1.
IqYmune(R) is an effective maintenance treatment for multifocal motor neuropathy: a randomised, double-blind, multicenter cross-over non-inferiority study versus Kiovig(R) - The LIME Study
Leger JM, Alfa-Cisse O, Cocito D, Grouin JM, Katifi H, Nobile-Orazio E, Ouaja R, Pouget J, Rajabally YA, Sevilla T, et al
Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System : Jpns. 2018
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is the gold-standard for maintenance treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). This phase III, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-control, crossover study, aimed to evaluate the non-inferiority of IqYmune(R) relative to Kiovig(R), primarily based on efficacy criteria. Twenty-two adult MMN patients, treated with any brand of IVIg (except Kiovig(R) or IqYmune(R)) at a stable maintenance dose within the range of 1 to 2 g/kg every 4 to 8 weeks, were randomised to receive either Kiovig followed by IqYmune, or IqYmune followed by Kiovig. Each product was administered for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference between IqYmune(R) and Kiovig(R) in mean assessments of modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) 10 sum score (strength of five upper-limb and five lower-limb muscle groups, on both sides, giving a score from 0 to 100) during the evaluation period (non-inferiority margin of Delta = 2). A linear mixed model analysis demonstrated the non-inferiority of IqYmune relative to Kiovig, independently of the covariates (value at baseline, treatment period and treatment sequence). The estimated 'IqYmune - Kiovig' difference was -0.01, with a 95% CI -0.51 to 0.48. The number of adverse reactions (ARs) and the percentage of patients affected were similar for the two products: 39 ARs in 10 patients with IqYmune(R) versus 32 ARs in 11 patients with Kiovig(R). No thromboembolic events nor hemolysis nor renal impairment were observed. In this first clinical trial comparing two IVIg brands for maintenance treatment of MMN, efficacy and tolerability of both brands were similar.
2.
Comparison of outcome in patients with cirrhosis and ascites following treatment with albumin or a synthetic colloid: a randomised controlled pilot trail
Moreau R, Valla DC, Durand-Zaleski I, Bronowicki JP, Durand F, Chaput JC, Dadamessi I, Silvain C, Bonny C, Oberti F, et al
Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver. 2006;26((1):):46-54.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The question of which colloid (albumin or synthetic colloids) used for plasma expansion following paracentesis or other complications requiring fluid loading in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial. AIMS To compare outcome and hospital-related cost in patients with cirrhosis treated with 20% human albumin with those treated with a synthetic colloid (3. 5% polygeline). METHODS The primary end point was occurrence of a first liver-related complication. RESULTS When the trial was prematurely discontinued because of safety concerns about bovine-derived products, 30 patients were assigned to receive albumin and 38 were assigned to receive a synthetic colloid. Sixty-three patients were included for ascites removal by paracentesis and five patients for ascites removal by paracentesis and renal impairment. The median time to first liver-related complication was not significantly longer in the albumin group (20 vs. 7 days). However, the total number of liver-related complications adjusted to a 100-day period was significantly lower in the albumin group. The median hospital cost for a 30-day period was significantly lower in the albumin group (1915 euros vs. 4612 euros). CONCLUSIONS In patients with cirrhosis and ascites, human albumin appears to be more effective in preventing liver-related complications than synthetic colloid. This may be associated with decreased hospital costs.