Search

Objective To validate the Italian version of the Myasthenia Gravis Impairment Index (MGII). Introduction MGII is a recent promising measure developed for MG patient evaluation. It includes a clinical severity evaluation and a patient-reported questionnaire. It has been developed in English and has demonstrated feasibility, reliability, and construct validity. Recently, its Dutch translation has been validated. Methods MGII was translated to Italian with a multi-step forward process. We assessed correlations with the following scores: Istituto Nazionale Carlo Besta score for Myasthenia Gravis (INCB-MG), the MG Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL), the Myasthenia Gravis Composite (MGC), the Quality of Life 15 for Myasthenia Gravis (QOL15-MG), and the Myasthenia Gravis Disability (MGDIS). We also assessed differences in MGII scores by disease severity with the ANOVA Kruskal–Wallis test. Results One hundred forty-one patients were enrolled. The mean MGII total score was 13.3 ± 11.9 (range 0–49), with a mean ocular subscore of 3.7 ± 4.7 and a mean MGII generalized subscore of 9.6 ± 9.0. As expected, the MGII had a good correlation with the other severity scores. The MGII had a lower floor effect (3.5%) than the other measures. Twenty-five patients were assessed in follow-up; as expected, the MGII change scores had moderate correlations with change in other MG severity measures and lower correlations with quality of life measures. Conclusions The MGII score was cross-culturally validated in an Italian cohort of MG patients. We confirmed its lower floor effect and the correlations with other MG measures including INCB-MG that was not evaluated in previous studies.

Background Recently different subtypes of myasthenia gravis (MG) have been described. They differ for clinical features and pathogenesis but the prognosis and response to treatment is less clear. The aim of the study was to evaluate outcome and treatment effectiveness including side effects in late onset MG (LOMG) compared with early onset MG (EOMG). Methods We analysed retrospectively 208 MG patients. Clinical features were recorded as well as treatment and side effects. Outcome at the last follow-up was evaluated with MGSTI and MGPIS scales. Results The 208 patients included were classified as follow: 36 ocular MG, 40 EOMG, 72 LOMG, 25 thymoma-associated, 14 anti-MuSK and 21 double seronegative. Similar positive outcome was achieved in either early and late onset subgroup. We found pharmacological remission and minimal manifestations at the MGFA-PIS in the 95% and 94,4% of EOMG and LOMG respectively but in LOMG a lower dose of immunosuppressors (MGSTIp = 0,048). Severe side effects were present in a small percentage of patients in both group but diabetes was more frequent in LOMG vs EOMG (2,2% vs 5%, p = 0.017). Conclusions Despite LOMG has more comorbidities that might interfere with treatment and outcome, therapeutic management does not seem to differ between EOMG and LOMG. A similar positive outcome was seen in both subgroups but LOMG group seems to require lower doses of medication to control symptoms.

Background and aims: Covid-19 pandemic has boosted telemedicine in clinical practice. It could be crucial in the care of neurological patients with chronic disease. However there is a lack of specific disease tools to evaluate patients in telemedicine. The aim of our study was to validate the Myasthenia Gravis TeleScore (MGTS), a scale for the evaluation of MG patients in telemedicine. Methods: The MGTS included ten items divided in four districts: ocular, generalized muscular strength, bulbar, respiratory. Patients were assessed with two different scales: the MGTS, and the INCB-MG chosen as gold standard and from whom MGTS was partially derived. Visit in presence with INCB-MG and televisit with MGTS were performed consecutively. Televisit was conducted by another neurologist between two rooms. A blind method was adopted. The strength of correlation was determined by the correlation coefficient (r);analysis of covariance (ANOVA-Kruskal Wallis test) was used to compare subgroups. Significance was set to p