New liquid intravenous immunoglobulin (10 % IVIg) for treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy

Low- versus high-concentration intravenous immunoglobulin for children with Kawasaki disease in the acute phase

PURPOSE

Few studies have compared the effects of low-concentration (5%) and high-concentration (10%) intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) preparations for patients with Kawasaki disease (KD) in the acute phase. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between low- and high-concentration IVIG preparations in children with KD, using a national inpatient database in Japan.

METHOD

We used the Diagnostic Procedure Combination database to identify patients with KD treated with IVIG from April 2012 to March 2020. We identified those receiving high- and low-concentration IVIG preparations as an initial treatment. The outcomes included the proportions of patients with coronary artery abnormalities (CAAs) and IVIG resistance, length of stay, and medical costs. Propensity score-matched analyses were conducted to compare the outcomes between the 2 groups. Instrumental variable analyses were performed to confirm the results.

RESULT

We identified 48 046 patients with KD and created 4:1 propensity score-matched pairs between the low- and high-concentration IVIG groups. There was a significant difference in the percentage with IVIG resistance between the 2 groups (20.6% vs 24.1%; risk difference, 3.5% [95% confidence interval, 2.3-4.7]; P < .001). However, there was no significant difference in CAAs (1.6% vs 1.6%; risk difference, 0.013% [95% confidence interval, -0.34 to 0.37]; P = .953). The instrumental variable analyses showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of CAAs did not differ significantly between those receiving low- and high-concentration IVIG. To confirm the results of this study, prospective studies adjusting for duration of IVIG administration and duration of observation are needed.

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.

Clinical outcomes in multifocal motor neuropathy: A combined cross-sectional and follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical course of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) in a large cohort of patients and to identify predictive factors of a progressive disease course.

METHODS

Between May 2015 and February 2016, we collected clinical data from 100 patients with MMN, of whom 60 had participated in a nationwide cross-sectional cohort study in 2007. We documented clinical characteristics using standardized questionnaires and performed a standardized neurologic examination. We used multiple linear regression analysis to identify factors that correlated with worse outcome.

RESULTS

We found that age at diagnosis (45.2 vs 48.6 years, p < 0.02) was significantly increased between 2007 and 2015-2016, whereas diagnostic delay decreased by 15 months. Seven out of 10 outcome measures deteriorated over time (all p < 0.01). Patients who had a lower Medical Research Council (MRC) sumscore and absence of 1 or more reflexes at the baseline visit showed a greater functional loss at follow-up (p = 0.007 and p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that MMN is a progressive disease. Although 87% of patients received maintenance treatment, muscle strength, reflexes, vibration sense, and the Self-Evaluation Scale score significantly deteriorated over time. Lower MRC sumscore and absence of reflexes predicted a more progressive disease course.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class II evidence that lower MRC sumscore and the absence of reflexes predict a more progressive disease course in patients with MMN.

IqYmune® is an effective maintenance treatment for multifocal motor neuropathy: A randomised, double-blind, multi-center cross-over non-inferiority study vs Kiovig®-The LIME Study

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is the gold‐standard for maintenance treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). This phase III, randomised, double‐blind, multi‐centre, active‐control, crossover study, aimed to evaluate the non‐inferiority of IqYmune® relative to Kiovig®, primarily based on efficacy criteria. Twenty‐two adult MMN patients, treated with any brand of IVIg (except Kiovig® or IqYmune®) 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® and Kiovig® in mean assessments of modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) 10 sum score (strength of 5 upper‐limb and 5 lower‐limb muscle groups, on both sides, giving a score from 0 to 100) during the evaluation period (non‐inferiority margin of Δ = 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% confidence interval (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® vs 32 ARs in 11 patients with Kiovig®. No thromboembolic events nor haemolysis 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.

Outcome measures in MMN revisited: further improvement needed

The objectives of this study were to provide an overview of the outcome measures (OMs) applied in clinical trials in multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) and to determine the responsiveness of a core set of selected OMs as part of the peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization (PeriNomS) study. The following OMs were serially applied in 26 patients with newly diagnosed or relapsing MMN, receiving intravenous immunoglobulin (assessments: T0/T3/T12 months): 14 muscle pairs MRC (Medical Research Council) scale, the Neuropathy Impairment Scale motor-subset, a self-evaluation scale, grip strength, and MMN-RODS© (Rasch-built overall disability scale). All data, except the grip strength, were subjected to Rasch analyses before determining responsiveness. For grip strength, responsiveness was examined using a combined anchor- (SF-36 question-2) and distribution-based (½ × SD) minimum clinically important difference (MCID) techniques, determining the proportion of patients exceeding both the identified cut-offs. For the remaining scales, the magnitude of change for each patient on each scale was determined using the MCID related to the individual SE (responder definition: MCID-SE ≥ 1.96). Overall, a great assortment of measures has been used in MMN trials with different responsiveness definitions. For the selected OMs, responsiveness was poor and only seen in one fourth to one third of the patients, the grip strength being more responsive. Despite the efforts taken to standardize outcome assessment, further clinimetric responsiveness studies are needed in MMN.

10% liquid human immunoglobulin (KIOVIG®) for immunomodulation in autoimmune disorders

Intravenous immunoglobulins have been used to treat autoimmune disorders (ADs) for over 50 years. The etiologies of various ADs are not fully understood and although intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has proved its immunomodulatory properties, the roles of proposed mechanisms of action also remain a matter of speculation. A systemic search of the literature regarding KIOVIG® (Baxalta US, Inc., MA, USA) use in clinical trials on patients with ADs and a detailed review of retrieved articles revealed eight relevant publications. These articles reported KIOVIG use in multifocal motor neuropathy, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Kawasaki disease, Guillain–Barré syndrome and other autoimmune and neurologic disorders and showed that KIOVIG is an effective, safe and well-tolerated treatment in the studied populations. Nevertheless, further studies on larger patient cohorts are needed.

Human immunoglobulin (KIOVIG®/GAMMAGARD LIQUID®) for immunodeficiency and autoimmune diseases: an observational cohort study

AIM

To document the therapeutic efficacy and safety of Human Normal Immunoglobulin 10% Liquid (KIOVIG(®)/GAMMAGARD LIQUID(®) [IVIG 10%]) under clinical routine conditions.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Subjects received IVIG 10% according to the prescribing information and were followed for 6 ± 1 weeks to 12 ± 2 months depending on indication. Efficacy, adverse events, infusion rates and duration and dose were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall efficacy of IVIG 10% was rated as good or very good by the investigator in 81.8% of subjects; overall tolerability was good or very good in 87.5%. One serious adverse drug reaction (ADR) occurred (urticaria); no severe ADRs occurred.

CONCLUSION

In this observational study, the efficacy and safety of IVIG 10% in routine clinical practice was similar to that previously reported in clinical studies.