Rituximab alone is as effective as associated with steroids on naive patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION: Rituximab (RTX) has been proven effective in managing refractory generalized myasthenia gravis (MG), and its use is increasing worldwide. MG stabilization may initially require oral corticosteroid (CS) therapy, but its long-term side effects require the shortest duration of treatment. We studied the clinical effectiveness and usefulness of corticosteroids associated with RTX compared to RTX alone on MG remission. METHODS: In a monocentric retrospective cohort in the Nice University Hospital, we compared naïve MG patients treated with RTX as first-line therapy alone (G1) or associated with CS (G2). After the RTX induction, we evaluated efficacy with the Osserman score (OS) and the requirement for any rescue therapy (IVIg or plasmapheresis). RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were treated with RTX, of which 19 (27.94%) benefited from an association with at least 0.5 mg/kg of corticosteroids. RTX-CS patients were more severe than RTX alone (OS for G1: 74.1 and G2: 64.94, p = 0.044). However, OS at 3 (83.44 and 83.12, p = 0.993), 6 (88.69 and 86.36, p = 0.545), 9 (82.91 and 85.73, p = 0.563), and 12 months (86.6 and 88.69, p = 0.761) from the treatment induction were similar. Rescue therapy following RTX induction was significantly higher for the RTX-CS (20.41% and 47.37%, p = 0.037). Regarding safety, adverse event rates were similar in the two groups (0% and 14.29%, p = 0.178). CONCLUSION: We suggest that RTX alone is as effective as RTX-CS in MG patients, indicating that avoiding steroids could reduce side effects, decrease rescue therapies, and not affect MG outcomes.

The diagnostic value of the central vein sign in radiologically isolated syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The radiologically isolated syndrome (RIS) represents the earliest detectable preclinical phase of multiple sclerosis (MS). Increasing evidence suggests that the central vein sign (CVS) enhances lesion specificity, allowing for greater MS diagnostic accuracy. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the CVS in RIS. METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited in a single tertiary center for MS care. Participants with RIS were included and compared to a control group of sex and age-matched subjects. All participants underwent 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging, including postcontrast susceptibility-based sequences, and the presence of CVS was analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity were assessed for different CVS lesion criteria, defined by proportions of lesions positive for CVS (CVS+) or by the absolute number of CVS+ lesions. RESULTS: 180 participants (45 RIS, 45 MS, 90 non-MS) were included, representing 5285 white matter lesions. Among them, 4608 were eligible for the CVS assessment (970 in RIS, 1378 in MS, and 2260 in non-MS). According to independent ROC comparisons, the proportion of CVS+ lesions performed similarly in diagnosing RIS from non-MS than MS from non-MS (p = 0.837). When a 6-lesion CVS+ threshold was applied, RIS lesions could be diagnosed with an accuracy of 87%. MS could be diagnosed with a sensitivity of 98% and a specificity of 83%. Adding OCBs or Kappa index to CVS biomarker increased the specificity to 100% for RIS diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: This study shows evidence that CVS is an effective imaging biomarker in differentiating RIS from non-MS, with similar performances to those in MS.