Chronic acquired demyelinating 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.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and usually multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is beneficial but the role of immunosuppressive agents is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2003, 2005, 2008 and 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 September 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for trials of MMN. We also searched two trials registers for ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. We considered prospective and retrospective case series and case reports in the Discussion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one RCT of an immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory agent has been performed in MMN. This study randomised 28 participants and showed that mycophenolate mofetil, when used with IVIg, did not significantly improve strength, function or reduce the need for IVIg. No serious adverse events were observed. The study was deemed at low risk of bias. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to moderate quality evidence, mycophenolate mofetil did not produce significant benefit in terms of reducing need for IVIg or improving muscle strength in MMN. Trials of other immunosuppressants should be undertaken.

Multifocal motor neuropathy: current therapies and novel strategies

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a purely motor mononeuritis multiplex characterized by the presence of conduction block on motor but not on sensory nerves and by the presence of high titers of anti-GM1 antibodies. Several data point to a pathogenetic role of the immune system in this neuropathy, although this has not yet been proved. Several uncontrolled studies and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of therapy with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in MMN. However, this therapy has a short-lasting effect that needs to be maintained with periodic infusions. This can be partly overcome by the use of subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) at the same dose. The high cost and need for repeated infusions have led to the search for other immune therapies, the efficacy of which have not yet been confirmed in randomized trials. In addition, some therapies, including corticosteroids and plasma exchange, are not only ineffective but have been associated with clinical worsening. More recently, a number of novel therapies have been investigated in MMN, including interferon-β1a, the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab and the complement inhibitor eculizumab. Preliminary data from open-label uncontrolled studies show that some patients improve after these therapies; however, randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm efficacy. Until then, IVIg (and SCIg) remains the mainstay of treatment in MMN, and the use of other immune therapies should only be considered for patients not responding to, or becoming resistant to, IVIg.

Multifocal motor neuropathy

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a rare disorder in which the symptoms are caused by persistent conduction block lesions. The mononeuropathy multiplex progresses over time with increasing axonal loss. The cause of the conduction blocks and axonal loss are not completely understood but immune mechanisms are involved and response to intravenous immunoglobulin has been established. The importance of MMN goes beyond its clinical incidence as the increasing understanding of the pathogenesis of this disorder has implications for other peripheral nerve diseases and for our knowledge of peripheral nerve biology.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy is characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and usually multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Intravenous immunoglobulin is beneficial but the role of immunosuppressive agents is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2003, 2005 and 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the best available evidence from randomised controlled trials on the role of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (4 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2011, Issue 3 in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to September 2011), and LILACS (January 1982 to September 2011) for trials of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. We considered prospective and retrospective case series and case reports in the Discussion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one randomised controlled trial of an immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory agent has been performed in multifocal motor neuropathy. This study randomised 28 participants and showed that mycophenolate mofetil, when used with intravenous immunoglobulin, did not significantly improve strength, function or reduce the need for intravenous immunoglobulin. No serious adverse events were observed. The study was deemed at low risk of bias. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

According to moderate quality evidence, mycophenolate mofetil did not produce significant benefit in terms of reducing need for intravenous immunoglobulin or improving muscle strength. Trials of other immunosuppressants should be undertaken.

Pathogenesis and treatment of immune-mediated neuropathies

Immune-mediated neuropathies represent a heterogeneous spectrum of peripheral nerve disorders that can be classified according to time course, predominant involvement of motor/sensory fibers, distribution of deficits and paraclinical parameters such as electrophysiology and serum antibodies. In the last few years, significant advances have been achieved in elucidating underlying pathomechanisms, which made it possible to identify potential therapeutic targets. In this review, we discuss the latest development in pathogenesis and treatment of immune-mediated neuropathies.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy is characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and usually multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Intravenous immunoglobulin is beneficial but the role of immunosuppressive agents is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the best available evidence from randomised controlled trials on the role of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Trials Register (October 8 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from January 1966 to October 8 2008), and EMBASE (from January 1980 to October 8 2008), for trials of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were to be included and one was found. Prospective and retrospective case series and case reports were considered in the Discussion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors searched the titles and abstracts of the articles identified and extracted the data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

In this update, we found the first randomised controlled trial of multifocal motor neuropathy. This study, which randomised 28 patients, showed that mycophenolate mofetil did not significantly improve strength or function or reduce the need for intravenous immunoglobulin. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In the only randomised placebo-controlled trial of any immunosuppressive agent, mycophenolate mofetil did not produce significant benefit. Trials of other immunosuppressants should be undertaken.

Inflammatory demyelinating neuropathies and neuropathies associated with monoclonal gammopathies: treatment update

This review focuses on recent data regarding inflammatory demyelinating neuropathies and neuropathies associated with monoclonal gammopathies. We describe both acute and chronic inflammatory neuropathies, and we discuss conditions ranging from mostly cell-mediated to antibody-mediated disorders. These diseases are characterized by proximal and distal sensory motor involvement. Treatments are based on immune-modulation and/or immune-suppression. Work-up sequence and therapeutical modes are discussed in the light of recently published data, with a special interest on new treatment modalities.

European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society guideline on management of multifocal motor neuropathy

Several diagnostic criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy have been proposed in recent years and a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and various other immunomodulatory drugs has been suggested in several trials and uncontrolled studies. The objectives were to prepare consensus guidelines on the definition, investigation and treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy. Disease experts and a patient representative considered references retrieved from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library in July 2004 and prepared statements which were agreed in an iterative fashion. The Task Force agreed good practice points to define clinical and electrophysiological diagnostic criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy and investigations to be considered. The principal recommendations and good practice points were: (i) IVIg (2 g/kg given over 2-5 days) should be considered as the first line treatment (level A recommendation) when disability is sufficiently severe to warrant treatment. (ii) Corticosteroids are not recommended (good practice point). (iii) If initial treatment with IVIg is effective, repeated IVIg treatment should be considered (level C recommendation). The frequency of IVIg maintenance therapy should be guided by the individual response (good practice point). Typical treatment regimens are 1 g/kg every 2-4 weeks or 2 g/kg every 4-8 weeks (good practice point). (iv) If IVIg is not or not sufficiently effective then immunosuppressive treatment may be considered. Cyclophosphamide, ciclosporin, azathioprine, interferon beta1a, or rituximab are possible agents (good practice point). (v) Toxicity makes cyclophosphamide a less desirable option (good practice point).

European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society Guideline on management of multifocal motor neuropathy. Report of a joint task force of the European Federation of Neurological Societies and the Peripheral Nerve Society

BACKGROUND

Several diagnostic criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) have been proposed in recent years, and a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and various other immunomodulatory drugs has been suggested in several trials and uncontrolled studies.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this guideline was to prepare consensus guidelines on the definition, investigation, and treatment of MMN.

METHODS

Disease experts and a representative of patients considered references retrieved from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library in July 2004 and prepared statements that were agreed in an iterative fashion.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Task Force agreed on good practice points to define clinical and electrophysiological diagnostic criteria for MMN and investigations to be considered. The principal recommendations and good practice points were as follows: (1) IVIg (2 g/kg given over 2-5 days) should be considered as the first line of treatment (level A recommendation) when disability is sufficiently severe to warrant treatment; (2) corticosteroids are not recommended (good practice point); (3) if initial treatment with IVIg is effective, repeated IVIg treatment should be considered (level C recommendation). The frequency of IVIg maintenance therapy should be guided by the individual response (good practice point). Typical treatment regimens are 1 g/kg every 2-4 weeks or 2 g/kg every 4-8 weeks (good practice point); (4) if IVIg is not (or not sufficiently) effective, then immunosuppressive treatment may be considered. Cyclophosphamide, cyclosporine, azathioprine, interferon-beta1a, or rituximab are possible agents (good practice point); and (5) toxicity makes cyclophosphamide a less desirable option (good practice point).

Multifocal motor neuropathy

PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW

To conduct a critical review of recent studies on the clinical and therapeutic aspects of multifocal motor neuropathy, and to analyse their implications for patient management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have contributed to defining the specific position of multifocal motor neuropathy within the spectrum of chronic immune-mediated polyneuropathies. One study compared features of this condition with multifocal acquired demyelinating sensory and motor neuropathy, while others have focused on pathological alterations at the site of conduction blocks. A further study described six new cases of multifocal acquired motor neuropathy, which should be considered as a variant of multifocal motor neuropathy. Several Cochrane reviews and review articles have shown evidence of the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins in the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy. The issue of long-term intravenous immunoglobulins in multifocal motor neuropathy, however, has yielded controversial results. Two studies have shown progressive motor deterioration in most patients, correlated with electrophysiological signs indicative of axonal degeneration, while a third study found signs of sustained clinical and electrophysiological improvement after a mean follow up of 7.25 years.

SUMMARY

Multifocal motor neuropathy is a distinct clinical entity that differs from chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy and multifocal acquired demyelinating sensory and motor neuropathy, although they share some electrophysiological characteristics. Although the aetiology remains unsolved, frequent association with high-titer antibodies against ganglioside GM1, together with an often positive response to intravenous immunoglobulins further support an autoimmune mechanism. New therapeutic strategies are required, however, that focus on the effects and the costs of treatment over long-term follow up.

Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

BACKGROUND

Multifocal motor neuropathy is a distinct clinical entity characterised by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetrical limb weakness and minimal sensory abnormality. The diagnostic feature of this condition is the presence of multiple partial motor nerve conduction blocks. Controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of regular intravenous immunoglobulin infusions. Immunosuppressive agents have been used as primary, second-line or adjunctive agents for its treatment. This review was undertaken to identify and review systematically randomised controlled trials of immunosuppressive agents. The use of intravenous immunoglobulin will be the subject of a separate review.

OBJECTIVES

To provide the best available evidence from randomised controlled trials on the role of immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group trials register for all trials of multifocal motor neuropathy published, using 'multifocal motor neuropathy' OR 'chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy' OR ' conduction block' OR ' motor neuropathy' AND 'immunosuppressive agents', 'immunosuppressants', 'corticosteroids', 'plasma exchange', 'azathioprine', 'cyclophosphamide', 'cyclosporin', 'ciclosporin', 'methotrexate', and 'mycophenolate', 'immunomodulatory agents', 'interferon', 'total lymphoid irradiation' or 'bone marrow transplantation' as search terms. In addition we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE for 2000 and 2001 and CINAHL, LILACS for all years. We updated the register search in February 2004 and searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to end May 2004) and EMBASE (January 1980 to end May 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised clinical trials in which allocation was not random but was intended to be unbiased (e.g. alternate allocation) were to have been selected. Since no such trials were discovered, all prospective and retrospective case series were included in the 'background' or 'discussion' sections of the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All studies on multifocal motor neuropathy or lower motor neuron weakness with conduction block and no sensory abnormality were scrutinised for data on patients treated with any form of immunosuppressive agents besides intravenous immunoglobulin. The information on the outcome of treatment was then collated and summarised.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials of any immunosuppressive agents for multifocal motor neuropathy. We summarised the results of retrospective and prospective case series in the discussion of the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no randomised controlled trials to indicate whether immunosuppressive agents are beneficial in multifocal motor neuropathy.

Multifocal motor neuropathy: current concepts and controversies

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is now a well-defined purely motor multineuropathy characterized by the presence of multifocal partial motor conduction blocks (CB), frequent association with anti-GM1 IgM antibodies, and usually a good response to high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy. However, several issues remain to be clarified in the diagnosis, pathogenesis, and therapy of this condition including its nosological position and its relation to other chronic dysimmune neuropathies; the degree of CB necessary for the diagnosis of MMN; the existence of an axonal form of MMN; the pathophysiological basis of CB; the pathogenetic role of antiganglioside antibodies; the mechanism of action of IVIg treatments in MMN and the most effective regimen; and the treatment to be used in unresponsive patients. These issues are addressed in this review of the main clinical, electrophysiological, immunological, and therapeutic features of this neuropathy.

Neuropathies motrices multifocales avec blocs de conduction persistants : 18 ans après

Multifocal motor neuropathy with persistent conduction blocks was firstly reported in 1986 and outlined from the group of purely motor diseases of the peripheral nervous system. The main criterion is the presence of conduction blocks located only on the motor nerves; additionally 30 percent of patients have IgM subclass serum antibodies directed against GM1 ganglioside. The clinical picture is a multifocal, asymmetrical, neuropathy, starting and predominant in the upper limbs, occurring in males aged 50 years and more, and having a progressive course. There is no biological sign besides elevated anti-GM1 antibodies. CSF analysis discloses mild increased protein count. The course is unpredictable, the neuropathy may be strictly limited to one or two motor nerves, or spread to other motor nerves in the four limbs. There is no involvement of the sensory and the cranial nerves, no involvement of the autonomic and the central nervous system. The pathophysiology is unknown, animal models do not allow to confirm the role of humoral immunity, and the role of anti-GM1 antibodies is controversial. Randomized controlled trials have assessed the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulins which dramatically improve strength in 70-80 percent of patients in the short term, but remain unable to prevent motor deterioration in most patients, together with the occurrence of new conduction blocks. Corticosteroids and plasma exchanges do not improve the patients and may be followed by transient worsening. Long-term efficacy of immunosuppressive agents is not known.

Multifocal motor neuropathy

Multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) is a recently identified peripheral nerve disorder characterized by progressive, predominantly distal, asymmetric limb weakness mostly affecting upper limbs, minimal or no sensory impairment, and by the presence on nerve conduction studies of multifocal persistent partial conduction blocks on motor but not sensory nerves. The etiopathogenesis of MMN is not known, but there is some evidence, based mostly on the clinical improvement after immunological therapies, that the disease has an immunological basis. Antibodies, mostly IgM, to the gangliosides GM1, and though less frequently, GM2 and GD1a, are frequently detected in patients' sera, helping in the diagnosis of this disease. Even if there is some experimental evidence that these antibodies may be pathogenic in vitro, their role in the neuropathy remains to be established. Patients with MMN do not usually respond to steroids or plasma exchange, which may occasionally worsen the symptoms, while the efficacy of cyclophosphamide is limited by its relevant side effects. More than 80% of MMN patients rapidly improve with high dose intravenous immunoglobulin therapy (IVIg). The effect of this therapy is, however, transient and improvement has to be maintained with periodic infusions. A positive response to interferon-beta has been recently reported in a minority of patients, some of whom were resistant to IVIg. Even if many progresses have been made on the diagnosis and therapy of MMN, there are still several issues on the nosological position, etiopathogenesis and long-term treatment of this neuropathy that need to be clarified.