Comparative effectiveness of azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil for myasthenia gravis (PROMISE-MG): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis is an autoimmune disorder of the neuromuscular junction. Treatment typically includes symptomatic oral cholinesterase inhibitors, immunosuppression, and immunomodulation. In addition to corticosteroids, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil are the most frequently used immunosuppressants in North America. We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of these two drugs, and to assess the effect of the dose and duration of treatment. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study at 19 academic centres in Canada and the USA. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) with autoimmune myasthenia gravis, who were never treated with immunosuppressants. Treating clinicians determined the choice of medication, dose, follow-up intervals, and drug monitoring. Outcome measures and adverse events were recorded at each visit. We assessed two co-primary outcomes. The first was the patient-reported Myasthenia Gravis-Quality of Life 15-revised (MGQOL-15r) score, measured as the mean change from treatment initiation to the follow-up visit with the lowest score. A clinically meaningful reduction (CMR) in MGQOL-15r was defined as a 5-point decrease. The second was a composite clinical outcome of disease improvement (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Post-Intervention Status Minimal Manifestations or better) and low adverse event burden (defined as grade ≤1 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). We also compared these outcomes in patients receiving an adequate dose and duration of azathioprine (≥2 mg/kg per day for at least 12 months) or mycophenolate mofetil (≥2 g per day for at least 8 months) and a lower dose or shorter duration of these agents. We used propensity score weighting with generalised linear regression models. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03490539). FINDINGS: Between May 1, 2018, and Aug 31, 2020, 167 patients were enrolled; 85 did not receive azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil and were excluded. Four were excluded from outcome analyses because they had scores of 0 on an outcome measure at treatment initiation. Of the 78 patients included in analyses, 47 received mycophenolate mofetil (median follow-up 25 months [IQR 13·5-31·5]) and 31 received azathioprine (median follow-up 20 months [IQR 13-30]). The mean change in MG-QOL15r was -10·4 (95% CI -18·9 to -1·3) with mycophenolate mofetil and -6·8 (-17·2 to 3·6) with azathioprine (mean difference -3·3, 95% CI -7·7 to 1·2; p=0·15). 38 (81%) of 47 patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil and 18 (57%) of 31 receiving azathioprine had a CMR in MG-QOL15r (risk difference 24·0%; 95% CI -0·2 to 48·0; p=0·052). The clinical composite outcome was achieved in 22 (47·7%) of 47 patients who received mycophenolate mofetil and nine (28·1%) of 31 who received azathioprine (risk difference 19·6%, 95% CI -4·9 to 44·2; p=0·12). Descriptive analysis did not find a difference in the proportion of patients reaching a CMR in MG-QOL15r between the adequate dose and duration group and the lower dose or shorter duration group. Adverse events occurred in 11 (32%) of 34 patients who received azathioprine and nine (19%) of 48 who received mycophenolate mofetil. The most frequent adverse events were hepatotoxicity with azathioprine (five [15%] of 34) and gastrointestinal disturbances (seven [15%] of 48) with mycophenolate mofetil. There were no study-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: More than half of patients treated with azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil felt their quality of life improved; no difference in clinical outcomes was noted between the two drugs. Adverse events associated with azathioprine were potentially more serious than those with mycophenolate mofetil, although mycophenolate mofetil is teratogenic. Lower than recommended doses of azathioprine might be effective, with reduced dose-dependent adverse events. More comparative effectiveness studies are required to inform treatment choices in myasthenia gravis. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America.

Novel uses of complement inhibitors in myasthenia gravis-Two case reports.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a rare, life-threatening immune-related adverse effect (irAE) of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment. C5-complement inhibitors are effective treatments for acetylcholine receptor antibody (AChR ab) positive generalized MG. We describe the use of eculizumab/ravulizumab in two patients with MG receiving concomitant pembrolizumab. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of two medical records. RESULTS: Patient 1: An 80-year-old male with recurrent, non-muscle invasive transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder developed ICI-induced AChR ab positive MG (ICI-MG), myositis, and myocarditis 2 weeks after the first dose of pembrolizumab. Myositis responded to corticosteroids. MG responded to eculizumab, followed by ravulizumab. He died of metastatic cancer 8 months later. Patient 2: A 58-year-old male had refractory thymoma-associated AChR ab-positive MG, which responded to eculizumab. He developed metastatic Merkel cell cancer necessitating pembrolizumab. MG remained stable on eculizumab. He had no irAEs for 22 months, with positron emission tomographic resolution of cancer. He then developed mild, indolent retinal vasculitis, which responded to prednisone. Discontinuation of pembrolizumab for 5 months resulted in cancer recurrence; pembrolizumab was resumed with peri-infusion pulse prednisone. MG remained stable and he continues eculizumab. DISCUSSION: In the first patient, eculizumab, followed by ravulizumab, improved ICI-MG. In the second patient, eculizumab treatment may have had a prophylactic effect on the development of ICI-induced irAEs. The effect of complement inhibition on cancer outcomes of ICI therapy is unknown. A possible biologic basis for complement inhibitors in reducing irAEs of ICI, especially in the presence of underlying autoimmune disease, merits evaluation.

Infectious Neuropathies.

OBJECTIVE: This article discusses the clinical manifestations and management of infectious peripheral neuropathies. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS: Several infectious etiologies of peripheral neuropathy are well-recognized and their treatments are firmly established. The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is associated with several central and peripheral nervous system manifestations, including peripheral neuropathies. Additionally, some COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome. These disorders are an active area of surveillance and research. Recent evidence-based guidelines have provided updated recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. ESSENTIAL POINTS: Infectious agents of many types (primarily bacteria and viruses) can affect the peripheral nerves, resulting in various clinical syndromes such as mononeuropathy or mononeuropathy multiplex, distal symmetric polyneuropathy, radiculopathy, inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy, and motor neuronopathy. Knowledge of these infections and the spectrum of peripheral nervous system disorders associated with them is essential because many have curative treatments. Furthermore, understanding the neuropathic presentations of these disorders may assist in diagnosing the underlying infection.

Evidence-based guideline: Neuromuscular ultrasound for the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: The purpose of this literature review is to develop an evidence-based guideline for the use of neuromuscular ultrasound in the diagnosis of ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). The proposed research question was: "In patients with suspected UNE, does ulnar nerve enlargement as measured with ultrasound accurately identify those patients with UNE?" METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed, and studies were classified according to American Academy of Neurology criteria for rating articles for diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Based on Class I evidence in four studies, it is probable that neuromuscular ultrasound measurement of the ulnar nerve at the elbow, either of diameter or cross-sectional area (CSA), is accurate for the diagnosis of UNE. RECOMMENDATION: For patients with symptoms and signs suggestive of ulnar neuropathy, clinicians should offer ultrasonographic measurement of ulnar nerve cross-sectional area or diameter to confirm the diagnosis and localize the site of compression (Level B).

Identifying a patient-centered outcome measure for a comparative effectiveness treatment trial in myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Data regarding the comparative effectiveness of myasthenia gravis (MG) treatments is not available. We used patient input to identify a patient-centered outcome measure (PCOM) for PROMISE-MG, a comparative effectiveness trial of MG treatments. METHODS: First, a questionnaire survey was administered to 58 people with MG at the patient meeting of the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America (MGFA), evaluating the impact of MG-related symptoms and MG treatments on patients' lives. Second, an online focus group of 13 patients with MG was conducted. Third, a potential outcome measure was selected. Fourth, the selected PCOM was evaluated by patients to assess how completely and accurately it captured their experiences with MG. RESULTS: The patient survey showed that limb weakness had the most impact on patients' lives. Weight gain, mood swings, insomnia, and diarrhea were the most bothersome treatment side effects. Avoiding hospitalization was very important. Focus group participants reported fatigue as one of the most bothersome symptoms and differentiated it from myasthenic weakness. They defined an ideal treatment as having minimal or no side effects and an 80% improvement in symptoms. DISCUSSION: Based on patient input, the 15-item Myasthenia Gravis Quality of Life-Revised (MG-QOL15R) scale, a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PRO), was selected as the primary PCOM for PROMISE-MG. Avoiding hospitalization and having minimal to no treatment adverse effects were selected as additional outcome measures. The patient-centeredness of a PRO depends on the context of a study: PROs should be evaluated for appropriateness as a PCOM for every study.

Doctor-Should I get the COVID-19 vaccine? Infection and immunization in individuals with neuromuscular disorders.

The clinical course of neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) can be affected by infections, both in immunocompetent individuals, and in those with reduced immunocompetence due to immunosuppressive/immunomodulating therapies. Infections and immunizations may also trigger NMDs. There is a potential for reduced efficacy of immunizations in patients with reduced immunocompetence. The recent vaccination program for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) raises several questions regarding the safety and efficacy of this vaccine in individuals with NMDs. In this Practice Topic article, we address the role of vaccine-preventable infections in NMDs and the safety and efficacy of immunization in individuals with NMDs, with emphasis on vaccination against COVID-19.

International Consensus Guidance for Management of Myasthenia Gravis: 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2016 formal consensus-based guidance for the management of myasthenia gravis (MG) based on the latest evidence in the literature. METHODS: In October 2013, the Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America appointed a Task Force to develop treatment guidance for MG, and a panel of 15 international experts was convened. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to develop consensus recommendations pertaining to 7 treatment topics. In February 2019, the international panel was reconvened with the addition of one member to represent South America. All previous recommendations were reviewed for currency, and new consensus recommendations were developed on topics that required inclusion or updates based on the recent literature. Up to 3 rounds of anonymous e-mail votes were used to reach consensus, with modifications to recommendations between rounds based on the panel input. A simple majority vote (80% of panel members voting "yes") was used to approve minor changes in grammar and syntax to improve clarity. RESULTS: The previous recommendations for thymectomy were updated. New recommendations were developed for the use of rituximab, eculizumab, and methotrexate as well as for the following topics: early immunosuppression in ocular MG and MG associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment. CONCLUSION: This updated formal consensus guidance of international MG experts, based on new evidence, provides recommendations to clinicians caring for patients with MG worldwide.

COVID-19-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome: The early pandemic experience.

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an inflammatory polyradiculoneuropathy associated with numerous viral infections. Recently, there have been many case reports describing the association between coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and GBS, but much remains unknown about the strength of the association and the features of GBS in this setting. We reviewed 37 published cases of GBS associated with COVID-19 to summarize this information for clinicians and to determine whether a specific clinical or electrodiagnostic (EDx) pattern is emerging. The mean age (59 years), gender (65% male), and COVID-19 features appeared to reflect those of hospitalized COVID-19 patients early in the pandemic. The mean time from COVID-19 symptoms to GBS symptoms was 11 days. The clinical presentation and severity of these GBS cases was similar to those with non-COVID-19 GBS. The EDx pattern was considered demyelinating in approximately half of the cases. Cerebrospinal fluid, when assessed, demonstrated albuminocytologic dissociation in 76% of patients and was negative for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in all cases. Serum antiganglioside antibodies were absent in 15 of 17 patients tested. Most patients were treated with a single course of intravenous immunoglobulin, and improvement was noted within 8 weeks in most cases. GBS-associated COVID-19 appears to be an uncommon condition with similar clinical and EDx patterns to GBS before the pandemic. Future studies should compare patients with COVID-19-associated GBS to those with contemporaneous non-COVID-19 GBS and determine whether the incidence of GBS is elevated in those with COVID-19.

Improved ALS clinical trials through frequent at-home self-assessment: a proof of concept study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential for improving amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) clinical trials by having patients or caregivers perform frequent self-assessments at home. METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled ALS patients into a nonblinded, longitudinal 9-month study in which patients and caregivers obtained daily data using several different instruments, including a slow-vital capacity device, a hand grip dynamometer, an electrical impedance myography-based fitness device, an activity tracker, a speech app, and the ALS functional rating scale-revised. Questions as to acceptability were asked at two time points. RESULTS: A total of 113 individuals enrolled, with 61 (43 men, 18 women, mean age 60.1 ± 9.9 years) collecting a minimum of 7 days data and being included in the analysis. Daily measurements resulted in more accurate assessments of the slope of progression of the disease, resulting in smaller sample size estimates for a hypothetical clinical trial. For example, by performing daily slow-vital capacity measurements, calculated sample size was reduced to 182 subjects/study arm from 882/arm for monthly measurements. Similarly, performing the ALS functional rating scale weekly rather than monthly led to a calculated sample size of 73/arm as compared to 274/arm. Participants generally found the procedures acceptable and, for many, improved their sense of control of their disease. INTERPRETATION: Frequent at-home measurements using standard tools holds the prospect of tracking progression and reducing sample size requirements for clinical trials in ALS while also being acceptable to the patients. Future studies in this and other neurological disorders should consider adopting this approach to data collection.

Guidance for resumption of routine electrodiagnostic testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the world accommodates to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, routine in-person medical services are resuming. The resumption of non urgent electrodiagnostic (EDX) testing faces unique challenges due to the long duration of the procedure and direct close contact with patients, including studies with risk of exposure to oropharyngeal secretions. We provide consensus guidance for resumption of EDX testing, addressing scheduling, patient arrival and registration, use of personal protective equipment, COVID-19 screening and testing, the performance of EDX testing in outpatient and inpatient settings, cleaning and maintenance of the EDX equipment and laboratory, balancing trainee safety and training requirements, and patient care issues. These are broad recommendations that need to be adapted to local COVID-19 risks, institutional guidelines and policies, and changing federal, state, and local regulations, and to changes in the pandemic over time.

Practical guidance for managing electromyography requests and testing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated cancelation of elective or nonurgent contact with the healthcare system, including nonurgent nerve conduction studies and electromyography (electrodiagnostic [EDX] studies). The definitions of elective and nonurgent are physician judgments, and often are not straightforward. Clinical care must be provided to help our patients in a timely manner, while keeping them, healthcare personnel, and the community safe. Benefit/risk stratification is an important part of this process. We have stratified EDX studies into three categories: Urgent, Non-urgent, and Possibly Urgent, in an effort to help clinicians triage these referrals. For each category, we provide a rationale and some examples. However, each referral must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the clinical situation will evolve over time, necessitating flexibility in managing EDX triaging. Engaging the referring clinician and, at times, the patient, may be useful in the triage process.