The use of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of autoimmune neuromuscular diseases: evidence-based indications and safety profile

Abstract

Intravenous immunoglobulin (i.v.Ig) has multiple actions on the immunoregulatory network that operate in concert with each other. For each autoimmune neuromuscular disease, however, there is a predominant mechanism of action that relates to the underlying immunopathogenetic cause of the respective disorder. The best understood actions of i.v.Ig include the following: (a) modulation of pathogenic autoantibodies, an effect relevant in myasthenia gravis (MG), Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome (LEMS), Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and stiff-person syndrome (SPS); (b) inhibition of complement activation and interception of membranolytic attack complex (MAC) formation, an action relevant to the complement-mediated mechanisms involved in GBS, CIDP, MG, and dermatomyositis (DM); (c) modulation of the inhibitory or activation Fc receptors on macrophages invading targeted tissues in nerve and muscle, as seen in CIDP, GBS, and inflammatory myopathies; (d) down-regulation of pathogenic cytokines and adhesion molecules; (e) suppression of T-cell functions; and (f) interference with antigen recognition. Controlled clinical trials have shown that i.v.Ig is effective as first-line therapy in patients with GBS, CIDP, and multifocal motor neuropathy (MMN), and as second-line therapy in DM, MG, LEMS, and SPS. In paraproteinemic IgM anti-MAG (myelin-associated glycoprotein) demyelinating polyneuropathies and inclusion body myositis (IBM), the benefit is variable, marginal, and not statistically significant. i.v.Ig has a remarkably good safety record for long-term administration, however, the following side effects have been observed: mild, infusion-rate-related reactions, such as headaches, myalgia, or fever; moderate but inconsequential events, such as aseptic meningitis and skin rash; and severe, but rare, complications, such as thromboembolic events and renal tubular necrosis. Future studies are needed to (a) find the appropriate dose and frequency of infusions that maintain a response; (b) address pharmacoeconomics, comparing the high cost of i.v.Ig to the cost of the other therapies, which, although less expensive, cause significantly more long-term side effects; (c) determine why some patients respond better than others; and (d) examine the merits of combining i.v.Ig with other immunosuppressive drugs.