RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune neuromuscular disorder characterized by muscle weakness, posing significant challenges to patients' daily lives. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and plasmapheresis are two prominent immunomodulatory therapies used in MG management, but the choice between them remains a clinical dilemma. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the comparative efficacy of IVIG versus plasmapheresis in MG management. METHODS: We adhered to PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered the review protocol in PROSPERO. Systematic search across electronic databases identified 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Data from these studies were extracted, and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes included clinical efficacy, while secondary outcomes encompassed hospitalization, ventilation, antibody titers, and treatment-related complications. Statistical analysis was conducted using R software. RESULTS: The pooled results indicated that patients receiving plasmapheresis had higher odds of any improvement in MG symptoms compared to IVIG. However, change in severity scores did not significantly differ between the two treatments. Hospitalization durations were similar, but IVIG-treated patients tended to have shorter stays. Antibody titers, particularly anti-MUSK antibodies, favored plasmapheresis treatment. Complication rates were comparable between two groups. However, severe complications were more common in plasmapheresis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis suggests that plasmapheresis may offer superior short-term symptom improvement in MG compared to IVIG, while IVIG may lead to shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates. The choice between these treatments should be tailored to individual patient needs and disease characteristics. Further research is needed to explore long-term outcomes and mortality rates in MG management.
