Treatment for inclusion body myositis

Background Inclusion body myositis (IBM) is a late‐onset inflammatory muscle disease (myopathy) associated with progressive proximal and distal limb muscle atrophy and weakness. Treatment options have attempted to target inflammatory and atrophic features of this condition (for example with immunosuppressive and immunomodulating drugs, anabolic steroids, and antioxidant treatments), although as yet there is no known effective treatment for reversing or minimising the progression of inclusion body myositis. In this review we have considered the benefits, adverse effects, and costs of treatment in targeting cardinal effects of the condition, namely muscle atrophy, weakness, and functional impairment. Objectives To assess the effects of treatment for IBM. Search methods On 7 October 2014 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Additionally in November 2014 we searched clinical trials registries for ongoing or completed but unpublished trials. Selection criteria We considered randomised or quasi‐randomised trials, including cross‐over trials, of treatment for IBM in adults compared to placebo or any other treatment for inclusion in the review. We specifically excluded people with familial IBM and hereditary inclusion body myopathy, but we included people who had connective tissue and autoimmune diseases associated with IBM, which may or may not be identified in trials. We did not include studies of exercise therapy or dysphagia management, which are topics of other Cochrane systematic reviews. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Main results The review included 10 trials (249 participants) using different treatment regimens. Seven of the 10 trials assessed single agents, and 3 assessed combined agents. Many of the studies did not present adequate data for the reporting of the primary outcome of the review, which was the percentage change in muscle strength score at six months. Pooled data from two trials of interferon beta‐1a (n = 58) identified no important difference in normalised manual muscle strength sum scores from baseline to six months (mean difference (MD) ‐0.06, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.03) between IFN beta‐1a and placebo (moderate‐quality evidence). A single trial of methotrexate (MTX) (n = 44) provided moderate‐quality evidence that MTX did not arrest or slow disease progression, based on reported percentage change in manual muscle strength sum scores at 12 months. None of the fully published trials were adequately powered to detect a treatment effect. We assessed six of the nine fully published trials as providing very low‐quality evidence in relation to the primary outcome measure. Three trials (n = 78) compared intravenous immunoglobulin (combined in one trial with prednisone) to a placebo, but we were unable to perform meta‐analysis because of variations in study analysis and presentation of trial data, with no access to the primary data for re‐analysis. Other comparisons were also reported in single trials. An open trial of anti‐T lymphocyte immunoglobulin (ATG) combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low‐quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy, based on percentage change in quantitative muscle strength sum scores at 12 months (MD 12.50%, 95% CI 2.43 to 22.57). Data from trials of oxandrolone versus placebo, azathioprine (AZA) combined with MTX versus MTX, and arimoclomol versus placebo did not allow us to report either normalised or percentage change in muscle strength sum scores. A complete analysis of the effects of arimoclomol is pending data publication. Studies of simvastatin and bimagrumab (BYM338) are ongoing. All analysed trials reported adverse events. Only 1 of the 10 trials interpreted these for statistical significance. None of the trials included prespecified criteria for significant adverse events. Authors' conclusions Trials of interferon beta‐1a and MTX provided moderate‐quality evidence of having no effect on the progression of IBM. Overall trial design limitations including risk of bias, low numbers of participants, and short duration make it difficult to say whether or not any of the drug treatments included in this review were effective. An open trial of ATG combined with MTX versus MTX provided very low‐quality evidence in favour of the combined therapy based on the percentage change data given. We were unable to draw conclusions from trials of IVIg, oxandrolone, and AZA plus MTX versus MTX. We need more randomised controlled trials that are larger, of longer duration, and that use fully validated, standardised, and responsive outcome measures

The role of sulfoglucuronosyl glycosphingolipids in the pathogenesis of monoclonal IgM paraproteinemia and peripheral neuropathy

In IgM paraproteinemia and peripheral neuropathy, IgM M-protein secretion by B cells leads to a T helper cell response, suggesting that it is antibody-mediated autoimmune disease involving carbohydrate epitopes in myelin sheaths. An immune response against sulfoglucuronosyl glycosphingolipids (SGGLs) is presumed to participate in demyelination or axonal degeneration in the peripheral nervous system (PNS). SGGLs contain a 3-sulfoglucuronic acid residue that interacts with anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG) and the monoclonal antibody anti-HNK-1. Immunization of animals with sulfoglucuronosyl paragloboside (SGPG) induced anti-SGPG antibodies and sensory neuropathy, which closely resembles the human disease. These animal models might help to understand the disease mechanism and lead to more specific therapeutic strategies. In an in vitro study, destruction or malfunction of the blood-nerve barrier (BNB) was found, resulting in the leakage of circulating antibodies into the PNS parenchyma, which may be considered as the initial key step for development of disease

Therapeutic Advances and Future Prospects in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Myopathies

The inflammatory myopathies include three distinct entities: polymyositis (PM), dermatomyositis (DM), and inclusion body myositis (IBM). A T-cell-mediated cytotoxic process in PM and IBM and a complement-mediated microangiopathy in DM are the hallmarks of the underlying autoimmune processes. The most consistent therapeutic problem remains the distinction of PM from the difficult-to-treat mimics such as s-IBM, necrotizing myopathies and inflammatory dystrophies. This review provides a step-by-step approach to the treatment of inflammatory myopathies, highlights the common pitfalls and mistakes in therapy, and identifies the emerging new therapies. In uncontrolled studies, PM and DM respond to prednisone to some degree and for some period of time, while a combination with one immu-nosuppressive drug (azathioprine, cyclosporine, mycophenolate, methotrexate) offers additional benefit or steroid-sparing effect. In contrast, IBM is resistant to most of these therapies, most of the time. Controlled studies have shown that IVIg is effective and safe for the treatment of DM, where is used as a second, and at times first, line therapy. IVIg seems to be also effective in the majority of patients with PM based on uncontrolled series, but it offers transient help to a small number of patients with IBM especially those with dysphagia. Bona fide patients with PM and DM who become resistant to the aforementioned therapies, may respond to rituximab, tacrolimus or rarely to an tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor. For IBM patients, experience with alemtuzumab, a T-cell-depleting monoclonal antibody, is encouraging

Update on Intravenous Immunoglobulin in Neurology: Modulating Neuro-autoimmunity, Evolving Factors on Efficacy and Dosing and Challenges on Stopping Chronic IVIg Therapy

In the last 25 years, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has had a major impact in the successful treatment of previously untreatable or poorly controlled autoimmune neurological disorders. Derived from thousands of healthy donors, IVIg contains IgG1 isotypes of idiotypic antibodies that have the potential to bind pathogenic autoantibodies or cross-react with various antigenic peptides, including proteins conserved among the “common cold”-pre-pandemic coronaviruses; as a result, after IVIg infusions, some of the patients’ sera may transiently become positive for various neuronal antibodies, even for anti-SARS-CoV-2, necessitating caution in separating antibodies derived from the infused IVIg or acquired humoral immunity. IVIg exerts multiple effects on the immunoregulatory network by variably affecting autoantibodies, complement activation, FcRn saturation, FcγRIIb receptors, cytokines, and inflammatory mediators. Based on randomized controlled trials, IVIg is approved for the treatment of GBS, CIDP, MMN and dermatomyositis; has been effective in, myasthenia gravis exacerbations, and stiff-person syndrome; and exhibits convincing efficacy in autoimmune epilepsy, neuromyelitis, and autoimmune encephalitis. Recent evidence suggests that polymorphisms in the genes encoding FcRn and FcγRIIB may influence the catabolism of infused IgG or its anti-inflammatory effects, impacting on individualized dosing or efficacy. For chronic maintenance therapy, IVIg and subcutaneous IgG are effective in controlled studies only in CIDP and MMN preventing relapses and axonal loss up to 48 weeks; in practice, however, IVIg is continuously used for years in all the aforementioned neurological conditions, like is a “forever necessary therapy” for maintaining stability, generating challenges on when and how to stop it. Because about 35-40% of patients on chronic therapy do not exhibit objective neurological signs of worsening after stopping IVIg but express subjective symptoms of fatigue, pains, spasms, or a feeling of generalized weakness, a conditioning effect combined with fear that discontinuing chronic therapy may destabilize a multi-year stability status is likely. The dilemmas of continuing chronic therapy, the importance of adjusting dosing and scheduling or periodically stopping IVIg to objectively assess necessity, and concerns in accurately interpreting IVIg-dependency are discussed. Finally, the merit of subcutaneous IgG, the ineffectiveness of IVIg in IgG4-neurological autoimmunities, and genetic factors affecting IVIg dosing and efficacy are addressed. © 2021, The Author(s)

Immunotherapy in myasthenia gravis in the era of biologics

No consensus has been reached on the ideal therapeutic algorithm for myasthenia gravis (MG). Most patients with MG require induction therapy with high doses of corticosteroids and maintenance with an immunosuppressant. Severe cases and acute worsening require intravenous immunoglobulin or plasmapheresis before oral immunosuppressants start having an effect. However, biologics are emerging as important therapeutic tools that promise to provide better corticosteroid sparing effects than standard treatments and can even induce remission. In particular, eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against complement C5, has been approved by the FDA for refractory MG on the basis of a phase III trial. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that depletes peripheral B cells, has also been effective in many large uncontrolled series, although was not in a small phase III trial. Whether the newer anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab, ofatumumab, obinutuzumab, ublituximab or inebilizumab will be more effective remains unclear. Belimumab, an antibody against the B cell trophic factor BAFF, was ineffective in phase III trials, and efgartigimod, which depletes antibodies, was effective in a phase II study. Some anti-cytokine agents relevant to MG immunopathogenesis also seem promising. Checkpoint inhibitors can trigger MG in some patients, necessitating early intervention. Increased availability of new biologics provides targeted immunotherapies and the opportunities to develop more specific therapies. © 2018, Springer Nature Limited