Pharmacological treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy

3Citations
Citations of this article
112Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This artice is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Disease-modifying pharmacological agents for transthyretin (TTR)-related familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP) have become available in the last decade, but evidence on their efficacy and safety is limited. This review focuses on disease-modifying pharmacological treatment for TTR-related and other FAPs, encompassing amyloid kinetic stabilisers, amyloid matrix solvents, and amyloid precursor inhibitors. Objectives: To assess and compare the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of disease-modifying pharmacological agents for familial amyloid polyneuropathies (FAPs). Search methods: On 18 November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We reviewed reference lists of articles and textbooks on peripheral neuropathies. We also contacted experts in the field. We searched clinical trials registries and manufacturers' websites. Selection criteria: We included randomised clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs investigating any disease-modifying pharmacological agent in adults with FAPs. Disability due to FAP progression was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were severity of peripheral neuropathy, change in modified body mass index (mBMI), quality of life, severity of depression, mortality, and adverse events during the trial. Data collection and analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. Main results: The review included four RCTs involving 655 people with TTR-FAP. The manufacturers of the drugs under investigation funded three of the studies. The trials investigated different drugs versus placebo and we did not conduct a meta-analysis. One RCT compared tafamidis with placebo in early-stage TTR-FAP (128 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. After 18 months, tafamidis might reduce progression of peripheral neuropathy slightly more than placebo (Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) in the lower limbs; mean difference (MD) -3.21 points, 95% confidential interval (CI) -5.63 to -0.79; P = 0.009; low-certainty evidence). However, tafamidis might lead to little or no difference in the change of quality of life between groups (Norfolk Quality of Life-Diabetic Neuropathy (Norfolk QOL-DN) total score; MD -4.50 points, 95% CI -11.27 to 2.27; P = 0.19; very low-certainty evidence). No clear between-group difference was found in the numbers of participants who died (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.74; P = 0.63; very low-certainty evidence), who dropped out due to adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.54; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence), or who experienced at least one severe adverse event during the trial (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.37 to 3.62; P = 0.79; very low-certainty evidence). One RCT compared diflunisal with placebo (130 randomised participants). At month 24, diflunisal might reduce progression of disability (Kumamoto Score; MD -4.90 points, 95% CI -7.89 to -1.91; P = 0.002; low-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (NIS plus 7 nerve tests; MD -18.10 points, 95% CI -26.03 to -10.17; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence) more than placebo. After 24 months, changes from baseline in the quality of life measured by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey score showed no clear difference between groups for the physical component (MD 6.10 points, 95% CI 2.56 to 9.64; P = 0.001; very low-certainty evidence) and the mental component (MD 4.40 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 8.99; P = 0.063; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear between-group difference in the number of people who died (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.41; P = 0.17; very low-certainty evidence), in the number of dropouts due to adverse events (RR 2.06, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.87; P = 0.39; very low-certainty evidence), and in the number of people who experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.32; P = 0.73; very low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared patisiran with placebo (225 randomised participants). After 18 months, patisiran reduced both progression of disability (Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale; least-squares MD 8.90 points, 95% CI 7.00 to 10.80; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) and peripheral neuropathy (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Alnylam version; least-squares MD -33.99 points, 95% CI -39.86 to -28.13; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence) more than placebo. At month 18, the change in quality of life between groups favoured patisiran (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; least-squares MD -21.10 points, 95% CI -27.20 to -15.00; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). There was little or no between-group difference in the number of participants who died (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.74; P = 0.35; low-certainty evidence), dropped out due to adverse events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.82; P = 0.017; low-certainty evidence), or experienced at least one severe adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; P = 0.58; low-certainty evidence) during the trial. One RCT compared inotersen with placebo (172 randomised participants). The trial did not explore our predetermined disability outcome measures. From baseline to week 66, inotersen reduced progression of peripheral neuropathy more than placebo (modified NIS plus 7 nerve tests - Ionis version; MD -19.73 points, 95% CI -26.50 to -12.96; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence). At week 65, the change in quality of life between groups favoured inotersen (Norfolk QOL-DN total score; MD -10.85 points, 95% CI -17.25 to -4.45; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence). Inotersen may slightly increase mortality (RR 5.94, 95% CI 0.33 to 105.60; P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence) and occurrence of severe adverse events (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.57; P = 0.16; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. More dropouts due to adverse events were observed in the inotersen than in the placebo group (RR 8.57, 95% CI 1.16 to 63.07; P = 0.035; low-certainty evidence). There were no studies addressing apolipoprotein AI-FAP, gelsolin-FAP, and beta-2-microglobulin-FAP. Authors' conclusions: Evidence on the pharmacological treatment of FAPs from RCTs is limited to TTR-FAP. No studies directly compare disease-modifying pharmacological treatments for TTR-FAP. Results from placebo-controlled trials indicate that tafamidis, diflunisal, patisiran, and inotersen may be beneficial in TTR-FAP, but further investigations are needed. Since direct comparative studies for TTR-FAP will be hampered by sample size and costs required to demonstrate superiority of one drug over another, long-term non-randomised open-label studies monitoring their efficacy and safety are needed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Magrinelli, F., Fabrizi, G. M., Santoro, L., Manganelli, F., Zanette, G., Cavallaro, T., & Tamburin, S. (2020, April 20). Pharmacological treatment for familial amyloid polyneuropathy. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012395.pub2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free