How should newer therapeutic agents be incorporated into the treatment of patients with myasthenia gravis?

Generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) is a postsynaptic neuromuscular junction disorder that results in fatigable muscle weakness. The traditional treatment approach includes the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, corticosteroids, and steroid-sparing immunosuppressant therapies (ISTs) for chronic management, whereas exacerbations and crises are managed with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) and plasma exchange (PLEX). Over the past 6 years, four new therapeutic agents with novel immunological mechanisms of action-complement and neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) inhibition-were approved as a result of clinically significant improvement in gMG symptoms of those treated with these newer agents in Phase 3 clinical trials. At present, it is unclear when and in whom to initiate these therapeutic agents and how to integrate them into the current treatment paradigm. When selecting a newer therapeutic agent, we use a simple equation: Value = Clinical Improvement/(Cost + Side Effects + Treatment Burden), which guides our decision-making. We consider using these novel therapeutic agents in two specific clinical situations. Firstly, the newer agents are fast-acting, suggesting they can be used in clinically unstable patients as "bridge therapy," and secondly, they provide additional options for those patients considered treatment-refractory. There are downsides, however, including treatment cost, unique side effect profiles, and intravenous and subcutaneous drug administration (though for some, this may be an advantage). As additional drugs enter the marketplace with unique mechanisms of action, routes of administration, and dosing schedules, the placement of the novel therapeutic agents in the gMG treatment algorithm will likely evolve.

The role of psychosocial factors in Black women's self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing.

Higher self-efficacy in receiving genetic counseling and testing (GCT) has been associated with greater participation in GCT for women at risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), but little is known about correlates of self-efficacy in Black women eligible for GCT. The goal of this secondary analysis was to identify sociodemographic and psychosocial factors regarding GCT. Multivariable regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between self-efficacy and correlates of interest. Of the 100 Black women surveyed, most women had a college degree (64%), were employed (84%), and had health insurance (93%). In the multivariable model, greater self-efficacy was associated with more positive attitudes toward GCT (Β = 0.126; CI = 0.01 to 0.25; p = 0.039), greater confidence in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) (Β = 0.250; CI = 0.04 to 0.46; p = 0.019), and lower ratings of perceived difficulty obtaining GCT (Β = -0.219; CI = -0.46 to -0.10; p = 0.003). Community-level interventions to promote self-efficacy are needed that address perceived barriers to GCT, with the goals of increasing GINA Law awareness in the general public, increasing accessibility to genetic counseling (e.g., telemedicine), and promoting more positive attitudes about GCT.