Dataset Information

Nomogram for short-term outcome assessment in AChR subtype generalized myasthenia gravis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An accurate prediction for prognosis can help in guiding the therapeutic options and optimizing the trial design for generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG). We aimed to develop and validate a predictive nomogram to assess the short-term outcome in patients with the anti-acetylcholine receptor (AChR) subtype gMG.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 165 patients with AChR subtype gMG who were immunotherapy naïve at the first visit from five tertiary centers in China. The short-term clinical outcome is defined as the achievement of minimal symptom expression (MSE) at 12 months. Of them, 120 gMG patients from Huashan Hospital were enrolled to form a derivation cohort (n = 96) and a temporal validation cohort (n = 24) for the nomogram. Then, this nomogram was externally validated using 45 immunotherapy naïve AChR subtype gMG from the other four hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression was used to screen independent factors and construct the nomogram.

Results

MSE was achieved in 70 (72.9%), 20 (83.3%), and 33 (73.3%) patients in the training, temporal validation, and external validation cohort, respectively. The duration ≤ 12 months (p = 0.021), ocular score ≤ 2 (p = 0.006), QMG score > 13 (p = 0.008), and gross motor score ≤ 9 (p = 0.006) were statistically associated with MSE in AChR subtype gMG. The nomogram has good performance in predicting MSE as the concordance indexes are 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.90) in the development cohort, 0.944 (95% CI, 0.83-1.00) in the temporal validation cohort, and 0.773 (95% CI, 0.63-0.92) in the external validation cohort.

Conclusion

The nomogram achieved an optimal prediction of MSE in AChR subtype gMG patients using the baseline clinical characters.

SUBMITTER: Zhao R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8247112 | 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.