Integration of the expanded disability status scale with ambulation, visual and cognitive tests.

INTRODUCTION: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is usually calculated through a neurological examination with self-reported performance. This may lead to incorrect assessment of Functional System scores (FSs). Aim of our study was to estimate the difference between EDSS obtained during routine visits, or after specific tests. METHODS: We enrolled 670 MS patients that underwent a regular neurology consultation, and visual evaluation using optotype tables, ambulation evaluation with a rodometer, and cognitive assessment with the Brief International Cognitive assessment for MS (BICAMS). We calculated a new integrated EDSS (iEDSS) using the refined values of the FS and compared it to the standard EDSS. RESULTS: Visual, cerebral and ambulation FSs were significantly higher compared with the self-reported counterpart [+ 1.169 (95%CI 1.077, 1.262; p < 0.001), + 0.727 (95%CI 0.653, 0.801; p < 0.001) and + 0.822 (95%CI 0.705, 0.939; p < 0.001), respectively]. Mean iEDSS was higher than EDSS (+ 0.642; p < 0.001). Visual acuity tests worsened the EDSS in 31% of cases, cognitive tests in 10%, ambulation measurement in 35%, all three measurements in 59% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Objective measurement of FSs results in a more accurate EDSS score in almost two-thirds of cases. This could lead to a more thorough evaluation of patients in the transition or progressive phase.

A real-life experience with eculizumab and efgartigimod in generalized myasthenia gravis patients.

INTRODUCTION: Eculizumab, a complement active antibody, and efgartigimod, an Fc fragment that blocks neonatal Fc receptor, are both approved to treat generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) patients. The objective of this study is to describe the clinical response to both treatments in a real-life setting. METHODS: We collected baseline and follow-up clinical data using the Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL), and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG). We included 63 patients, 32 treated with eculizumab and 31 with efgartigimod. Of the efgartigimod-treated patients, 22 were anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR-Ab +) and 9 were AChR-Ab- (3 MuSK-Ab + and 6 seronegative). RESULTS: Both treatments showed similar efficacy relative to the MG-ADL scale reduction (p = 0.237). Efgartigimod had a similar effect on both AChR-Ab + and AChR-Ab- (p = 0.280). Eculizumab was superior to efgartigimod relative to the QMG score reduction for the entire dataset (p = 0.003) and was more likely to achieve a clinical response at the QMG compared to efgartigimod (OR 1.373; p = 0.016). Steroid-sparing effect was higher for eculizumab than efgartigimod ( - 16.7 vs - 5.2 mg of the baseline daily dose at follow-up; p = 0.001). Mean speed of prednisone reduction was - 13.1 mg of the daily dose for each month of follow-up for eculizumab-treated patients and - 3.2 for efgartigimod (p = 0.001). We found three serious events, all not related to treatment in the investigator's opinion. One eculizumab-treated patient experienced a severe pneumonia and died despite treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence that eculizumab and efgartigimod can be used in clinical practice to reduce disability in gMG patients. Eculizumab-treated patients had a higher QMG response and steroid sparing effect. Efgartigimod may offer a more flexible schedule due to its cyclical use, no need for vaccination, and efficacy in AChR-Ab- patients.