Work

Pharmacological Interventions for Hereditary Transthyretin‐Related Amyloidosis With Polyneuropathy: Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

Year: 2026

Type: review

Study designs: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis

Abstract: BACKGROUND: We used network meta-analyses to evaluate the pharmacological interventions for Hereditary Transthyretin-related Amyloidosis with Polyneuropathy (ATTRv-PN). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane (June 2025) for randomized trials assessing pharmacological interventions in ATTRv-PN adults. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Primary efficacy outcomes were mNIS+7 and Norfolk-QoL-DN. Primary safety outcome was serious adverse events (SAE). We used Bayesian hierarchical models. Evidence certainty was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Six trials (n = 989) were included (3 at high-risk of bias). Participant ages and disease duration ranged from 52.8 to 62.0 and 1.4 to 3.9 years, respectively. For mNIS+7, data were available for all interventions except tafamidis. All demonstrated statistically significant improvements versus placebo. Vutrisiran (standardized mean difference [SMD] vs. placebo: -1.66; 95% credible interval [CrI]: -2.13 to -1.17) and patisiran (SMD vs. placebo: -1.56; 95% CrI: -1.88 to -1.25) demonstrated improvements compared with diflunisal, eplontersen, and inotersen. For Norfolk-QoL-DN, data were available for all interventions except diflunisal. All except tafamidis demonstrated statistically significant improvements versus placebo. Patisiran (MD vs. placebo: -17.39; 95% CrI: -23.22 to -11.57), vutrisiran (MD vs. placebo: -16.99; 95% CrI: -25.24 to -8.72), and eplontersen (MD vs. placebo: -15.56; 95% CrI: -21.97 to -9.15) demonstrated improvements compared with tafamidis. For SAE, there were no differences between active interventions versus placebo. Confidence in the evidence varied from very low to moderate. CONCLUSION: Gene-silencing therapies were more efficacious, although these findings should be regarded as hypothesis-generating given the scarcity of data, lack of head-to-head trials, and clinical heterogeneity across trials.

Source: European Journal of Neurology

DOI: 10.1111/ene.70627