The presence of MGUS in patients with peripheral neuropathy (PN) may be either coincidental or causal. Younger age group (<50 y) and the presence of IgM MGUS increase the likelihood of a causal relationship between MGUS and peripheral neuropathy. 1
The likelihood of a causal relationship is higher in the younger age group because of the very low prevalence of M proteins (less than 1.5%) in this population making coincidental presence of MGUS and PN much less likely. In contrast, this relationship may just be coincidental in older patients because of higher baseline prevalence of MGUS (7% in those over 70 y old). 1
Similarly, a causal relationship between MGUS and PN may be more likely when the M protein is IgM (vs IgG or IgA). In a study of patients with MGUS and peripheral neuropathy, 31% of patients with IgM MGUS had neuropathy vs 14% for IgA and 6% for IgG MGUS. In fact, among patients with PN without an obvious cause, the prevalence of an M protein may be as high as 10%.2 Whether the relationship between non-IgM MGUS and PN is causal remains unclear.3
Although the exact mechanism of MGUS-related PN is not known, pathologic studies in Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia and multiple myeloma have demonstrated demyelination and widened myelin lamellae associated with monoclonal IgM deposits.1
But before you implicate MGUS as the cause of PN, make sure to exclude common causes of PN, such as diabetes mellitus, alcoholism and potential drugs.
Liked this post? Download the app for your smartphone and sign up
to get future pearls straight into your inbox, all for free!
- Chaudhry HM, Mauermann ML, Rajkumar SV. Monoclonal gammopathy—associated peripheral neuropathy: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc 2017; 92:838-50. https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(17)30118-0/pdf
- Kelly JJ Jr, Kyle RA, O’Brien PC, et al. Prevalence of monoclonal protein in peripheral neuropathy. Neurology 1981;31:1480-83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6273767
- Nobile-Orazio E, Barbien L, Baldini L, et al. Peripheral neuropathy in monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance: prevalence and immunopathogenetic studies. Acta neurol Scand 1992;85:383-90. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0404.1992.tb06033.x
Not as strong as one might expect with an increasing number of investigators questioning the causative role of IV contrast in precipitating CIN.
A 2013 meta-analysis involving observational—mostly retrospective— studies concluded that the risks of AKI, death, and dialysis were similar between IV contrast and non-contrast patients, including those with diabetes or underlying renal insufficiency1.
Two retrospective studies2,3 designed to control for a variety of factors that may affect the risk of AKI by propensity matching found divergent results with the larger and better designed study finding no significant difference in AKI between the 2 groups3. A 2017 retrospective cohort analysis of emergency department patients utilizing a similar propensity-score analysis also failed to find a difference in post-CT AKI between those receiving and not receiving IV contrast4.
Further shedding doubt on the role of IV contrast in causing AKI, a study involving patients with chronic kidney disease found no difference in the rates of excretion of 2 biomarkers of AKI (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin-NGAL, and kidney injury molecule-1-KIM-1) between patients with and without presumed CIN5. Some have even criticized experimental animal studies supporting the existence of CIN due to their poor applicability to human renal disease1.
This is not to say that IV CIN does not exist. Rather, we should keep an open mind about the pathophysiology and epidemiology of CIN. Stay tuned!
Fun pearl: Did you know that the first case of CIN was described in a patient with multiple myeloma undergoing IV pyelography (before the CT era)?
- McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Comin J, et al. Frequency of acute kidney injury following intravenous contrast medium administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2013;267(1):119-128. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23319662
- Davenport MS, Khalatbari S, Dillman JR, et al. Contrast material-induced nephrotoxicity and intravenous low-osmolality iodinated contrast material. Radiology. 2013;267(1):94-105. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606541/pdf/121394.pdf
- McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, et al. Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 2013;267:106-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360742
- Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med 2017; 69:577-586. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28131489
- Kooiman J, van de Peppel WR, Sijpkens YWJ, et al. No increase in kidney injury molecule-1 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin excretion following intravenous contrast enhanced-CT. Eur Radio 2015;25:1926-34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4457910/pdf/330_2015_Article_3624.pdf
Contributed by Ginger Jiang, Medical Student, Harvard Medical School