Dataset Information

Local use of dexamethasone in the treatment of ocular myasthenia gravis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:At present, patients with ocular myasthenia gravis (OMG) are typically treated with systemic drugs. We investigated the use of dexamethasone injected in the peribulbar region or extraocular muscle to treat patients with OMG. METHODS:Patients with OMG were given dexamethasone via peribulbar injection or direct injection into the main paralyzed extraocular muscles, once a week, for 4-6?weeks. The severity of diplopia, blepharoptosis, eye position, and eye movement were evaluated before and after treatment. The duration of follow-up time was ?6?months. RESULTS:Among the 14 patients with OMG who received this treatment, mean age was 38.7?±?29.7?years. After treatment, symptoms were relieved in 12 patients (85.7%), 1 patient (7.1%) had partial response to treatment, and 1 patient (7.1%) had no response. Two patients (14.2%) experienced symptom recurrence during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS:Dexamethasone peribulbar or extraocular muscle injection is effective in the treatment of patients with OMG and may replace systemic drug therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2000038863 , October 7, 2020.Retrospectively registered.

SUBMITTER: Shi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7594471 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Local use of dexamethasone in the treatment of ocular myasthenia gravis.

Shi Minghua M Ye Yingjia Y Zhou Junping J Qin Aijiao A Cheng Jing J Ren Hongxing H

BMC ophthalmology 20201028 1

<h4>Background</h4>At present, patients with ocular myasthenia gravis (OMG) are typically treated with systemic drugs. We investigated the use of dexamethasone injected in the peribulbar region or extraocular muscle to treat patients with OMG.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with OMG were given dexamethasone via peribulbar injection or direct injection into the main paralyzed extraocular muscles, once a week, for 4-6 weeks. The severity of diplopia, blepharoptosis, eye position, and eye movement were ev ...[more]

PMID: 33115419

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:Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disease affecting the neuromuscular junction, whose clinical hallmark is muscle weakness and early fatigability. Azathioprine (AZA) is commonly used in Myasthenia Gravis therapy. AZA is a purine antagonist, which inhibits the cell cycle in the resting and DNA synthesis phases. It is usually used as an immunosuppressant to block T- and B-cell proliferation. AZA, bioconverted to 6-mercaptopurine by glutathione S-transferase (GST), can be metabolized either through the hypoxanthine phosphoribosyl transferase pathway to active 6-thioguanine nucleotides (6-TGN) or through the thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) pathway to inactive methyl-thiopurine metabolites. The incorporation of active 6-TGNs into DNA, causing breaks in DNA strands resulting in interference with RNA production and thereby protein synthesis, is responsible for the drug effect. The response to AZA is determined by which metabolic pathway is being favored. While balanced use of both HPRT and TPMT pathways results in responsiveness to AZA, hyperactivity of TPMT skews the balance towards the TPMT pathway and results in unresponsiveness to AZA with no pharmacological effect. In contrast, low TPMT activity skews the balance towards the HPRT pathway, resulting in increasing side-effects due to the accumulation of 6-TGNs. Current treatments for MG therapy are often inadequate because less than 40% of patients achieve complete remission with available drugs. This reflects the lack of drugs acting on target sites for which there is strong evidence of pathogenicity and the inability to identify responder patients. No criteria for responsiveness are available, exposing patients to unpredictable failures and unpredictable side effects. These individuals are at particular risk for adverse drug reaction (ADRs) or therapeutic failure. Genetic profiling with the Affymetrix drug metabolizing enzymes and transports genotyping array offers the ability to determine 1,931 variants and 225 genes involved in drug metabolism and disposition. Accordingly, the study of well-known drug-metabolizing genes can be involved in the specific metabolic pathway of a drug, which is more likely to define genotype-phenotype association and thereby genotype profiles relevant to drug response that can be applied as predictive biomarkers for pharmacological treatment.

Dataset Information

Local use of dexamethasone in the treatment of ocular myasthenia gravis.

Publications

Local use of dexamethasone in the treatment of ocular myasthenia gravis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets