Skip to content

A Study of Purified Human Antibodies Administered Subcutaneously to Patients With Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN)

A Multicentre Study of Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin (SCIG) in Patients With Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN)

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00701662
Enrollment
8
Registered
2008-06-19
Start date
2007-11-30
Completion date
2009-01-31
Last updated
2013-08-01

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Multifocal Motor Neuropathy (MMN)

Brief summary

The objective of this study is to assess efficacy, safety, and convenience of purified human antibodies administered under the skin in the treatment of MMN patients.

Interventions

BIOLOGICALVivaglobin

Sponsors

CSL Behring
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with documented clinical diagnosis and electrophysiological evidence of MMN * Patients who have previously responded to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and have been on stable treatment with IVIG for at least 12 weeks prior to screening * Patients treated with the equivalent of ≥0.4g/kg body weight (bw) IVIG per month * Provision of informed consent by patient

Exclusion criteria

* Aspartate aminotransferase (ASAT) or alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) concentration \>2.5 times the upper normal limit (UNL) * Creatinine concentration \>1.5 times the UNL * Known allergic reactions to blood products * Any skin disease interfering with the assessment of injection site reactions * Any other medical condition, which in the opinion of the investigator, might interfere with successful completion of the protocol * Any condition likely to interfere with the evaluation of the study drug or satisfactory conduct of the trial * Participation in a study with an investigational drug within three months prior to enrolment * Patients treated with the equivalent of \>2.0g/kg bw IVIG per month

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Muscle StrengthBaseline to week 24The change in Medical Research Council (MRC) score was determined at week 24 compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric, two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. Data for one of the eight subjects was from week 13 as week 24 data were not available. The 200-point MRC sum score is the sum of scores for 20 bilateral (left and right side) muscle groups, each rated between 0 (no movement) to 5 (normal movement/power). A higher MRC sum score indicates greater muscle contraction/limb movement. Positive values for change in MRC sum score indicate improvement, with a more positive value indicating greater muscle contraction/ limb movement compared with the value at baseline.
Mean Overall MRC Score at Baseline and Week 24Baseline and week 24The 200-point MRC sum score is the sum of scores for 20 bilateral (left and right side) muscle groups, each rated between 0 (no movement) to 5 (normal movement/power). A higher MRC sum score indicates greater muscle contraction/limb movement.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change From Baseline to the Completion Visit in Motor FunctionBaseline to the completion visit (up to week 25)The change in motor function was determined at the completion visit compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. For each patient, four specific tasks were defined according to his/her weakened muscle group. The patient had to grade each of the tasks on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (normal function) to 4 (not possible). The overall motor function score was calculated as the sum of the 4 grades, resulting in a score ranging from 0 (optimal) to 16 (worst). The baseline motor function score was calculated as the mean of the patient's assessments at Screening and Week 1. Negative values for change in motor function score indicate improvement, with a more negative value indicating greater improvement compared with the value at baseline.
Mean Motor Function Score at Screening and Week 25Screening and week 25For each patient, four specific tasks were defined according to his/her weakened muscle group. The patient had to grade each of the tasks on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (normal function) to 4 (not possible). The overall motor function score was calculated as the sum of the 4 grades, resulting in a score ranging from 0 (optimal) to 16 (worst).
Health-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25At baseline and week 25Assessed using a questionnaire on patients' satisfaction with current immunoglobulin G (IgG) treatment, treatment at home, and treatment at the hospital/doctor's office. The questions were answered by choosing a number between 1 (extremely good) and 7 (extremely bad). Note: No patients received IgG treatment at the hospital/doctor's office at Week 25.
Treatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25At baseline and week 25Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Life Quality Index, which comprises 15 items rated on a 7-point scale (1 = worst rating, 7 = best rating) with a possible maximum score of 105. The highest score indicates the highest satisfaction with the impact of treatment on social factors. The 15 items were summarized to 4 scales: treatment interference, therapy-related problems, therapy setting, and treatment costs. The raw scores for these scales were transformed to a score ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best score achievable.
Overall Health Status at Baseline and Week 25Baseline and week 25Overall Health Status was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patients were asked to rate their overall health status by placing a mark on a 100 mm VAS, with 0 being the worst imaginable state and 100 being the best imaginable state.
Change From Baseline to Week 24 in DisabilityBaseline to week 24The change in disability score was determined at week 24 compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. Data for one of the eight subjects was from week 13 as week 24 data were not available. Disability was measured using a modified Guy's Neurological Disability Scale, which comprises subscales for upper and lower limb disability. Both subscales comprise 6 grades, numbered from 0 (no upper limb problem/walking is not affected) to 5 (unable to use either arm for any purposeful movements/usually uses a wheelchair indoors). The disability score is calculated as the sum of both subscales, resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 10. A higher disability score indicates greater disability. Negative values for change in disability score indicate improvement, with a more negative value indicating greater improvement compared with the value at baseline.
Rate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessFor the duration of the study, up to Week 25The rate was the number of AEs over the number of infusions administered. Included all AEs that occurred during the entire study period. Mild AE: Did not interfere with routine activities; Moderate AE: Interfered somewhat with routine activities; Severe AE: Impossible to perform routine activities.
Number of Patients With Local/Injection Site ReactionsFor the duration of the study, up to Week 25All AEs arising from local/injection site reactions.
Number of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Laboratory ParametersBaseline to Week 25Laboratory parameters included hematology, serum chemistry, and urinalysis parameters.
Number of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Vital SignsBaseline to Week 25Vital signs included heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and body temperature.
Number of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessFor the duration of the study, up to Week 25Included all AEs that occurred during the entire study period. Mild AE: Did not interfere with routine activities; Moderate AE: Interfered somewhat with routine activities; Severe AE: Impossible to perform routine activities.
Mean Disability Score at Baseline and Week 24Baseline and Week 24Disability was measured using a modified Guy's Neurological Disability Scale, which comprises subscales for upper and lower limb disability. Both subscales comprise 6 grades, numbered from 0 (no upper limb problem/walking is not affected) to 5 (unable to use either arm for any purposeful movements/usually uses a wheelchair indoors). The disability score is calculated as the sum of both subscales, resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 10. A higher disability score indicates greater disability.

Countries

Italy, Switzerland, United Kingdom

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Vivaglobin
Human normal immunoglobulin, 0.1 to 0.5 g/kg body weight per week.
8
Total8

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyLack of Efficacy1

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicVivaglobin
Age Continuous57.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.78
Age, Customized
> 18 to < 65 years
5 participants
Age, Customized
>= 65 years
3 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
4 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
4 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
4 / 8
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 8

Outcome results

Primary

Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Muscle Strength

The change in Medical Research Council (MRC) score was determined at week 24 compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric, two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. Data for one of the eight subjects was from week 13 as week 24 data were not available. The 200-point MRC sum score is the sum of scores for 20 bilateral (left and right side) muscle groups, each rated between 0 (no movement) to 5 (normal movement/power). A higher MRC sum score indicates greater muscle contraction/limb movement. Positive values for change in MRC sum score indicate improvement, with a more positive value indicating greater muscle contraction/ limb movement compared with the value at baseline.

Time frame: Baseline to week 24

Population: The Intention-to-Treat (ITT) data set comprised all patients treated with the study drug who had at least one post-baseline measurement for muscle strength.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinChange From Baseline to Week 24 in Muscle Strength0.4 score on a scale95% Confidence Interval 5.07
Primary

Mean Overall MRC Score at Baseline and Week 24

The 200-point MRC sum score is the sum of scores for 20 bilateral (left and right side) muscle groups, each rated between 0 (no movement) to 5 (normal movement/power). A higher MRC sum score indicates greater muscle contraction/limb movement.

Time frame: Baseline and week 24

Population: The ITT data set comprised all patients treated with the study drug who had at least one post-baseline measurement for muscle strength.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
VivaglobinMean Overall MRC Score at Baseline and Week 24MRC score at baseline (n = 8)178.3 score on a scale
VivaglobinMean Overall MRC Score at Baseline and Week 24MRC score at week 24 (n = 7)184.3 score on a scale
Secondary

Change From Baseline to the Completion Visit in Motor Function

The change in motor function was determined at the completion visit compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. For each patient, four specific tasks were defined according to his/her weakened muscle group. The patient had to grade each of the tasks on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (normal function) to 4 (not possible). The overall motor function score was calculated as the sum of the 4 grades, resulting in a score ranging from 0 (optimal) to 16 (worst). The baseline motor function score was calculated as the mean of the patient's assessments at Screening and Week 1. Negative values for change in motor function score indicate improvement, with a more negative value indicating greater improvement compared with the value at baseline.

Time frame: Baseline to the completion visit (up to week 25)

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinChange From Baseline to the Completion Visit in Motor Function0.4 score on a scale95% Confidence Interval 1.94
Secondary

Change From Baseline to Week 24 in Disability

The change in disability score was determined at week 24 compared to baseline using descriptive statistics and nonparametric two-sided 95% confidence intervals based on the Hodges-Lehmann method. Data for one of the eight subjects was from week 13 as week 24 data were not available. Disability was measured using a modified Guy's Neurological Disability Scale, which comprises subscales for upper and lower limb disability. Both subscales comprise 6 grades, numbered from 0 (no upper limb problem/walking is not affected) to 5 (unable to use either arm for any purposeful movements/usually uses a wheelchair indoors). The disability score is calculated as the sum of both subscales, resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 10. A higher disability score indicates greater disability. Negative values for change in disability score indicate improvement, with a more negative value indicating greater improvement compared with the value at baseline.

Time frame: Baseline to week 24

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinChange From Baseline to Week 24 in Disability0.1 score on a scale95% Confidence Interval 1.13
Secondary

Health-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25

Assessed using a questionnaire on patients' satisfaction with current immunoglobulin G (IgG) treatment, treatment at home, and treatment at the hospital/doctor's office. The questions were answered by choosing a number between 1 (extremely good) and 7 (extremely bad). Note: No patients received IgG treatment at the hospital/doctor's office at Week 25.

Time frame: At baseline and week 25

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinHealth-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25Current treatment, baseline (n = 8)2.6 units on a scaleFull Range 1.06
VivaglobinHealth-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25Current treatment, week 25 (n = 7)1.3 units on a scaleFull Range 0.49
VivaglobinHealth-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25At home, baseline (n = 3)1.0 units on a scaleFull Range 0
VivaglobinHealth-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25At home, week 25 (n = 7)1.1 units on a scaleFull Range 0.38
VivaglobinHealth-Related Quality of Life at Baseline and Week 25In the hospital/doctor's office, baseline (n = 7)2.9 units on a scaleFull Range 1.57
Secondary

Mean Disability Score at Baseline and Week 24

Disability was measured using a modified Guy's Neurological Disability Scale, which comprises subscales for upper and lower limb disability. Both subscales comprise 6 grades, numbered from 0 (no upper limb problem/walking is not affected) to 5 (unable to use either arm for any purposeful movements/usually uses a wheelchair indoors). The disability score is calculated as the sum of both subscales, resulting in a score ranging from 0 to 10. A higher disability score indicates greater disability.

Time frame: Baseline and Week 24

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
VivaglobinMean Disability Score at Baseline and Week 24Disability score at baseline (n = 8)2.0 score on a scale
VivaglobinMean Disability Score at Baseline and Week 24Disability score at week 24 (n = 7)1.9 score on a scale
Secondary

Mean Motor Function Score at Screening and Week 25

For each patient, four specific tasks were defined according to his/her weakened muscle group. The patient had to grade each of the tasks on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (normal function) to 4 (not possible). The overall motor function score was calculated as the sum of the 4 grades, resulting in a score ranging from 0 (optimal) to 16 (worst).

Time frame: Screening and week 25

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
VivaglobinMean Motor Function Score at Screening and Week 25Motor function score at screening (n = 8)5.5 score on a scale
VivaglobinMean Motor Function Score at Screening and Week 25Motor function score at week 25 (n = 7)4.6 score on a scale
Secondary

Number of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and Relatedness

Included all AEs that occurred during the entire study period. Mild AE: Did not interfere with routine activities; Moderate AE: Interfered somewhat with routine activities; Severe AE: Impossible to perform routine activities.

Time frame: For the duration of the study, up to Week 25

Population: The safety data set (SDS) comprised all treated patients.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessAll AEs4 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessMild AEs3 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessModerate AEs2 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessSevere AEs0 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessNot related AEs4 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessPossibly related AEs0 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessProbably related AEs0 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Adverse Events (AEs) by Severity and RelatednessRelated AEs1 participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Laboratory Parameters

Laboratory parameters included hematology, serum chemistry, and urinalysis parameters.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 25

Population: The SDS comprised all treated patients.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Laboratory Parameters0 participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Vital Signs

Vital signs included heart rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and body temperature.

Time frame: Baseline to Week 25

Population: The SDS comprised all treated patients.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Clinically Relevant Changes in Vital Signs0 participants
Secondary

Number of Patients With Local/Injection Site Reactions

All AEs arising from local/injection site reactions.

Time frame: For the duration of the study, up to Week 25

Population: The SDS comprised all treated patients.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Local/Injection Site ReactionsTotal1 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Local/Injection Site ReactionsSkin reaction1 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Local/Injection Site ReactionsInjection site oedema1 participants
VivaglobinNumber of Patients With Local/Injection Site ReactionsInjection site pruritis1 participants
Secondary

Overall Health Status at Baseline and Week 25

Overall Health Status was assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patients were asked to rate their overall health status by placing a mark on a 100 mm VAS, with 0 being the worst imaginable state and 100 being the best imaginable state.

Time frame: Baseline and week 25

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinOverall Health Status at Baseline and Week 25Baseline (n = 8)72.1 units on a scaleFull Range 15.38
VivaglobinOverall Health Status at Baseline and Week 25Week 25 (n = 7)73.9 units on a scaleFull Range 14.67
Secondary

Rate of AEs by Severity and Relatedness

The rate was the number of AEs over the number of infusions administered. Included all AEs that occurred during the entire study period. Mild AE: Did not interfere with routine activities; Moderate AE: Interfered somewhat with routine activities; Severe AE: Impossible to perform routine activities.

Time frame: For the duration of the study, up to Week 25

Population: The SDS comprised all treated patients.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessAll AEs0.104 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessMild AEs0.093 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessModerate AEs0.011 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessSevere AEs0.000 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessNot related AEs0.038 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessPossibly related AEs0.000 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessProbably related AEs0.000 AEs per infusion
VivaglobinRate of AEs by Severity and RelatednessRelated AEs0.066 AEs per infusion
Secondary

Treatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25

Treatment satisfaction was assessed using the Life Quality Index, which comprises 15 items rated on a 7-point scale (1 = worst rating, 7 = best rating) with a possible maximum score of 105. The highest score indicates the highest satisfaction with the impact of treatment on social factors. The 15 items were summarized to 4 scales: treatment interference, therapy-related problems, therapy setting, and treatment costs. The raw scores for these scales were transformed to a score ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best score achievable.

Time frame: At baseline and week 25

Population: The analysis population comprised the subjects in the ITT data set (ie, all patients treated with the study drug) who had at least one post-baseline value (and if necessary a baseline value).

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Treatment interference, baseline (n = 8)60.76 units on a scaleFull Range 25.827
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Treatment interference, week 25 (n = 6)91.67 units on a scaleFull Range 9.78
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Therapy-related problems, baseline (n = 8)70.30 units on a scaleFull Range 27.055
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Therapy-related problems, week 25 (n = 7)89.29 units on a scaleFull Range 14.402
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Therapy setting, baseline (n = 8)75.01 units on a scaleFull Range 33.844
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Therapy setting, week 25 (n = 6)96.28 units on a scaleFull Range 6.743
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Treatment costs, baseline (n = 8)70.84 units on a scaleFull Range 34.498
VivaglobinTreatment Satisfaction at Baseline and Week 25Treatment costs, week 25 (n = 6)86.10 units on a scaleFull Range 19.486

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 29, 2026