Search

ObjectiveTo update the 2016 formal consensus-based guidance for the management of myasthenia gravis (MG) based on the latest evidence in the literature.MethodsIn October 2013, the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America appointed a Task Force to develop treatment guidance for MG, and a panel of 15 international experts was convened. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop consensus recommendations pertaining to 7 treatment topics. In February 2019, the international panel was reconvened with the addition of one member to represent South America. All previous recommendations were reviewed for currency, and new consensus recommendations were developed on topics that required inclusion or updates based on the recent literature. Up to 3 rounds of anonymous e-mail votes were used to reach consensus, with modifications to recommendations between rounds based on the panel input. A simple majority vote (80% of panel members voting "yes") was used to approve minor changes in grammar and syntax to improve clarity.ResultsThe previous recommendations for thymectomy were updated. New recommendations were developed for the use of rituximab, eculizumab, and methotrexate as well as for the following topics: early immunosuppression in ocular MG and MG associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment.ConclusionThis updated formal consensus guidance of international MG experts, based on new evidence, provides recommendations to clinicians caring for patients with MG worldwide.

ObjectivesTo approximate the rate of familial myasthenia gravis and the coexistence of other autoimmune disorders in the patients and their families.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingClinics across North America.ParticipantsThe study included 1032 patients diagnosed with acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR)-positive myasthenia gravis.MethodsPhenotype information of 1032 patients diagnosed with AChR-positive myasthenia gravis was obtained from clinics at 14 centres across North America between January 2010 and January 2011. A critical review of the epidemiological literature on the familial rate of myasthenia gravis was also performed.ResultsAmong 1032 patients, 58 (5.6%) reported a family history of myasthenia gravis. A history of autoimmune diseases was present in 26.6% of patients and in 28.4% of their family members.DiscussionThe familial rate of myasthenia gravis was higher than would be expected for a sporadic disease. Furthermore, a high proportion of patients had a personal or family history of autoimmune disease. Taken together, these findings suggest a genetic contribution to the pathogenesis of myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION:There are no validated, practical, and quantitative measures of disease severity in Lambert-Eaton myasthenia (LEM). METHODS:Data from the Effectiveness of 3,4-Diaminopyridine in Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (DAPPER) trial were analyzed to assess triple timed up-and-go (3TUG) reproducibility and relationships between 3TUG times and other measures of LEM severity. RESULTS:The coverage probability technique showed ≥0.90 probability for an acceptable 3TUG difference of ≤0.2, indicating that it is reproducible in LEM patients. The correlation between 3TUG times and lower extremity function scores was significant in subjects who continued and in those who were withdrawn from 3,4-diaminopyridine free base. Worsening patient-reported Weakness Self-Assessment Scale and Investigator Assessment of Treatment Effect scores corresponded with prolongation of 3TUG times. DISCUSSION:The 3TUG is reproducible, demonstrates construct validity for assessment of lower extremity function in LEM patients, and correlates with changes in patient and physician assessments. These findings, along with prior reliability studies, indicate 3TUG is a valid measure of disease severity in LEM.

INTRODUCTION:3,4-diaminopyridine has been used to treat Lambert-Eaton myasthenia (LEM) for 30 years despite the lack of conclusive evidence of efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled withdrawal study in patients with LEM who had been on stable regimens of 3,4-diaminopyridine base (3,4-DAP) for ≥ 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was >30% deterioration in triple timed up-and-go (3TUG) times during tapered drug withdrawal. The secondary endpoint was self-assessment of LEM-related weakness (W-SAS). RESULTS:Thirty-two participants were randomized to continuous 3,4-DAP or placebo groups. None of the 14 participants who received continuous 3,4-DAP had > 30% deterioration in 3TUG time versus 72% of the 18 who tapered to placebo (P

ObjectiveTo develop formal consensus-based guidance for the management of myasthenia gravis (MG).MethodsIn October 2013, the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America appointed a Task Force to develop treatment guidance for MG, and a panel of 15 international experts was convened. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to develop consensus guidance statements. Definitions were developed for goals of treatment, minimal manifestations, remission, ocular MG, impending crisis, crisis, and refractory MG. An in-person panel meeting then determined 7 treatment topics to be addressed. Initial guidance statements were developed from literature summaries. Three rounds of anonymous e-mail votes were used to attain consensus on guidance statements modified on the basis of panel input.ResultsGuidance statements were developed for symptomatic and immunosuppressive treatments, IV immunoglobulin and plasma exchange, management of impending and manifest myasthenic crisis, thymectomy, juvenile MG, MG associated with antibodies to muscle-specific tyrosine kinase, and MG in pregnancy.ConclusionThis is an international formal consensus of MG experts intended to be a guide for clinicians caring for patients with MG worldwide.

ImportanceMyasthenia gravis is a chronic, autoimmune, neuromuscular disease characterized by fluctuating weakness of voluntary muscle groups. Although genetic factors are known to play a role in this neuroimmunological condition, the genetic etiology underlying myasthenia gravis is not well understood.ObjectiveTo identify genetic variants that alter susceptibility to myasthenia gravis, we performed a genome-wide association study.Design, setting, and participantsDNA was obtained from 1032 white individuals from North America diagnosed as having acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive myasthenia gravis and 1998 race/ethnicity-matched control individuals from January 2010 to January 2011. These samples were genotyped on Illumina OmniExpress single-nucleotide polymorphism arrays. An independent cohort of 423 Italian cases and 467 Italian control individuals were used for replication.Main outcomes and measuresWe calculated P values for association between 8,114,394 genotyped and imputed variants across the genome and risk for developing myasthenia gravis using logistic regression modeling. A threshold P value of 5.0×10(-8) was set for genome-wide significance after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing.ResultsIn the overall case-control cohort, we identified association signals at CTLA4 (rs231770; P=3.98×10(-8); odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.25-1.49), HLA-DQA1 (rs9271871; P=1.08×10(-8); odds ratio, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.02-2.60), and TNFRSF11A (rs4263037; P=1.60×10(-9); odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.29-1.53). These findings replicated for CTLA4 and HLA-DQA1 in an independent cohort of Italian cases and control individuals. Further analysis revealed distinct, but overlapping, disease-associated loci for early- and late-onset forms of myasthenia gravis. In the late-onset cases, we identified 2 association peaks: one was located in TNFRSF11A (rs4263037; P=1.32×10(-12); odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44-1.68) and the other was detected in the major histocompatibility complex on chromosome 6p21 (HLA-DQA1; rs9271871; P=7.02×10(-18); odds ratio, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.92-4.62). Association within the major histocompatibility complex region was also observed in early-onset cases (HLA-DQA1; rs601006; P=2.52×10(-11); odds ratio, 4.0; 95% CI, 3.57-4.43), although the set of single-nucleotide polymorphisms was different from that implicated among late-onset cases.Conclusions and relevanceOur genetic data provide insights into aberrant cellular mechanisms responsible for this prototypical autoimmune disorder. They also suggest that clinical trials of immunomodulatory drugs related to CTLA4 and that are already Food and Drug Administration approved as therapies for other autoimmune diseases could be considered for patients with refractory disease.

Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction. Treatment typically includes symptomatic oral cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppression, and immunomodulation. In addition to corticosteroids, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil are the most frequently used immunosuppressants in North America. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs, and to assess the effect of the dose and duration of treatment. We did a prospective cohort study at 19 academic centres in Canada and the USA. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with autoimmune myasthenia gravis, who were never treated with immunosuppressants. Treating clinicians determined the choice of medication, dose, follow-up intervals, and drug monitoring. Outcome measures and adverse events were recorded at each visit. We assessed two co-primary outcomes. The first was the patient-reported Myasthenia Gravis-Quality of Life 15-revised (MGQOL-15r) score, measured as the mean change from treatment initiation to the follow-up visit with the lowest score. A clinically meaningful reduction (CMR) in MGQOL-15r was defined as a 5-point decrease. The second was a composite clinical outcome of disease improvement (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Post-Intervention Status Minimal Manifestations or better) and low adverse event burden (defined as grade ≤1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). We also compared these outcomes in patients receiving an adequate dose and duration of azathioprine (≥2 mg/kg per day for at least 12 months) or mycophenolate mofetil (≥2 g per day for at least 8 months) and a lower dose or shorter duration of these agents. We used propensity score weighting with generalised linear regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03490539). Between May 1, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 167 patients were enrolled; 85 did not receive azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and were excluded. Four were excluded from outcome analyses because they had scores of 0 on an outcome measure at treatment initiation. Of the 78 patients included in analyses, 47 received mycophenolate mofetil (median follow-up 25 months [IQR 13·5–31·5]) and 31 received azathioprine (median follow-up 20 months [IQR 13–30]). The mean change in MG-QOL15r was –10·4 (95% CI –18·9 to –1·3) with mycophenolate mofetil and –6·8 (–17·2 to 3·6) with azathioprine (mean difference –3·3, 95% CI –7·7 to 1·2; p=0·15). 38 (81%) of 47 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 18 (57%) of 31 receiving azathioprine had a CMR in MG-QOL15r (risk difference 24·0%; 95% CI –0·2 to 48·0; p=0·052). The clinical composite outcome was achieved in 22 (47·7%) of 47 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and nine (28·1%) of 31 who received azathioprine (risk difference 19·6%, 95% CI –4·9 to 44·2; p=0·12). Descriptive analysis did not find a difference in the proportion of patients reaching a CMR in MG-QOL15r between the adequate dose and duration group and the lower dose or shorter duration group. Adverse events occurred in 11 (32%) of 34 patients who received azathioprine and nine (19%) of 48 who received mycophenolate mofetil. The most frequent adverse events were hepatotoxicity with azathioprine (five [15%] of 34) and gastrointestinal disturbances (seven [15%] of 48) with mycophenolate mofetil. There were no study-related deaths. More than half of patients treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil felt their quality of life improved; no difference in clinical outcomes was noted between the two drugs. Adverse events associated with azathioprine were potentially more serious than those with mycophenolate mofetil, although mycophenolate mofetil is teratogenic. Lower than recommended doses of azathioprine might be effective, with reduced dose-dependent adverse events. More comparative effectiveness studies are required to inform treatment choices in myasthenia gravis. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]