Search

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is an effective and affordable treatment option in most parts of Southeast Asia (SEA). In 2018, the SEA TPE Consortium (SEATPEC) was established, consisting of regional neurologists working to improve outcome of various autoimmune neurological diseases. We proposed an immunotherapeutic guideline prioritizing TPE for this region. We reviewed disease burden, evidence-based treatment options, and major guidelines for common autoimmune neurological disorders seen in SEA. A modified treatment algorithm based on consensus agreement by key-opinion leaders was proposed. Autoimmune antibody diagnostic testing through collaboration with accredited laboratories was established. Choice of first-line immunotherapies (IVIg/corticosteroid/TPE) is based on available evidence, clinicians’ experience, contraindications, local availability, and affordability. TPE could be chosen as first-line therapy for GBS, CIDP, MG (acute/short term), IgG, A paraproteinemic neuropathy, and NMDAR encephalitis. Treatment is stopped for acute monophasic conditions such as GBS and ADEM following satisfactory outcome. For chronic immune disorders, a therapy taper or long-term maintenance therapy is recommended depending on the defined clinical state. TPE as second-line treatment is indicated for IVIg or corticosteroids refractory cases of ADEM, NMOSD (acute), MG, and NMDAR/LGI1/CASPR2/Hashimoto’s encephalitis. With better diagnosis, treatment initiation with TPE is a sustainable and effective immunotherapy for autoimmune neurological diseases in SEA.

• 7/11 SEA countries lack MS specialists and training; 9/11 lack MS specialist nurses. • Biomarker testing is unavailable in 3/11 SEA countries, and is limited in others. • MS epidemiological data and registries are largely unavailable within SEA. • All SEA countries reported limited/no financing for DMTs (many self-pay). • Most SEA countries lack MS societies or have limited capacity building for advocacy. Despite the global availability of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatments, accessing and financing them in Southeast Asia (SEA) remains a challenge. This descriptive survey-based study aimed to describe the current state of MS treatment access and local access dynamics within this region. The survey questionnaire, comprising of 15 closed-ended and five open-ended questions, was developed by three neurologists with expertise in MS and routine MS patient management, or had training in neuroimmunology. Questionnaire development was guided by the recent Atlas of MS and in alignment with the Access to Treatment framework, focusing on MS diagnosis and treatment issues in SEA. Fifteen neurologists experienced in managing MS across the region were identified as key informants for this study. All fifteen neurologists participated in the survey via email and videoconferencing between January 2020 and February 2023, which included the following countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. All had at least five years of experience in managing MS patients and six had previously completed a neuroimmunology fellowship programme. SEA countries showed disparities in healthcare financing, availability of neurologists, MS treatments, and investigative tools. Access to MS disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) is hindered by high cost, lack of MS specialists, and weak advocacy efforts. On-label DMTs are not listed as essential medicines regionally except for interferon beta1a and teriflunomide in Malaysia. On-label monoclonals are available only in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Generic on-label DMTs are unavailable due to lack of distributorship and expertise in using them. Off-label DMTs (azathioprine, methotrexate, and rituximab) predominate in most SEA countries. Other challenges include limited access to investigations, education, and knowledge about DMTs among general neurologists, and absence of registries and MS societies. Patient champions, communities, and MS organisations have limited influence on local governments and pharmaceutical companies. Despite its increasing prevalence, there is a lack of concerted priority setting due to MS being perceived as a rare, non-communicable disease. This study highlights the distinct dynamics, challenges, and research gaps within this region, and provides suggestions to improve MS diagnosis, education, and medicine access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of limited plasma exchange against supportive and standard treatments in treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS). Method: A total of 90 GBS patients admitted to Yangon General Hospital, Yangon, Myanmar were recruited over 1.5-year-period from January 2017 to June 2018 and they were divided into 3 groups according to the treatment they received (convenience sampling method): supportive (n=36), limited plasma exchange (LPE) (n=35) and standard (therapeutic plasma exchange - TPE or IVIg) (n=19)). Their clinical features, electrophysiological subtypes and severity were compared at baseline, and outcome (change in GBS disability score (GDS) at 30 days after entry) was assessed and compared. Results: Baseline characteristics such as gender, GBS subtypes and respiratory involvement were comparable, but standard treatment group had older patients, and LPE group had shorter latency to nadir and more cases with antecedent diarrhea, which are poor outcome predictors. At 30 days from entry, mean GDS improvement was 0.9 + 0.6 in supportive, 1.4 + 0.6 in LPE and 1.2 + 0.8 in standard treatment groups respectively. The difference between LPE and supportive treatment was statistically significant (p 0.002) but there was no difference between LPE and standard treatment (p = 0.512). Regarding untoward effects, apart from one transient hypotension and 2 anemic cases, no other serious adverse effects were noted from LPE therapy. Conclusion: LPE may be superior to supportive treatment and may not be inferior to standard treatment. Therefore, LPE may be an alternative effective treatment for GBS patients who are not accessible to standard treatments especially in low income countries with limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]