Treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy with high dose intravenous immunoglobulins: a double blind, placebo controlled study. Intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in multifocal motor neuropathy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Multifocal motor neuropathy improved by IVIg: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in patients with motor neuron syndromes associated with anti-GM1 antibodies: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
The effect of high dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment was studied in six patients with multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN). All patients responded to treatment (0.4 g/kg for five consecutive days) in an open trial. The effect of IVIg treatment was confirmed for each patient in a single patient, double blind, placebo controlled trial. Four patients received two IVIg treatments and two placebo treatments, and two patients received one IVIg and one placebo treatment in a randomised order. Five out of six patients responded to IVIg but not to placebo. One patient responded to IVIg in the same manner as to placebo treatment. Thus IVIg treatment can lead to improvement of muscle strength in patients with MMN. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, study of 19 patients fulfilling eligibility criteria for multifocal motor neuropathy with persistent conduction block. They were enrolled and divided into two groups: those who had never been treated previously with intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) (Group 1: 10 patients) and those who presented recurrent symptoms after previously successful treatment with IVIg (Group 2: nine patients). They were randomized prospectively to receive either IVIg or placebo at a dose of 500 mg/kg/day for 5 consecutive days, once a month for 3 months. At month 4, patients found to be responders remained on the same treatment for the 3 following months, while non-responders were switched to the alternative study drug for the 3 following months. Clinical assessment was conducted with the MRC score in 28 muscles and a self-evaluation scale (five daily motor activities scored from 0 to 5). In Group 1, nine patients completed the study, of whom initially four received IVIg and five placebo; four patients responded to IVIg (two at months 4 and 7, and a further two at month 7 after switching treatment at month 4), two patients responded to placebo at months 4 and 7, and three patients did not respond to either treatment. In Group 2, nine patients completed the study. Five patients first received IVIg and all responded at months 4 and 7. Four patients first received placebo and none responded at month 4; all were then switched to IVIg and three responded at month 7. When the 18 patients were considered together, seven out of the nine patients who received IVIg first were responders at month 4, compared with two of the nine patients who received placebo first, a difference that was statistically significant (P = 0.03). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in MRC score but a significant difference in the self-evaluation score, at month 4, between IVIg patients and placebo patients. Electrophysiological studies did not show significant differences at month 4 in motor parameters between IVIg patients and placebo patients. IgM anti-GM1 titres did not change significantly in patients treated with IVIg compared with those who received placebo, between baseline, month 4 and month 7. However, of five patients who had significantly high anti-GM1 titres (>3200) at baseline, four responded to IVIg. This trial confirms that IVIg is a promising therapeutic option for multifocal motor neuropathy. To determine the effect of IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) on neurologic function and electrophysiologic studies in multifocal motor neuropathy with conduction block (MMN).
                MMN is characterized by progressive, asymmetric, lower motor neuron weakness and is probably immune-mediated. IVIg treatment has been shown to have beneficial effects in several open-label studies and in one small controlled trial. However, larger randomized controlled studies are lacking.
                The authors recruited 16 patients with MMN. All subjects were given each of two treatments (IVIg [0.4 g/kg/d for 5 consecutive days] or placebo [dextrose or saline]) that were assigned according to a randomized, crossover design under double-blind conditions. Patients were evaluated before and about 28 days after trial treatment for subjective functional improvement, neurologic disability score, grip strength, distal and proximal compound muscle action potential amplitude, and conduction block.
                Subjective functional improvement with IVIg treatment was rated as dramatic or very good in nine patients, moderate in one, mild in one, and absent in five patients. This improvement was absent after placebo. The neurologic disability score improved by 6.7+/-3.3 points with IVIg treatment, whereas it decreased by 2.1+/-3.0 with placebo (p = 0.038). Grip strength on the weaker side was increased by 6.4+/-1.9 kg with IVIg treatment; it decreased by 1.0+/-0.8 kg with placebo (p = 0.0021). Conduction block worsened by 12.98+/-6.52 % with placebo, but improved by 12.68+/-5.62 % with IVIg treatment (p = 0.037). Conduction block was reversed in five patients with IVIg but not placebo.
                IVIg improved conduction block as well as subjective and objective clinical measures of function in patients with MMN. We studied the effects of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) in 12 patients with motor neuron syndromes associated with high titers of anti-GM1 antibodies. Five of the patients had conduction blocks. The study design was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial with IVIg (0.4 g/kg body weight per day injected for 5 consecutive days). We evaluated the patients before and 5, 28, and 56 days after drug administration using a computerized analyzer for muscle strength, the Norris scale for disability, motor nerve conduction velocities for patients with conduction blocks, and measurements of immunologic markers. Compared with placebo, IVIg induced a significant increase in muscle strength only in the patients with conduction blocks.
Limited evidence from randomised controlled trials shows that intravenous immunoglobulin has a beneficial effect on strength. There was a non-significant trend towards improvement in disability. More research is needed to discover whether intravenous immunoglobulin improves disability and is cost-effective.