Dataset Information

A randomized controlled trial of methotrexate for patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the steroid-sparing effect of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with symptomatic generalized myasthenia gravis (MG).

Methods

We performed a 12-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MTX 20 mg orally every week vs placebo in 50 acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients with MG between April 2009 and August 2014. The primary outcome measure was the prednisone area under the dose-time curve (AUDTC) from months 4 to 12. Secondary outcome measures included 12-month changes of the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score, the Myasthenia Gravis Composite Score, Manual Muscle Testing, the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life, and the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living.

Results

Fifty-eight patients were screened and 50 enrolled. MTX did not reduce the month 4-12 prednisone AUDTC when compared to placebo (difference MTX - placebo: -488.0 mg, 95% confidence interval -2,443.4 to 1,467.3, p = 0.26); however, the average daily prednisone dose decreased in both groups. MTX did not improve secondary measures of MG compared to placebo over 12 months. Eight participants withdrew during the course of the study (1 MTX, 7 placebo). There were no serious MTX-related adverse events. The most common adverse event was nonspecific pain (19%).

Conclusions

We found no steroid-sparing benefit of MTX in MG over 12 months of treatment, despite being well-tolerated. This study demonstrates the challenges of conducting clinical trials in MG, including difficulties with recruitment, participants improving on prednisone alone, and the need for a better understanding of outcome measure variability for future clinical trials.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with generalized MG MTX does not significantly reduce the prednisone AUDTC over 12 months of therapy.

SUBMITTER: Pasnoor M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4932232 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceUse of biologic agents in generalized myasthenia gravis is generally limited to therapy-refractory cases; benefit in new-onset disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo assess rituximab in refractory and new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis and rituximab vs conventional immunotherapy in new-onset disease.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data was conducted on a county-based community sample at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included 72 patients with myasthenia gravis, excluding those displaying muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies, initiating rituximab treatment from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, and patients with new-onset disease initiating conventional immunotherapy from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, with 12 months or more of observation time. The present study was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020.ExposuresTreatment with low-dose rituximab (most often 500 mg every 6 months) or conventional immunosuppressants.Main outcomes and measuresTime to remission (main outcome) as well as use of rescue therapies or additional immunotherapies and time in remission (secondary outcomes).ResultsOf the 72 patients included, 31 patients (43%) were women; mean (SD) age at treatment start was 60 (18) years. Twenty-four patients had received rituximab within 12 months of disease onset and 48 received rituximab at a later time, 34 of whom had therapy-refractory disease. A total of 26 patients (3 [12%] women; mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years at treatment start) received conventional immunosuppressant therapy. Median time to remission was shorter for new-onset vs refractory disease (7 vs 16 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.26-5.07; P = .009 after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity) and for rituximab vs conventional immunosuppressant therapies (7 vs 11 months: HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.43-6.18; P = .004 after adjustment). In addition, fewer rescue therapy episodes during the first 24 months were required (mean [SD], 0.38 [1.10] vs 1.31 [1.59] times; mean difference, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.56; P < .001 after adjustment), and a larger proportion of patients had minimal or no need of additional immunotherapies (70% vs 35%; OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.40-21.43; P = .02 after adjustment). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with rituximab compared with conventional therapies (3% vs 46%; P < .001 after adjustment).Conclusions and relevanceClinical outcomes with rituximab appeared to be more favorable in new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis, and rituximab also appeared to perform better than conventional immunosuppressant therapy. These findings suggest a relatively greater benefit of rituximab earlier in the disease course. A placebo-controlled randomized trial to corroborate these findings is warranted.

Project description:BackgroundThymectomy has been a mainstay in the treatment of myasthenia gravis, but there is no conclusive evidence of its benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing thymectomy plus prednisone with prednisone alone.MethodsWe compared extended transsternal thymectomy plus alternate-day prednisone with alternate-day prednisone alone. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who had generalized nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis with a disease duration of less than 5 years were included if they had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America clinical class II to IV disease (on a scale from I to V, with higher classes indicating more severe disease) and elevated circulating concentrations of acetylcholine-receptor antibody. The primary outcomes were the time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (on a scale from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) over a 3-year period, as assessed by means of blinded rating, and the time-weighted average required dose of prednisone over a 3-year period.ResultsA total of 126 patients underwent randomization between 2006 and 2012 at 36 sites. Patients who underwent thymectomy had a lower time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score over a 3-year period than those who received prednisone alone (6.15 vs. 8.99, P<0.001); patients in the thymectomy group also had a lower average requirement for alternate-day prednisone (44 mg vs. 60 mg, P<0.001). Fewer patients in the thymectomy group than in the prednisone-only group required immunosuppression with azathioprine (17% vs. 48%, P<0.001) or were hospitalized for exacerbations (9% vs. 37%, P<0.001). The number of patients with treatment-associated complications did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.73), but patients in the thymectomy group had fewer treatment-associated symptoms related to immunosuppressive medications (P<0.001) and lower distress levels related to symptoms (P=0.003).ConclusionsThymectomy improved clinical outcomes over a 3-year period in patients with nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; MGTX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00294658.).

Project description:Objective: To investigate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and exposure-response of the approved 900/1,200 mg dosing regimen for the terminal complement component 5 (C5) inhibitor eculizumab in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG). Methods: The analysis used data from 62 patients aged ≥ 18 years with anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive refractory gMG who received eculizumab during the REGAIN study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01997229). One- and two-compartment population-pharmacokinetic models were evaluated, and the impact of covariates on pharmacokinetic parameters was assessed. Relationships between eculizumab exposure and free C5 concentration, in vitro hemolytic activity, clinical response, and tolerability were characterized. Results: Steady-state serum eculizumab concentrations were achieved by Week 4 and were sustained throughout the 26-week treatment period. The eculizumab pharmacokinetic data were well-described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination, including effects of body weight on pharmacokinetic parameters and plasma-exchange events on clearance. Complete inhibition of terminal complement was achieved in nearly all patients at the time of trough and peak eculizumab concentrations at all post-dose timepoints assessed (free C5 < 0.5 μg/ml in 92% of patients; in vitro hemolysis < 20% in 87% of patients). Serum eculizumab concentrations of ≥116 μg/ml achieved free C5 concentrations of < 0.5 μg/ml. Clinical efficacy and tolerability were consistent across the eculizumab exposure range. Conclusions: Rigorous, quantitative, model-based exposure-response analysis of serum eculizumab concentration and response data demonstrated that the approved eculizumab dosing (900/1,200 mg) for adults with anti-AChR antibody-positive refractory gMG rapidly achieved complete inhibition of terminal complement activation and provided sustained clinical efficacy across the eculizumab exposure range.

Project description:ImportanceRituximab is a third-line option for refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) based on empirical evidence, but its effect in new-onset disease is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of rituximab compared with placebo as an add-on to standard of care for MG.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study took place throughout 48 weeks at 7 regional clinics in Sweden. Key inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, onset of generalized symptoms within 12 months or less, and a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score of 6 or more. Patients were screened from October 20, 2016, to March 2, 2020. Key exclusion criteria included pure ocular MG, suspected thymoma, previous thymectomy, and prior noncorticosteroid immunosuppressants or high doses of corticosteroids.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 without stratification to a single intravenous infusion of 500 mg of rituximab or matching placebo.Main outcomes and measuresMinimal disease manifestations at 16 weeks defined as a QMG score of 4 or less with prednisolone, 10 mg or less daily, and no rescue treatment.ResultsOf 87 potentially eligible patients, 25 were randomized to rituximab (mean [SD] age, 67.4 [13.4] years; 7 [28%] female) and 22 to placebo (mean [SD] age, 58 [18.6] years; 7 [32%] female). Compared with placebo, a greater proportion with rituximab met the primary end point; 71% (17 of 24) in the rituximab group vs 29% (6 of 21) in the placebo group (Fisher exact test P = .007; probability ratio, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.20-5.11]). Secondary end points, comparing changes in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living and Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life at 16 weeks with QMG at 24 weeks did not differ between groups with censoring for rescue treatment (per-protocol analysis) but were in favor of active treatment when rescue treatment was taken into account by worst rank imputation (post hoc analysis). Rescue treatments were also more frequent in the placebo arm (rituximab: 1 [4%]; placebo, 8 [36%]). One patient in the placebo arm had a myocardial infarction with cardiac arrest and 1 patient in the active arm experienced a fatal cardiac event.Conclusions and relevanceA single dose of 500 mg of rituximab was associated with greater probability of minimal MG manifestations and reduced need of rescue medications compared with placebo. Further studies are needed to address long-term benefit-risk balance with this treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950155.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate safety and explore efficacy of efgartigimod (ARGX-113), an anti-neonatal Fc receptor immunoglobulin G1 Fc fragment, in patients with generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) with a history of anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) autoantibodies, who were on stable standard-of-care myasthenia gravis (MG) treatment. METHODS:A phase 2, exploratory, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 15-center study is described. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 4 doses over a 3-week period of either 10 mg/kg IV efgartigimod or matched placebo combined with their standard-of-care therapy. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included efficacy (change from baseline to week 11 of Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living, Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis, and Myasthenia Gravis Composite disease severity scores, and of the revised 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life scale), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and immunogenicity. RESULTS:Of the 35 screened patients, 24 were enrolled and randomized: 12 received efgartigimod and 12 placebo. Efgartigimod was well-tolerated in all patients, with no serious or severe adverse events reported, no relevant changes in vital signs or ECG findings observed, and no difference in adverse events between efgartigimod and placebo treatment. All patients treated with efgartigimod showed a rapid decrease in total immunoglobulin G (IgG) and anti-AChR autoantibody levels, and assessment using all 4 efficacy scales consistently demonstrated that 75% showed a rapid and long-lasting disease improvement. CONCLUSIONS:Efgartigimod was safe and well-tolerated. The correlation between reduction of levels of pathogenic IgG autoantibodies and disease improvement suggests that reducing pathogenic autoantibodies with efgartigimod may offer an innovative approach to treat MG. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE:This study provides Class I evidence that efgartigimod is safe and well-tolerated in patients with gMG.