BACKGROUND: Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients. METHODS: We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid β (Aβ)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759). FINDINGS:89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION:Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Three small trials suggest that intravenous immunoglobulin can affect biomarkers and symptoms of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. We tested the safety, effective dose, and infusion interval of intravenous immunoglobulin in such patients. METHODS: We did a multicentre, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at seven sites in the USA and five in Germany. Participants with probable Alzheimer's disease aged 50-85 years were randomly assigned (by a computer-generated randomisation sequence, with block sizes of eight) to infusions every 4 weeks (0·2, 0·5, or 0·8 g intravenous immunoglobulin per kg bodyweight, or placebo) or infusions every 2 weeks (0·1, 0·25, or 0·4 g/kg, or placebo). Patients, caregivers, investigators assessing outcomes, and staff at imaging facilities and the clinical research organisation were masked to treatment allocation, but dispensing pharmacists, the statistician, and the person responsible for final PET analyses were not. Treatment was masked with opaque pouches and infusion lines. The primary endpoint was median area under the curve (AUC) of plasma amyloid β (Aβ)(1-40) between the last infusion and the final visit (2 weeks or 4 weeks depending on infusion interval) in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00812565) and controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN64846759). FINDINGS: 89 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 58 were enrolled and 55 included in the primary analysis. Median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) was not significantly different for intravenous immunoglobulin compared with placebo for five of the six intervention groups (-18·0 [range -1347·0 to 1068·5] for 0·2 g/kg, -364·3 [-5834·5 to 1953·5] for 0·5 g/kg, and -351·8 [-1084·0 to 936·5] for 0·8 g/kg every 4 weeks vs -116·3 [-1379·0 to 5266·0] for placebo; and -13·8 [-1729·0 to 307·0] for 0·1 g/kg, and -32·5 [-1102·5 to 451·5] for 0·25 g/kg every 2 weeks vs 159·5 [51·5 to 303·0] for placebo; p>0·05 for all). The difference in median AUC of plasma Aβ(1-40) between the 0·4 g/kg every 2 weeks group (47·0 [range -341·0 to 72·5]) and the placebo group was significant (p=0·0216). 25 of 42 (60%) patients in the intervention group versus nine of 14 (64%) receiving placebo had an adverse event. Four of 42 (10%) patients in the intravenous immunoglobulin group versus four of 14 (29%) receiving placebo had a serious adverse event, including one stroke in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: Intravenous immunoglobulin may have an acceptable safety profile. Our results did not accord with those from previous studies. Longer trials with greater power are needed to assess the cognitive and functional effects of intravenous immunoglobulin in patients with Alzheimer's disease.
Authors: R C Dodel; Y Du; C Depboylu; H Hampel; L Frölich; A Haag; U Hemmeter; S Paulsen; S J Teipel; S Brettschneider; A Spottke; C Nölker; H J Möller; X Wei; M Farlow; N Sommer; W H Oertel Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Kewei Chen; Jessica B S Langbaum; Adam S Fleisher; Napatkamon Ayutyanont; Cole Reschke; Wendy Lee; Xiaofen Liu; Dan Bandy; Gene E Alexander; Paul M Thompson; Norman L Foster; Danielle J Harvey; Mony J de Leon; Robert A Koeppe; William J Jagust; Michael W Weiner; Eric M Reiman Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Reisa A Sperling; Clifford R Jack; Sandra E Black; Matthew P Frosch; Steven M Greenberg; Bradley T Hyman; Philip Scheltens; Maria C Carrillo; William Thies; Martin M Bednar; Ronald S Black; H Robert Brashear; Michael Grundman; Eric R Siemers; Howard H Feldman; Rachel J Schindler Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: JoAnn T Tschanz; Chris D Corcoran; Sarah Schwartz; Katherine Treiber; Robert C Green; Maria C Norton; Michelle M Mielke; Kathleen Piercy; Martin Steinberg; Peter V Rabins; Jeanne-Marie Leoutsakos; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; John C S Breitner; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Annelies E van der Vlies; Jeroen D C Goos; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Norman R Relkin; Paul Szabo; Basia Adamiak; Tuna Burgut; Carmen Monthe; Richard W Lent; Steven Younkin; Linda Younkin; Richard Schiff; Marc E Weksler Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Reisa Sperling; Stephen Salloway; David J Brooks; Donatella Tampieri; Jerome Barakos; Nick C Fox; Murray Raskind; Marwan Sabbagh; Lawrence S Honig; Anton P Porsteinsson; Ivan Lieberburg; H Michael Arrighi; Kristen A Morris; Yuan Lu; Enchi Liu; Keith M Gregg; H Robert Brashear; Gene G Kinney; Ronald Black; Michael Grundman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: John M Finke; Kari R Ayres; Ryan P Brisbin; Hali A Hill; Emily E Wing; William A Banks Journal: Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.770