants on maintenance IVIg treatment reported an increase in disability in 17 out of 42 (40%) people switching to placebo and seven out of 42 (17%) remaining on IVIg (RR 2.43, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.24; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and a decrease in grip strength in 20 out of 42 (48%) participants after a switch to placebo treatment compared to four out of 42 (10%) remaining on IVIg (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54; 1 RCT, 42 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events, IVIg versus placebo (induction or maintenance): four trials comparing IVIg and placebo reported adverse events, of which data from two studies could be meta-analysed. Transient side effects were reported in 71% of IVIg-treated participants versus 4.8% of placebo-treated participants in these studies. The pooled RR for the development of side effects was 10.33 (95% CI 2.15 to 49.77; 2 RCTs, 21 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was only one serious side effect (pulmonary embolism) during IVIg treatment. IVIg versus SCIg (maintenance treatment): the trial that compared continuation of IVIg maintenance versus SCIg maintenance did not measure disability. The evidence was very uncertain for muscle strength (standardised mean difference 0.08, 95% CI -0.84 to 1.00; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for the number of people with side effects attributable to treatment (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.40; 1 RCT, 9 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence from three small RCTs shows that IVIg may improve muscle strength in people with MMN, and low-certainty evidence indicates that it may improve disability; the estimate of the magnitude of improvement of disability has wide CIs and needs further studies to secure its significance. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, it is probable that most IVIg responders deteriorate in disability and muscle strength after IVIg withdrawal. SCIg might be an alternative treatment to IVIg, but the evidence is very uncertain. More research is needed to identify people in whom IVIg withdrawal is possible and to confirm efficacy of SCIg as an alternative maintenance treatment.

Subcutaneous immunoglobulin treatment for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy

Immunoglobulin G (IgG) therapy is an established long‐term treatment in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) that is commonly administered intravenously (IVIg). The subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) administration route is a safe and effective alternative option, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2018, for maintenance treatment of adults with CIDP. Physicians and patients alike need to be aware of all their treatment options in order to make informed decisions and plan long‐term treatment strategies. In this review, we collate the evidence for SCIg in CIDP from all published studies and discuss their implications and translation to clinical practice. We also provide guidance on the practicalities of how and when to transition patients from IVIg to SCIg and ongoing patient support. Evidence suggests that IVIg and SCIg have comparable long‐term efficacy in CIDP. However, SCIg can provide additional benefits for some patients, including no requirement for venous access or premedication, and reduced frequency of systemic adverse events. Local‐site reactions are more common with SCIg than IVIg, but these are mostly well‐tolerated and abate with subsequent infusions. Data suggest that many patients prefer SCIg following transition from IVIg. SCIg preference may be a result of the independence and flexibility associated with self‐infusion, whereas IVIg preference may be a result of familiarity and reliance on a healthcare professional for infusions. In practice, individualizing maintenance dosing based on disease behavior and determining the minimally effective IgG dose for individuals are key considerations irrespective of the administration route chosen.

Long-term follow-up of facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy in multifocal motor neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, efficacy and patient satisfaction of long-term facilitated subcutaneous immunoglobulin therapy (fSCIG) in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN).

METHODS

Twelve patients previously participating in a randomized trial investigating the short-term efficacy of fSCIG were offered to switch to fSCIG maintenance therapy following a variable interval on conventional subcutaneous immunoglobulin.

RESULTS

Eight patients were switched to fSCIG maintenance therapy, seven of whom were invited for a follow-up assessment after 18 months (range 13-23 months) of treatment. The age at follow-up was 57 years (range 45-70 years) and patients received a median weekly dose immunoglobulin G of 32.5 g (range 20.0-50.0 g), the dose being unaltered compared to baseline values following completion of the fSCIG trial. In five patients the infusion was biweekly, whereas two patients were infused weekly. The follow-up mean isometric strength normalized to pre-trial values was 107.7% (95% CI 86.4-129.0%) being non-inferior to baseline values (104.7%, 95% CI 97.6-111.8%, P = 0.015). The mean ODSS was 2.0 (95% CI 0.8-3.2) which is identical to the baseline score following completion of the fSCIG trial, the P-value for non-inferiority being <0.0001. The secondary variables of impairment, function and quality of life at follow-up all were non-inferior to baseline values (P ≤ 0.046).

CONCLUSION

fSCIG seems feasible and effective for long-term maintenance treatment in patients with MMN.