Patient preference for virtual versus in-person visits in neuromuscular clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: It is unknown if patients with neuromuscular diseases prefer in-person or virtual telemedicine visits. We studied patient opinions and preference on virtual versus in-person visits, and the factors influencing such preferences. METHODS: Telephone surveys, consisting of 11 questions, of patients from 10 neuromuscular centers were completed. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty surveys were completed. Twenty-six percent of respondents preferred virtual visits, while 50% preferred in-person visits. Sixty-four percent reported physical interaction as "very important." For receiving a new diagnosis, 55% preferred in-person vs 35% reporting no preference. Forty percent were concerned about a lack of physical examination vs 20% who were concerned about evaluating vital signs. Eighty four percent reported virtual visits were sufficiently private. Sixty eight percent did not consider expenses a factor in their preference. Although 92% were comfortable with virtual communication technology, 55% preferred video communications, and 19% preferred phone calls. Visit preference was not significantly associated with gender, diagnosis, disease severity, or symptom management. Patients who were concerned about a lack of physical exam or assessment of vitals had significantly higher odds of selecting in-person visits than no preference. DISCUSSION: Although neither technology, privacy, nor finance burdened patients in our study, more patients preferred in-person visits than virtual visits and 40% were concerned about a lack of physical examination. Interactions that occur with in-person encounters had high importance for patients, reflecting differences in the perception of the patient-physician relationship between virtual and in-person visits.

Optimizing telemedicine to facilitate amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has the largest drug pipeline among neuromuscular diseases, with over 160 companies actively involved in ALS research. There is a growing need to recruit trial participants, but ALS patients often have limited mobility and most ALS trials are conducted in a small number of major centers. These factors effectively limit patient participation, particularly for those in rural areas. The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated the more widespread use of telemedicine technology for clinical care, and has prompted consideration of its increased use for clinical trials. In this opinion piece, we describe the current state of telemedicine for recruitment, consenting, and screening of participants for clinical trials. We also summarize the available data on remote administration of outcome measures. Current challenges include validation of outcome measures for remote assessment, as well as technological, regulatory, and licensure barriers.

Randomized Trial of Thymectomy in Myasthenia Gravis.

BACKGROUND: Thymectomy has been a mainstay in the treatment of myasthenia gravis, but there is no conclusive evidence of its benefit. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing thymectomy plus prednisone with prednisone alone. METHODS: We compared extended transsternal thymectomy plus alternate-day prednisone with alternate-day prednisone alone. Patients 18 to 65 years of age who had generalized nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis with a disease duration of less than 5 years were included if they had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America clinical class II to IV disease (on a scale from I to V, with higher classes indicating more severe disease) and elevated circulating concentrations of acetylcholine-receptor antibody. The primary outcomes were the time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score (on a scale from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) over a 3-year period, as assessed by means of blinded rating, and the time-weighted average required dose of prednisone over a 3-year period. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients underwent randomization between 2006 and 2012 at 36 sites. Patients who underwent thymectomy had a lower time-weighted average Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis score over a 3-year period than those who received prednisone alone (6.15 vs. 8.99, P<0.001); patients in the thymectomy group also had a lower average requirement for alternate-day prednisone (44 mg vs. 60 mg, P<0.001). Fewer patients in the thymectomy group than in the prednisone-only group required immunosuppression with azathioprine (17% vs. 48%, P<0.001) or were hospitalized for exacerbations (9% vs. 37%, P<0.001). The number of patients with treatment-associated complications did not differ significantly between groups (P=0.73), but patients in the thymectomy group had fewer treatment-associated symptoms related to immunosuppressive medications (P<0.001) and lower distress levels related to symptoms (P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Thymectomy improved clinical outcomes over a 3-year period in patients with nonthymomatous myasthenia gravis. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and others; MGTX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00294658.).

Multidisciplinary amyotrophic lateral sclerosis telemedicine care: The store and forward method.

INTRODUCTION: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) patients benefit from multidisciplinary care in an ALS clinic. We studied whether multidisciplinary care of ALS patients using the store and forward method of telemedicine was feasible and acceptable to patients and providers. METHODS: ALS patients seen in the University of Florida (UF) Jacksonville ALS clinic were eligible for our study. A trained telemedicine nurse performed and recorded a multidisciplinary assessment of the patient in their home. Clinic team members reviewed the assessments and provided recommendations, and the clinic director discussed the plan with the patient via videoconference. Patient and provider satisfaction was evaluated using surveys. RESULTS: Eighteen patients completed a total of 27 telemedicine visits. Patient satisfaction was excellent and provider satisfaction was very good. DISCUSSION: The store and forward method of telemedicine is an acceptable alternative to live telemedicine for the multidisciplinary care of ALS patients. This method of care may improve access to multidisciplinary care for this patient population. Muscle Nerve 59:34-39, 2019.

Thymectomy may not be associated with clinical improvement in MuSK myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION: A randomized trial demonstrated benefit from thymectomy in nonthymomatous acetylcholine receptor (AChR)-antibody positive myasthenia gravis (MG). Uncontrolled observational and histologic studies suggest thymectomy may not be efficacious in anti-muscle-specific kinase (MuSK)-MG. METHODS: The therapeutic impact of thymectomy was evaluated from data collected for a multicenter, retrospective blinded review of rituximab in MuSK-MG. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between thymectomy (n = 26) and nonthymectomy (n = 29) groups, including treatment with rituximab (42% vs. 45%). At last visit, 35% of thymectomy subjects reached the primary endpoint, a Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) post-intervention status (PIS) score of minimal manifestations (MM) or better, compared with 55% of controls (P = 0.17). After controlling for age at onset of MG, rituximab, prednisone, and intravenous immunoglobulin/plasma exchange treatment, thymectomy was not associated with greater likelihood of favorable clinical outcome (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.12-1.53, P = 0.19). DISCUSSION: Thymectomy was not associated with additional clinical improvement in this multicenter cohort of MuSK-MG patients. Muscle Nerve 59:404-410, 2019.

Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Corticosteroid-Sparing Effects of Immunoglobulin in Myasthenia Gravis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disease characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction. Treatment frequently includes corticosteroids (CSs) and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG). This study was conducted to determine whether immune globulin (human), 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C) could facilitate CS dose reduction in CS-dependent patients with MG. METHODS: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, CS-dependent patients with MG (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Class II-Iva; AChR+) received a loading dose of 2 g/kg IGIV-C over 2 days (maximum 80 g/d) or placebo at week 0 (baseline). Maintenance doses (1 g/kg IGIV-C or placebo) were administered every 3 weeks through week 36. Tapering of CS was initiated at week 9 and continued through week 36 unless the patient worsened (quantitative MG score ≥4 points from baseline). CS doses were increased (based on the current CS dose) in patients who worsened. Patients were withdrawn if worsening failed to improve within 6 weeks or if a second CS increase was required. The primary efficacy end point (at week 39) was a ≥50% reduction in CS dose. Secondary and safety end points were assessed throughout the study and follow-up (weeks 42 and 45). The study results and full protocol are available at clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02473965. RESULTS: The primary end point (≥50% reduction in CS dose) showed no significant difference between the IGIV-C treatment (60.0% of patients) and placebo (63.3%). There were no significant differences for secondary end points. Safety data indicated that IGIV-C was well tolerated. DISCUSSION: In this study, IGIV-C was not more effective than placebo in reducing daily CS dose. These results suggest that the effects of IGIV-C and CS are not synergistic and may be mechanistically different. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: The trial was registered on clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT #: 2013-005099-17) and clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02473965). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that IVIG infusions in adult patients with MG do not increase the percentage of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in corticosteroid dose compared with placebo.

Primary lateral sclerosis natural history study - planning, designing, and early enrollment.

Introduction/Aims. Primary lateral sclerosis (PLS) is exceedingly rare and has been an enigmatic disease. Recent progress has drastically changed this perception, with early biomarkers being investigated and potential medications for PLS emerging at the preclinical stage. The aim of this paper is to describe a study of PLS natural history and discuss the limitations and proposed solutions to the study of a rare and slowly progressive disease. Methods. The PLS Natural History Study is a 30-site, 24-month, prospective study that is supported by multiple funding sources. The study aims to enroll 50 early PLS (disease duration ≤4 years) and 50 definite PLS (disease duration 4 to 15 years) participants using modified PLS Diagnostic Criteria. Smartphone-based assessments including semi-quantitative and quantitative measures and patient-reported outcomes are utilized. In-person quantitative measures are also completed during site visits. The change in the PLS Functional Rating Scale score is the primary outcome. The study utilizes the NeuroBANK® patient-centric data capture and management platform. The biostatistical analysis plan has been developed. Results. In one year, 28 participants have been recruited. Enrollment has been much slower than anticipated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the rarity of PLS, and potential study competition for internal resources from ALS clinical trials. Discussion. We discuss the need for more innovative methods to enroll and study individuals with such rare diseases and propose a number of mechanisms by which more efficient enrollment could be facilitated.

Clinical Challenges of Acute Porphyria in the Young Adult.

Porphyria is a metabolic disorder caused by a mutation in the heme biosynthetic pathway, with vague symptomatology and rare prevalence. A triad of hyponatremia, intermittent seizures, and abdominal pain should raise suspicion for porphyria. The diagnosis is based on increased blood porphobilinogen levels and genetic mutations. Treatment involves Dextrose-10 administration followed by hematin infusions as soon as possible. A maintenance dose of hematin is required in some cases. Here, we report a delayed diagnosis of acute intermittent porphyria (AIP) in an 18-year-old female, who first presented with severe anemia attributed to iron deficiency from menstrual blood loss. After discharge, she was readmitted with bilateral lower extremity and abdominal pain, hyponatremia, and seizure attributed to polypharmacy. During this second hospitalization, she was transferred to our hospital complaining of chest pain, shortness of breath, markedly decreased weakness, dysphagia, and hallucinations. After an extensive workup, she was diagnosed with AIP, and Dextrose-10 and hemin infusion were started. Our patient was found to have a missense mutation in the Hydroxymethylbilane synthase gene. She recovered after an extended ICU stay of 45 days and was discharged with a moderate improvement of weakness. Early diagnosis is necessary to prevent severe manifestations and long-term sequelae, such as axonal neuropathy, which occurred in the presented case.

Individualizing Therapy in CIDP: A Mini-Review Comparing the Pharmacokinetics of Ig With SCIg and IVIg.

Immunoglobulin (Ig) therapy is a first-line treatment for CIDP, which can be administered intravenously (IVIg) or subcutaneously (SCIg) and is often required long term. The differences between these modes of administration and how they can affect dosing strategies and treatment optimization need to be understood. In general, the efficacy of IVIg and SCIg appear comparable in CIDP, but SCIg may offer some safety and quality of life advantages to some patients. The differences in pharmacokinetic (PK) profile and infusion regimens account for many of the differences between IVIg and SCIg. IVIg is administered as a large bolus every 3-4 weeks resulting in cyclic fluctuations in Ig concentration that have been linked to systemic adverse events (AEs) (potentially caused by high Ig levels) and end of dose "wear-off" effects (potentially caused by low Ig concentration). SCIg is administered as a smaller weekly, or twice weekly, volume resulting in near steady-state Ig levels that have been linked to continuously maintained function and reduced systemic AEs, but an increase in local reactions at the infusion site. The reduced frequency of systemic AEs observed with SCIg is likely related to the avoidance of high Ig concentrations. Some small studies in immune-mediated neuropathies have focused on serum Ig data to evaluate its potential use as a biomarker to aid clinical decision-making. Analyzing dose data may help understand how establishing and monitoring patients' Ig concentration could aid dose optimization and the transition from IVIg to SCIg therapy.

A Phase 2, Double-Blind, Randomized, Dose-Ranging Trial Of Reldesemtiv In Patients With ALS.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety, dose response, and preliminary efficacy of reldesemtiv over 12 weeks in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Methods: Patients (≤2 years since diagnosis) with slow upright vital capacity (SVC) of ≥60% were randomized 1:1:1:1 to reldesemtiv 150, 300, or 450 mg twice daily (bid) or placebo; active treatment was 12 weeks with 4-week follow-up. Primary endpoint was change in percent predicted SVC at 12 weeks; secondary measures included ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) and muscle strength mega-score. Results: Patients (N = 458) were enrolled; 85% completed 12-week treatment. The primary analysis failed to reach statistical significance (p = 0.11); secondary endpoints showed no statistically significant effects (ALSFRS-R, p = 0.09; muscle strength mega-score, p = 0.31). Post hoc analyses pooling all active reldesemtiv-treated patients compared against placebo showed trends toward benefit in all endpoints (progression rate for SVC, ALSFRS-R, and muscle strength mega-score (nominal p values of 0.10, 0.01 and 0.20 respectively)). Reldesemtiv was well tolerated, with nausea and fatigue being the most common side effects. A dose-dependent decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate was noted, and transaminase elevations were seen in approximately 5% of patients. Both hepatic and renal abnormalities trended toward resolution after study drug discontinuation. Conclusions: Although the primary efficacy analysis did not demonstrate statistical significance, there were trends favoring reldesemtiv for all three endpoints, with effect sizes generally regarded as clinically important. Tolerability was good; modest hepatic and renal abnormalities were reversible. The impact of reldesemtiv on patients with ALS should be assessed in a pivotal Phase 3 trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03160898).

Patient Assisted Intervention for Neuropathy: Comparison of Treatment in Real Life Situations (PAIN-CONTRoLS): Bayesian Adaptive Comparative Effectiveness Randomized Trial.

Importance: Cryptogenic sensory polyneuropathy (CSPN) is a common generalized slowly progressive neuropathy, second in prevalence only to diabetic neuropathy. Most patients with CSPN have significant pain. Many medications have been tried for pain reduction in CSPN, including antiepileptics, antidepressants, and sodium channel blockers. There are no comparative studies that identify the most effective medication for pain reduction in CSPN. Objective: To determine which medication (pregabalin, duloxetine, nortriptyline, or mexiletine) is most effective for reducing neuropathic pain and best tolerated in patients with CSPN. Design, Setting, and Participants: From December 1, 2014, through October 20, 2017, a bayesian adaptive, open-label randomized clinical comparative effectiveness study of pain in 402 participants with CSPN was conducted at 40 neurology care clinics. The trial included response adaptive randomization. Participants were patients with CSPN who were 30 years or older, with a pain score of 4 or greater on a numerical rating scale (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating a higher level of pain). Participant allocation to 1 of 4 drug groups used the utility function and treatment's sample size for response adaptation randomization. At each interim analysis, a decision was made to continue enrolling (up to 400 participants) or stop the whole trial for success (80% power). Patient engagement was maintained throughout the trial, which helped guide the study and identify ways to communicate and disseminate information. Analysis was performed from December 11, 2015, to January 19, 2018. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive nortriptyline (n = 134), duloxetine (n = 126), pregabalin (n = 73), or mexiletine (n = 69). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a utility function that was a composite of the efficacy (participant reported pain reduction of ≥50% from baseline to week 12) and quit (participants who discontinued medication) rates. Results: Among the 402 participants (213 men [53.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.1 [13.4] years; 343 White [85.3%]), the utility function of nortriptyline was 0.81 (95% bayesian credible interval [CrI], 0.69-0.93; 34 of 134 [25.4%] efficacious; and 51 of 134 [38.1%] quit), of duloxetine was 0.80 (95% CrI, 0.68-0.92; 29 of 126 [23.0%] efficacious; and 47 of 126 [37.3%] quit), pregabalin was 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.55-0.84; 11 of 73 [15.1%] efficacious; and 31 of 73 [42.5%] quit), and mexiletine was 0.58 (95% CrI, 0.42-0.75; 14 of 69 [20.3%] efficacious; and 40 of 69 [58.0%] quit). The probability each medication yielded the highest utility was 0.52 for nortriptyline, 0.43 for duloxetine, 0.05 for pregabalin, and 0.00 for mexiletine. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that, although there was no clearly superior medication, nortriptyline and duloxetine outperformed pregabalin and mexiletine when pain reduction and undesirable adverse effects are combined to a single end point. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02260388.

Minimal manifestation status and prednisone withdrawal in the MGTX trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether sustained minimal manifestation status (MMS) with complete withdrawal of prednisone is better achieved in thymectomized patients with myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of data from a randomized trial of thymectomy in MG (Thymectomy Trial in Non-Thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis Patients Receiving Prednisone Therapy [MGTX]). MGTX was a multicenter, randomized, rater-blinded 3-year trial that was followed by a voluntary 2-year extension for patients with acetylcholine receptor (AChR) antibody-positive MG without thymoma. Patients were randomized 1:1 to thymectomy plus prednisone vs prednisone alone. Participants were age 18-65 years at enrollment with disease duration less than 5 years. All patients received oral prednisone titrated up to 100 mg on alternate days until they achieved MMS, which prompted a standardized prednisone taper as long as MMS was maintained. The achievement rate of sustained MMS (no symptoms of MG for 6 months) with complete withdrawal of prednisone was compared between the thymectomy plus prednisone and prednisone alone groups. RESULTS: Patients with MG in the thymectomy plus prednisone group achieved sustained MMS with complete withdrawal of prednisone more frequently (64% vs 38%) and quickly compared to the prednisone alone group (median time 30 months vs no median time achieved, p < 0.001) over the 5-year study period. Prednisone-associated adverse symptoms were more frequent in the prednisone alone group and distress level increased with higher doses of prednisone. CONCLUSIONS: Thymectomy benefits patients with MG by increasing the likelihood of achieving sustained MMS with complete withdrawal of prednisone. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00294658. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with generalized MG with AChR antibody, those receiving thymectomy plus prednisone are more likely to attain sustained MMS and complete prednisone withdrawal than those on prednisone alone.

Long-term effect of thymectomy plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in patients with non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis: 2-year extension of the MGTX randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Thymectomy Trial in Non-Thymomatous Myasthenia Gravis Patients Receiving Prednisone (MGTX) showed that thymectomy combined with prednisone was superior to prednisone alone in improving clinical status as measured by the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) score in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis at 3 years. We investigated the long-term effects of thymectomy up to 5 years on clinical status, medication requirements, and adverse events. METHODS: We did a rater-blinded 2-year extension study at 36 centres in 15 countries for all patients who completed the randomised controlled MGTX and were willing to participate. MGTX patients were aged 18 to 65 years at enrolment, had generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis of less than 5 years' duration, had acetylcholine receptor antibody titres of 1·00 nmol/L or higher (or concentrations of 0·50-0·99 nmol/L if diagnosis was confirmed by positive edrophonium or abnormal repetitive nerve stimulation, or abnormal single fibre electromyography), had Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Clinical Classification Class II-IV disease, and were on optimal anticholinesterase therapy with or without oral corticosteroids. In MGTX, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either thymectomy plus prednisone or prednisone alone. All patients in both groups received oral prednisone at doses titrated up to 100 mg on alternate days until they achieved minimal manifestation status. The primary endpoints of the extension phase were the time-weighted means of the QMG score and alternate-day prednisone dose from month 0 to month 60. Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00294658. It is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: Of the 111 patients who completed the 3-year MGTX, 68 (61%) entered the extension study between Sept 1, 2009, and Aug 26, 2015 (33 in the prednisone alone group and 35 in the prednisone plus thymectomy group). 50 (74%) patients completed the 60-month assessment, 24 in the prednisone alone group and 26 in the prednisone plus thymectomy group. At 5 years, patients in the thymectomy plus prednisone group had significantly lower time-weighted mean QMG scores (5·47 [SD 3·87] vs 9·34 [5·08]; p=0·0007) and mean alternate-day prednisone doses (24 mg [SD 21] vs 48 mg [29]; p=0·0002) than did those in the prednisone alone group. 14 (42%) of 33 patients in the prednisone group, and 12 (34%) of 35 in the thymectomy plus prednisone group, had at least one adverse event by month 60. No treatment-related deaths were reported during the extension phase. INTERPRETATION: At 5 years, thymectomy plus prednisone continues to confer benefits in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis compared with prednisone alone. Although caution is appropriate when generalising our findings because of the small sample size of our study, they nevertheless provide further support for the benefits of thymectomy in patients with generalised non-thymomatous myasthenia gravis. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

Hemorrhagic upper extremity complications from tissue plasminogen activator.

Five patients, ages 63 to 79, had hemorrhagic complications involving the upper extremity from fibrinolytic therapy using intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute myocardial infarction. The hemorrhages varied in severity. Three patients were treated for superficial hematomas, one with a deep subcutaneous hematoma producing skin necrosis, and one compartment syndrome with posterior interosseous nerve palsy and marked intramuscular bleeding. tPA is currently being used in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction and acute nonhemorrhagic stroke. Caution should be used particularly for IV sites, central lines, arterial catheterization, and pneumatic tourniquets, to avoid upper extremity hemorrhage.

Rituximab as treatment for anti-MuSK myasthenia gravis: Multicenter blinded prospective review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of rituximab in treatment of anti-muscle-specific kinase (MuSK) myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: This was a multicenter, blinded, prospective review, comparing anti-MuSK-positive patients with MG treated with rituximab to those not treated with rituximab. The primary clinical endpoint was the Myasthenia Gravis Status and Treatment Intensity (MGSTI), a novel outcome that combines the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA) postintervention status (PIS) and the number and dosages of other immunosuppressant therapies used. A priori, an MGSTI of level ≤2 was used to define a favorable outcome. Secondary outcomes included modified MGFA PIS of minimal manifestations or better, mean/median prednisone dose, and mean/median doses of other immunosuppressant drugs. RESULTS: Seventy-seven of 119 patients with anti-MuSK MG evaluated between January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2015, at 10 neuromuscular centers were selected for analysis after review of limited clinical data by a blinded expert panel. An additional 22 patients were excluded due to insufficient follow-up. Baseline characteristics were similar between the rituximab-treated patients (n = 24) and the controls (n = 31). Median follow-up duration was >3.5 years. At last visit, 58% (14/24) of rituximab-treated patients reached the primary outcome compared to 16% (5/31) of controls (p = 0.002). Number needed to treat for the primary outcome is 2.4. At last visit, 29% of rituximab-treated patients were taking prednisone (mean dose 4.5 mg/day) compared to 74% of controls (mean dose 13 mg/day) (p = 0.001 and p = 0.005). CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with anti-MuSK MG, rituximab increased the probability of a favorable outcome.

A randomized controlled trial of methotrexate for patients with generalized myasthenia gravis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the steroid-sparing effect of methotrexate (MTX) in patients with symptomatic generalized myasthenia gravis (MG). METHODS: We performed a 12-month multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MTX 20 mg orally every week vs placebo in 50 acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients with MG between April 2009 and August 2014. The primary outcome measure was the prednisone area under the dose-time curve (AUDTC) from months 4 to 12. Secondary outcome measures included 12-month changes of the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis Score, the Myasthenia Gravis Composite Score, Manual Muscle Testing, the Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life, and the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were screened and 50 enrolled. MTX did not reduce the month 4-12 prednisone AUDTC when compared to placebo (difference MTX - placebo: -488.0 mg, 95% confidence interval -2,443.4 to 1,467.3, p = 0.26); however, the average daily prednisone dose decreased in both groups. MTX did not improve secondary measures of MG compared to placebo over 12 months. Eight participants withdrew during the course of the study (1 MTX, 7 placebo). There were no serious MTX-related adverse events. The most common adverse event was nonspecific pain (19%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no steroid-sparing benefit of MTX in MG over 12 months of treatment, despite being well-tolerated. This study demonstrates the challenges of conducting clinical trials in MG, including difficulties with recruitment, participants improving on prednisone alone, and the need for a better understanding of outcome measure variability for future clinical trials. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with generalized MG MTX does not significantly reduce the prednisone AUDTC over 12 months of therapy.