Dataset Information

When myasthenia gravis is deemed refractory: clinical signposts and treatment strategies.

ABSTRACT: The prognosis for patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) has improved significantly over the past half century, including substantial reductions in mortality and morbidity. However, approximately 10% of patients fails to respond adequately to current therapies and are considered treatment refractory, or treatment intolerant, and up to 80% have disease that fails to achieve complete stable remission. Although patients with autoantibodies to muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (anti-MuSK positive) are more likely to become treatment refractory than those with autoantibodies to the acetylcholine receptor (anti-AChR positive), each of these serotypes is substantially represented in the refractory MG population. Other risk factors for becoming treatment refractory include history of thymoma or thymectomy and female sex. A modified treatment algorithm for MG is proposed: patients who have disease that fails to respond to the stepwise approach to therapy, are treatment intolerant, or who require chronic rescue measures despite ongoing therapy, should be considered treatment refractory and emerging therapies should be considered. Three emerging monoclonal antibody-based therapies are discussed: the anti-B-cell agent rituximab; the terminal complement activation inhibitor eculizumab; and belimumab, which targets B-cell activating factor. Increased understanding of molecular pathophysiology and accurate antibody subtyping in MG should lead to the use of new therapeutic agents and successful management of treatment-refractory patients.

SUBMITTER: Mantegazza R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5791553 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

When myasthenia gravis is deemed refractory: clinical signposts and treatment strategies.

Mantegazza Renato R Antozzi Carlo C

Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders 20180118

The prognosis for patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) has improved significantly over the past half century, including substantial reductions in mortality and morbidity. However, approximately 10% of patients fails to respond adequately to current therapies and are considered treatment refractory, or treatment intolerant, and up to 80% have disease that fails to achieve complete stable remission. Although patients with autoantibodies to muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (anti-MuSK positive) are m ...[more]

PMID: 29403543

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.

Dataset Information

When myasthenia gravis is deemed refractory: clinical signposts and treatment strategies.

Publications

When myasthenia gravis is deemed refractory: clinical signposts and treatment strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets