Management of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the recent advances in the management and treatment of chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculopathy (CIDP). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies confirm the efficacy/safety of long-term intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and short-term subcutaneous immunoglobulin (SCIg) therapy in CIDP. New outcome measures have been recently proposed and further studies evaluated the properties of those already in use. The presence of antibodies against proteins at the node of Ranvier was associated with specific clinical features and treatment response. Fingolimod adds to the list of immunosuppressive agents that failed to be effective in a controlled trial. SUMMARY: Several studies evaluating the best strategy to provide maintenance IVIg treatment in CIDP are in progress. SCIg were shown to be an alternative to IVIg for maintenance treatment while their efficacy as initial therapy should be further addressed. New outcome measures have been shown to be effective in detecting treatment response in clinical trials, but their use in clinical practice remains uncertain. Similarly unsettled is the role of nerve imaging techniques as biomarker in CIDP. The discovery of antibodies against proteins at the node of Ranvier has rekindled a keen interest in the pathogenesis of CIDP and the potential therapeutic role of new agents

Immunotherapy for IgM anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein paraprotein-associated peripheral neuropathies

Background Serum monoclonal anti-myelin-associated glycoprotein (anti-MAG) antibodies may be pathogenic in some people with immunoglobulin M (IgM) paraprotein and demyelinating neuropathy. Immunotherapies aimed at reducing the level of these antibodies might be expected to be beneficial. This is an update of a review first published in 2003 and previously updated in 2006 and 2012. Objectives To assess the effects of immunotherapy for IgM anti-MAG paraprotein-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy. Search methods On 1 February 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also checked trials registers and bibliographies, and contacted authors and experts in the field. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs involving participants of any age treated with any type of immunotherapy for anti-MAG antibody-associated demyelinating peripheral neuropathy with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and of any severity. Our primary outcome measures were numbers of participants improved in disability assessed with either or both of the Neuropathy Impairment Scale (NIS) or the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at six months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were: mean improvement in disability, assessed with either the NIS or the mRS, 12 months after randomisation; change in impairment as measured by improvement in the 10-metre walk time, change in a validated linear disability measure such as the Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (R-ODS) at six and 12 months after randomisation, change in subjective clinical scores and electrophysiological parameters at six and 12 months after randomisation; change in serum IgM paraprotein concentration or anti-MAG antibody titre at six months after randomisation; and adverse effects of treatments. Data collection and analysis We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results We identified eight eligible trials (236 participants), which tested intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), interferon alfa-2a, plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide and steroids, and rituximab. Two trials of IVIg (22 and 11 participants, including 20 with antibodies against MAG), had comparable interventions and outcomes, but both were short-term trials. We also included two trials of rituximab with comparable interventions and outcomes. There were very few clinical or statistically significant benefits of the treatments used on the outcomes predefined for this review, but not all the predefined outcomes were used in every included trial and more responsive outcomes are being developed. A well-performed trial of IVIg, which was at low risk of bias, showed a statistical benefit in terms of improvement in mRS at two weeks and 10-metre walk time at four weeks, but these short-term outcomes are of questionable clinical significance. Cyclophosphamide failed to show any benefit in the single trial's primary outcome, and showed a barely significant benefit in the primary outcome specified here, but some toxic adverse events were identified. Two trials of rituximab (80 participants) have been published, one of which (26 participants) was at high risk of bias. In the meta-analysis, although the data are of low quality, rituximab is beneficial in improving disability scales (Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) improved at eight to 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 9.45; 73 participants)) and significantly more participants improve in the global impression of change score (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.71; 70 participants). Other measures did not improve significantly, but wide CIs do not preclude some effect. Reported adverse effects of rituximab were few, and mostly minor. There were few serious adverse events in the other trials. Authors' conclusions There is inadequate reliable evidence from trials of immunotherapies in anti-MAG paraproteinaemic neuropathy to form an evidence base supporting any particular immunotherapy treatment. IVIg has a statistically but probably not clinically significant benefit in the short term. The meta-analysis of two trials of rituximab provides, however, low-quality evidence of a benefit from this agent. The conclusions of this meta-analysis await confirmation, as one of the two included studies is of very low quality. We require large well-designed randomised trials of at least 12 months' duration to assess existing or novel therapies, preferably employing unified, consistent, well-designed, responsive, and valid outcome measures

Comparing treatment options for chronic inflammatory neuropathies and choosing the right treatment plan

Introduction: Chronic inflammatory neuropathies are disorders caused by an immune response to peripheral nerve. They include chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN) and neuropathy associated with anti-MAG IgM monoclonal gammopathy and other less frequent neuropathies. Several immune therapies have been proven to be effective in these neuropathies even if the best therapeutic option is still unsettled. Areas covered: The authors reviewed the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of currently used immune therapies in these neuropathies. The authors also analyzed the effect of other immune suppressive agents and of biological agents including rituximab, eculizumab, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and fingolimod that were found effective in other autoimmune diseases. Expert commentary: Despite the reported efficacy of a number of new immune therapies in some patients with immune mediated neuropathies, their efficacy has not been so far confirmed in randomized controlled studies. High-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (and subcutaneous immunoglobulin [SCIg] for maintenance treatment), steroids and plasma exchange remain the only therapy of proven efficacy in CIDP, IVIg in MMN and, with certain limits, rituximab and, occasionally plasma exchange in neuropathy associated with anti-MAG antibodies. New biological agents are also on the horizon but their efficacy needs to be proved in controlled studies

Treatment for IgG and IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy

Paraproteinaemic neuropathy refers to those neuropathies associatedwith amonoclonal gammopathy or paraprotein. Themost common of these present with a chronic, predominantly sensory, symmetrical neuropathy, similar to chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) but with relatively more sensory involvement, both clinically and neurophysiologically. The optimal treatment for neuropathies associated with IgG and IgA monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance is not known. This is an update of a review first published in 2007. Objectives To assess the effects of any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. Search methods On 18 January 2014 we searched the Cochrane NeuromuscularDisease Group Trials Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also checked bibliographies for controlled trials of treatments for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies in November 2014. Selection criteria We considered for inclusion randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs using any treatment for IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic peripheral neuropathy. We excluded people with IgM paraproteins. We excluded people where the monoclonal gammopathy was considered secondary to an underlying disorder. We included participants of any age with a diagnosis of monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance with a paraprotein of the IgG or IgA class and a neuropathy. Included participants were not required to fulfil specific electrophysiological diagnostic criteria. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodology to select studies, extract data and analyse results. One trial author provided additional data and clarification. Main results We identified one RCT, with 18 participants, that fulfilled the predetermined inclusion criteria. The trial compared plasma exchange to sham plasma exchange in participants with IgG or IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy over a three-week follow-up period. We identified four other studies but these were not RCTs or quasi-RCTs. The included RCT did not report our predefined primary outcome measure, change in disability six months after randomisation. The trial revealed a modest benefit of plasma exchange in the weakness component of the Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS, now the Neuropathy Impairment Score); the mean improvement with plasma exchange was 17 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2 to 28.8 points) versus 1 point (95% CI -7.7 to 9.7 points) in the sham exchange group at three weeks' follow-up (mean difference (MD) 16.00; 95% CI 1.37 to 30.63, low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall NDS (MD 18.00; 95% CI -2.03 to 38.03, low quality evidence), vibration thresholds or neurophysiological indices. Adverse events were not reported. The trial was at low risk of bias overall, although limitations of trial size and duration reduce the quality of the evidence in support of its conclusions. Authors' conclusions The evidence fromRCTs for the treatment of IgGor IgA paraproteinaemic neuropathy is currently inadequate. More RCTs of treatments are required. These should have adequate follow-up periods and contain larger numbers of participants, perhaps through multicentre collaboration, considering the relative infrequency of this condition. Observational or open trial data provide limited support for the use of treatments such as plasma exchange, cyclophosphamide combined with prednisolone, intravenous immunoglobulin, and corticosteroids. These interventions show potential therapeutic promise but the potential benefits must be weighed against adverse effects. Their optimal use and the long-term benefits need to be considered and validated with well-designed RCTs

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. Update of Immunosuppressant and immunomodulatory treatments for multifocal motor neuropathy

Compliance with international guidelines for chronic inflammatory neuropathies

ERare diseases’ management guidelines are produced with the primary aim of improving practice and standards of care for patients and may represent a useful framework for clinical practice. The EFNS/PNS (European Federation of Neurological Societies/Peripheral Nerve Society) guidelines for CIDP (chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy) and MMN (multifocal motor neuropathy) were last published in 2010 (1, 2). Enthusiasm of the audience for whom they are produced, arguably primarily non‐sub‐specialists, is however largely unexplored. Compliance to these guidelines by neuromuscular and/or peripheral nerve specialists has not been investigated

Anti-ganglioside antibodies : experience from the Italian Association of Neuroimmunology external quality assessment scheme

Anti-ganglioside antibodies are currently used in the differential diagnosis of suspected immune-mediated neuropathies. In-house and increasingly used commercial assays seem to perform suboptimally, and comparative information on their analytical performance are essentially lacking. Born within the frame of guidelines and standardization activities by the Italian Association of Neuroimmunology, this external quality assessment scheme (EQAS) is a real-life snapshot of the laboratory diagnostics in this field. The EQAS consisted of five surplus, anonymized serum samples from patients with clinically-defined neuropathies and two serum samples from healthy blood donors. Eight laboratories used commercial line-/dot-blots, seven in-house/commercial ELISAs (in addition, 13 laboratories tested a recently released ELISA by B\ufchlmann). Only high anti-ganglioside antibody reactivities were considered, in accordance with consolidated recommendations. Large variations in anti-ganglioside antibody profiles were observed, even, although to a lesser extent, within homogeneous classes of assays. Concordance between the profiles and clinical phenotypes was also partial. Although conducted on a relatively small, but representative number of Italian laboratories, this EQAS shows a critical between-laboratory disagreement in the test results of anti-ganglioside antibodies. Also considering the trend for using certified assays in generalist laboratories, strong efforts toward standardization and the identification of the best method(s) for their determinations are compellingly needed