Dataset Information

Myasthenia gravis and COVID-19: A case series and comparison with literature.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To describe presenting symptoms, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic management of concurrent Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in patients with a pre-existing myasthenia gravis (MG).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study in patients with preexisting MG presenting with concurrent COVID-19 between September 21st and November 4th, 2020 when attending the emergency department or routine neurology consultation at the National Institute Mongi Ben Hamida of Neurology of Tunis, Tunisia.

Results

Five patients were identified. The Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America scores (MGFA) prior to COVID-19 infection were class I in one patient, class II (IIa, IIb) in two patients, and class IIIb in one patient. Four patients had mild to moderate courses of COVID-19 infection. One patient presented a critical infection with acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) requiring mechanical ventilation. Two of them also demonstrated signs of MG exacerbation requiring the use of intravenous immunoglobulin in one case. We maintained immunosuppressant therapy to MG in all our patients. All our patients received Azithromycin (AZM) as a part of specific drug treatment of COVID-19 infection. Outcome was favorable in 4 patients and rapidly fatal evolution was observed in the patient with ADRS.

Discussions and conclusion

The results from our study suggest that prior MG activity could partially influence the subsequent clinical outcomes. It emerged also that ongoing long-term immunosuppressive immunotherapy to MG should be maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic and that AZM can be used safely in MG patients and concurrent COVID-19 infection.

SUBMITTER: Saied Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8222886 | 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:BackgroundCoronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cholangiopathy is a recently known entity. There are very few reports of liver transplantation (LT) for COVID-19-induced cholangiopathy. It is well known that vaccines can prevent severe disease and improve outcomes. However, there are no reports on the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on cholestasis. Therefore, we aimed to compare the course and outcome of patients who developed cholestasis following COVID-19 infection among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Methods: Patients diagnosed with post-COVID cholestasis during the pandemic were included in the study after excluding other causes of cholestasis.ResultsEight unvaccinated and seven vaccinated individuals developed cholestasis following COVID-19 infection. Baseline demographics, presentation, severity, and management of COVID-19 were similar in both groups. However, patients in the unvaccinated group had a protracted course. The peak ALP was 312 (239-517) U/L in the vaccinated group and 571.5 (368-1058) U/L in the unvaccinated group (P = 0.02). Similarly, the peak γ-glutamyl transpeptidase values were lower in the vaccinated (325 [237-600] U/L) than in the unvaccinated group (832 [491-1640] U/L; P = 0.004). However, the peak values of total bilirubin, transaminases, and INR were similar in both groups. Five patients developed ascites gradually in the unvaccinated group whereas none in the vaccinated group developed ascites. Plasma exchange was done in five patients, and two were successfully bridged to living donor LT in the unvaccinated group. Only two patients recovered with conservative management in the unvaccinated group, whereas all recovered with conservative management in the vaccinated group. The other four patients in the unvaccinated group were planned for LT.ConclusionPost-COVID-19 cholestasis is associated with high morbidity and mortality, meriting early identification and appropriate management. Vaccination can modify the course of severe COVID-19 infection and improve outcomes.