Clinical features of LRP4/agrin-antibody-positive myasthenia gravis: A multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim in this study was to identify the prevalence and clinical characteristics of LRP4/agrin-antibody-positive double-seronegative myasthenia gravis (DNMG). METHODS: DNMG patients at 16 sites in the United States were tested for LRP4 and agrin antibodies, and the clinical data were collected. RESULTS: Of 181 DNMG patients, 27 (14.9%) were positive for either low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 4 (LRP4) or agrin antibodies. Twenty-three DNMG patients (12.7%) were positive for both antibodies. More antibody-positive patients presented with generalized symptoms (69%) compared with antibody-negative patients (43%) (P ≤ .02). Antibody-positive patients' maximum classification on the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) scale was significantly higher than that for antibody-negative patients (P ≤ .005). Seventy percent of antibody-positive patients were classified as MGFA class III, IV, or V compared with 39% of antibody-negative patients. Most LRP4- and agrin-antibody-positive patients (24 of 27, 89%) developed generalized myathenia gravis (MG), but with standard MG treatment 81.5% (22 of 27) improved to MGFA class I or II during a mean follow-up of 11 years. DISCUSSION: Antibody-positive patients had more severe clinical disease than antibody-negative patients. Most DNMG patients responded to standard therapy regardless of antibody status.

A novel, efficient, randomized selection trial comparing combinations of drug therapy for ALS.

Combining agents with different mechanisms of action may be necessary for meaningful results in treating ALS. The combinations of minocycline-creatine and celecoxib-creatine have additive effects in the murine model. New trial designs are needed to efficiently screen the growing number of potential neuroprotective agents. Our objective was to assess two drug combinations in ALS using a novel phase II trial design. We conducted a randomized, double-blind selection trial in sequential pools of 60 patients. Participants received minocycline (100 mg)-creatine (10 g) twice daily or celecoxib (400 mg)-creatine (10 g) twice daily for six months. The primary objective was treatment selection based on which combination best slowed deterioration in the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R); the trial could be stopped after one pool if the difference between the two arms was adequately large. At trial conclusion, each arm was compared to a historical control group in a futility analysis. Safety measures were also examined. After the first patient pool, the mean six-month decline in ALSFRS-R was 5.27 (SD=5.54) in the celecoxib-creatine group and 6.47 (SD=9.14) in the minocycline-creatine group. The corresponding decline was 5.82 (SD=6.77) in the historical controls. The difference between the two sample means exceeded the stopping criterion. The null hypothesis of superiority was not rejected in the futility analysis. Skin rash occurred more frequently in the celecoxib-creatine group. In conclusion, the celecoxib-creatine combination was selected as preferable to the minocycline-creatine combination for further evaluation. This phase II design was efficient, leading to treatment selection after just 60 patients, and can be used in other phase II trials to assess different agents.

Efficacy of minocycline in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a phase III randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Minocycline has anti-apoptotic and anti-inflammatory effects in vitro, and extends survival in mouse models of some neurological conditions. Several trials are planned or are in progress to assess whether minocycline slows human neurodegeneration. We aimed to test the efficacy of minocycline as a treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled phase III trial. After a 4-month lead-in phase, 412 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or minocycline in escalating doses of up to 400 mg/day for 9 months. The primary outcome measure was the difference in rate of change in the revised ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS-R). Secondary outcome measures were forced vital capacity (FVC), manual muscle testing (MMT), quality of life, survival, and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00047723. FINDINGS: ALSFRS-R score deterioration was faster in the minocycline group than in the placebo group (-1.30 vs -1.04 units/month, 95% CI for difference -0.44 to -0.08; p=0.005). Patients on minocycline also had non-significant tendencies towards faster decline in FVC (-3.48 vs -3.01, -1.03 to 0.11; p=0.11) and MMT score (-0.30 vs -0.26, -0.08 to 0.01; p=0.11), and greater mortality during the 9-month treatment phase (hazard ratio=1.32, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.10; p=0.23) than did patients on placebo. Quality-of-life scores did not differ between the treatment groups. Non-serious gastrointestinal and neurological adverse events were more common in the minocycline group than in the placebo group, but these events were not significantly related to the decline in ALSFRS-R score. INTERPRETATION: Our finding that minocycline has a harmful effect on patients with ALS has implications for trials of minocycline in patients with other neurological disorders, and for how potential neuroprotective agents are screened for use in patients with ALS.