Abstract

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy usually starts with a 2.0 g/kg induction dose followed by 1.0 g/kg maintenance doses every 3 weeks. No dose-ranging studies with intravenous immunoglobulin maintenance therapy have been published. The Progress in Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating polyneuropathy (ProCID) study was a prospective, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre, phase III study investigating the efficacy and safety of 10% liquid intravenous immunoglobulin (panzyga®) in patients with active chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Patients were randomised 1:2:1 to receive the standard intravenous immunoglobulin induction dose and then either 0.5, 1.0 or 2.0 g/kg maintenance doses every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was the response rate in the 1.0 g/kg group, defined as an improvement ≥ 1 point in adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment score at Week 6 versus baseline and maintained at Week 24. Secondary endpoints included dose response and safety. This trial was registered with EudraCT (Number 2015-005443-14) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02638207). Between August 2017 and September 2019, the study enrolled 142 patients. All 142 were included in the safety analyses. As no post infusion data were available for three patients, 139 were included in the efficacy analyses, of whom 121 were previously on corticosteroids. The response rate was 80% (55/69 patients) (95% confidence interval: 69-88%) in the 1.0 g/kg group, 65% (22/34; confidence interval: 48-79%) in the 0.5 g/kg group, and 92% (33/36; confidence interval 78-97%) in the 2.0 g/kg group. While the proportion of responders was higher with higher maintenance doses, logistic regression analysis showed that the effect on response rate was driven by a significant difference between the 0.5 and 2.0 g/kg groups, whereas the response rates in the 0.5 and 2.0 g/kg groups did not differ significantly from the 1.0 g/kg group. Fifty-six percent of all patients had an adjusted Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment score improvement 3 weeks after the induction dose alone. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 16 (45.7%), 32 (46.4%) and 20 (52.6%) patients in the 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 g/kg dose groups, respectively. The most common adverse reaction was headache. There were no treatment-related deaths. Intravenous immunoglobulin 1.0 g/kg was efficacious and well tolerated as maintenance treatment for patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. Further studies of different maintenance doses of intravenous immunoglobulin in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy are warranted.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Clinical trials in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) often assess efficacy using the ordinal Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability score. Here, data from the PATH study was reanalyzed using change in Inflammatory Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (I-RODS) to define CIDP relapse instead of INCAT. METHODS The PATH study comprised an intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) dependency period and an IVIG (IgPro10 [Privigen®]) restabilization period; subjects were then randomized to weekly maintenance subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIG; IgPro20 [Hizentra®]) 0.2 g/kg or 0.4 g/kg or placebo for 24 weeks. CIDP relapse was defined as ≥1-point deterioration in adjusted INCAT, with a primary endpoint of relapse or withdrawal rates. This retrospective exploratory analysis redefined relapse using I-RODS via three different cut-off methods: an individual variability method, fixed cut-off of ≥8-point deterioration on I-RODS centile score or ≥4-point deterioration on I-RODS raw score. RESULTS Relapse or withdrawal rates were 47% for placebo, 34% for 0.2 g/kg IgPro20 and 19% for 0.4 g/kg IgPro20 using the raw score; 40%, 28% and 15%, respectively using the centile score, and 49%, 40% and 27%, respectively using the individual variability method. INTERPRETATION IgPro20 was shown to be efficacious as a maintenance therapy for CIDP when relapse was defined using I-RODS. A stable response pattern was shown for I-RODS across various applied cut-offs, indicating that any could be used in future clinical trials.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Several pharmacological treatments have been proposed for the treatment of Complex regional pain syndrome type-I (CRPS-I) in adults, but data regarding the efficacy of various agents for this disease is scarce. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to analyse pharmacological approaches in adults with CRPS-I. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from the inception date to 30, June 2021 for identifying placebo-controlled or active-controlled RCTs using bisphosphonates, ketamine, corticosteroids, anti-epileptics, NSAIDs/COXIBs, opiates, antidepressants, scavengers/magnesium sulphate or intravenous immunoglobulins for the treatment of CRPS-I. The primary outcomes included changes in the visual analogue scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain before and after treatment. RESULTS We included 20 placebo-controlled or active-controlled RCTs (for a total of 818 CRPS-I adults) that used bisphosphonates (n = 7), ketamine (n = 2), corticosteroids (n = 2), anti-epileptics (n = 1), NSAIDs/COXIBs (n = 2), scavengers/magnesium (n = 5), or intravenous immunoglobulins (n = 1) to treat CRPS-I during a median follow-up of 26 weeks. The treatment with bisphosphonates showed a significant reduction of the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale compared with placebo or reference therapy (random effects weighted mean difference [WMD]: -23.8, 95%CI-28.0 to -19.6; I2=36.4%). Treatment with ketamine also documented a reduction in the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale (random effects WMD: -8.27,95%CI -12.9 to -3.70; I2=0%). Treatment with other agents did not improve the values of the VAS/NRS pain scale. CONCLUSION This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the recommendation of parenteral bisphosphonates as the first-line agent in the treatment of CRPS-I. REGISTRATION NUMBER Open Science Framework registries; osf.io/et9gu.

Abstract

Intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) are an efficacious treatment for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). Biomarkers for disease activity are lacking, making the need for ongoing treatment difficult to assess, leading to potential overtreatment, and high health care costs. Our objective was to determine whether IVIg withdrawal is non-inferior to continuing IVIg treatment and to determine how often patients are overtreated. We performed a randomized, double-blind, IVIg-controlled non-inferiority trial in seven centers in the Netherlands. Adults with clinically stable CIDP using IVIg maintenance treatment for at least 6 months were included. Patients received either IVIg withdrawal (placebo) as investigational treatment or continuation of IVIg treatment (control). The primary outcome was the mean change in logit scores from baseline to 24-weeks follow-up on the patient-reported Inflammatory Rasch-Overall Disability Scale (iRODS). The non-inferiority margin was predefined as between-group difference in mean change scores of -0.65. Patients who deteriorated could reach a relapse endpoint according to predefined criteria. Patients with a relapse endpoint after IVIg withdrawal entered a restabilization phase. All patients from the withdrawal group who remained stable, were included in an open-label extension phase of 52 weeks. We included 60 patients of whom 29 were randomised to IVIg withdrawal and 31 to continuation of treatment. The mean age was 58 years (SD 14.7) and 67% was male. The between-group difference in mean change iRODS scores was -0.47 (95%CI -1.24 to 0.31), indicating that non-inferiority of IVIg withdrawal could not be established. In the IVIg withdrawal group, 41% remained stable for 24 weeks, compared to 58% in the IVIg continuation group (-17%; 95%CI -39 to 8). Of the IVIg withdrawal group, 28% remained stable at end of the extension phase. Of the patients in the restabilization phase, 94% restabilized within 12 weeks. In conclusion, it remains inconclusive whether IVIg withdrawal is non-inferior compared to continuing treatment, partly due to larger than expected confidence intervals leading to an underpowered study. Despite these limitations, a considerable proportion of patients could stop treatment and almost all patients who relapsed were restabilized quickly. Unexpectedly, a high proportion of IVIg treated patients experienced a relapse endpoint, emphasizing the need for more objective measures for disease activity in future trials, as the patient reported outcome measures might not have been able to identify true relapses reliably. Overall, this study suggests that withdrawal attempts are safe and should be performed regularly in clinically stable patients.

Abstract

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to assess the five-year treatment effects of a short course of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS Fifty subjects 50 to 84 years of age with MCI due to AD were administered 0.4 g/kg 10% IVIG or 0.9% saline every two weeks x five doses in a randomized double-blinded design as part of a two-year study. Twenty-seven subjects completed an additional three-year extension study. MRI brain imaging, cognitive testing, and conversion to dementia were assessed annually. Participants were stratified into early MCI (E-MCI) and late MCI (L-MCI). The primary endpoint was brain atrophy measured as annualized percent change in ventricular volume (APCV) annually for five years. ANOVA was used to compare annualized percent change in ventricular volume from baseline between the groups adjusting for MCI status (E-MCI, L-MCI). RESULTS Differences in brain atrophy between the groups, which were statistically significant after one year, were no longer significant after five years. IVIG-treated L-MCI subjects did demonstrate a delay in conversion to dementia of 21.4 weeks. CONCLUSION An eight-week course of IVIG totaling 2 g/kg in MCI is safe but is not sufficient to sustain an initial reduction in brain atrophy or a temporary delay in conversion to dementia at five years. Other dosing strategies of IVIG in the early stages of AD should be investigated to assess more sustainable disease-modifying effects. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01300728. Registered 23 February 2011.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE This is the first double-blind, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) versus placebo in patients with idiopathic small fiber neuropathy (I-SFN). METHODS Between July 2016 and November 2018, 60 Dutch patients with skin-biopsy proven idiopathic SFN randomly received a starting dose of IVIg (2 g/kg body weight) or matching placebo (0.9% saline). Subsequently, 3 additional infusions of IVIg (1 g/kg) or placebo were administered at 3-weekly intervals. The primary outcome was a 1-point change in Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (PI-NRS) at 12 weeks compared to baseline. RESULTS Thirty patients received IVIg, and 30 received placebo. In both groups, 29 patients completed the trial. In 40% of patients receiving IVIg, the mean average pain was decreased with at least 1 point, compared to 30% of the patients receiving placebo (p-value 0.588, OR 1.56, 95%CI 0.53-4.53). No significant differences were found on any of the other pre-specified outcomes including general wellbeing, autonomic symptoms, and overall functioning and disability. CONCLUSIONS This RCT showed that IVIg treatment had no significant effect on pain in patients with painful idiopathic SFN.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To estimate the efficacy of the commonly used long-term immunotherapies in myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein IgG associated disorder (MOGAD) METHOD A comprehensive search of the databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was performed for all studies that assessed the efficacy of azathioprine (AZA), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), rituximab (RTX), and maintenance intravenous immunoglobulin (mIVIG) in MOGAD. The random-effect model is used to estimate the standard mean difference (SMD) of annualized relapse rate (ARR) and expanded disability status scale (EDSS), mean ARR, probabilities of relapse and worsening EDSS during treatment. RESULTS The initial search identified 714 articles, and 21 satisfied eligibility criteria. All immunotherapies significantly reduced ARR in both pediatric and adult populations. Relapse probabilities and pooled mean ARR (SE: standard error) during therapies were as follow: AZA 53.1% [95%CI 37.4% to 68.2%; ARR 0.291 (0.134)], MMF 38.5% [95%CI 19.4% to 62.0%; ARR 0.836 (0.176)], RTX 48.9% [95%CI 37.8% to 60.2%; ARR 0.629(0.162)], and mIVIG 25.3% [95%CI 14.0% to 41.3%; ARR 0.081 (0.058)]. Only RTX significantly improved EDSS, SMD -0.499 (95%CI -0.996 to -0.003). The proportion of worsening EDSS with immunotherapies were 20.7% (95%CI 8.8% to 41.6%), 8.1% (95%CI 1.1% to 41.2%), and 10.8% (95%CI 3.8% to 26.8%) for AZA, MMF, and RTX, respectively. CONCLUSION These commonly used immunotherapies significantly reduced ARR in MOGAD. Only RTX had a significant benefit in EDSS improvement. However, a substantial portion of patients continued to relapse with treatment. Randomized controlled studies are needed to verify these findings and perform head-to-head comparisons among these treatment options.

Abstract

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder affecting approximately 2% of children in the United States. Growing evidence suggests that immune dysregulation is associated with ASD. One immunomodulatory treatment that has been studied in ASD is intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the studies which assessed immunoglobulin G (IgG) concentrations and the therapeutic use of IVIG for individuals with ASD. Twelve studies that examined IgG levels suggested abnormalities in total IgG and IgG 4 subclass concentrations, with concentrations in these IgGs related to aberrant behavior and social impairments, respectively. Meta-analysis supported possible subsets of children with ASD with low total IgG and elevated IgG 4 subclass but also found significant variability among studies. A total of 27 publications reported treating individuals with ASD using IVIG, including four prospective, controlled studies (one was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study); six prospective, uncontrolled studies; 2 retrospective, controlled studies; and 15 retrospective, uncontrolled studies. In some studies, clinical improvements were observed in communication, irritability, hyperactivity, cognition, attention, social interaction, eye contact, echolalia, speech, response to commands, drowsiness, decreased activity and in some cases, the complete resolution of ASD symptoms. Several studies reported some loss of these improvements when IVIG was stopped. Meta-analysis combining the aberrant behavior checklist outcome from two studies demonstrated that IVIG treatment was significantly associated with improvements in total aberrant behavior and irritability (with large effect sizes), and hyperactivity and social withdrawal (with medium effect sizes). Several studies reported improvements in pro-inflammatory cytokines (including TNF-alpha). Six studies reported improvements in seizures with IVIG (including patients with refractory seizures), with one study reporting a worsening of seizures when IVIG was stopped. Other studies demonstrated improvements in recurrent infections, appetite, weight gain, neuropathy, dysautonomia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Adverse events were generally limited but included headaches, vomiting, worsening behaviors, anxiety, fever, nausea, fatigue, and rash. Many studies were limited by the lack of standardized objective outcome measures. IVIG is a promising and potentially effective treatment for symptoms in individuals with ASD; further research is needed to provide solid evidence of efficacy and determine the subset of children with ASD who may best respond to this treatment as well as to investigate biomarkers which might help identify responsive candidates.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION This systematic review provides supporting evidence for the accompanying clinical practice guideline on the treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence in adults and children. The review focuses on prescription medications with U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval and nonpharmacologic interventions studied for the treatment of symptoms caused by central disorders of hypersomnolence. METHODS The American Academy of Sleep Medicine commissioned a task force of experts in sleep medicine to perform a systematic review. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies addressing pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for central disorders of hypersomnolence were identified. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the clinical significance of all outcomes. Finally, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the evidence for the purpose of making specific treatment recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 678 studies; 144 met the inclusion criteria and 108 provided data suitable for statistical analyses. Evidence for the following interventions is presented: armodafinil, clarithromycin, clomipramine, dextroamphetamine, flumazenil, intravenous immune globulin (IVIG), light therapy, lithium, l-carnitine, liraglutide, methylphenidate, methylprednisolone, modafinil, naps, pitolisant, selegiline, sodium oxybate, solriamfetol, and triazolam. The task force provided a detailed summary of the evidence along with the quality of evidence, the balance of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, and resource use considerations. CITATION Maski K, Trotti LM, Kotagal S, et al. Treatment of central disorders of hypersomnolence: an American Academy of Sleep Medicine systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment. J Clin Sleep Med. 2021;17(9):1895-1945.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Treatment with one standard dose (2 g/kg) of intravenous immunoglobulin is insufficient in a proportion of patients with severe Guillain-Barré syndrome. Worldwide, around 25% of patients severely affected with the syndrome are given a second intravenous immunoglobulin dose (SID), although it has not been proven effective. We aimed to investigate whether a SID is effective in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a predicted poor outcome. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SID-GBS), we included patients (≥12 years) with Guillain-Barré syndrome admitted to one of 59 participating hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were included on the first day of standard intravenous immunoglobulin treatment (2 g/kg over 5 days). Only patients with a poor prognosis (score of ≥6) according to the modified Erasmus Guillain-Barré syndrome Outcome Score were randomly assigned, via block randomisation stratified by centre, to SID (2 g/kg over 5 days) or to placebo, 7-9 days after inclusion. Patients, outcome adjudicators, monitors, and the steering committee were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score 4 weeks after inclusion. All patients in whom allocated trial medication was started were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR 2224/NL2107. FINDINGS Between Feb 16, 2010, and June 5, 2018, 327 of 339 patients assessed for eligibility were included. 112 had a poor prognosis. Of those, 93 patients with a poor prognosis were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 49 (53%) received SID and 44 (47%) received placebo. The adjusted common odds ratio for improvement on the Guillain-Barré syndrome disability score at 4 weeks was 1·4 (95% CI 0·6-3·3; p=0·45). Patients given SID had more serious adverse events (35% vs 16% in the first 30 days), including thromboembolic events, than those in the placebo group. Four patients died in the intervention group (13-24 weeks after randomisation). INTERPRETATION Our study does not provide evidence that patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome with a poor prognosis benefit from a second intravenous immunoglobulin course; moreover, it entails a risk of serious adverse events. Therefore, a second intravenous immunoglobulin course should not be considered for treatment of Guillain-Barre syndrome because of a poor prognosis. The results indicate the need for treatment trials with other immune modulators in patients severely affected by Guillain-Barré syndrome. FUNDING Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds and Sanquin Plasma Products.