Importance: Use of biologic agents in generalized myasthenia gravis is generally limited to therapy-refractory cases; benefit in new-onset disease is unknown. Objective: To assess rituximab in refractory and new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis and rituximab vs conventional immunotherapy in new-onset disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data was conducted on a county-based community sample at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included 72 patients with myasthenia gravis, excluding those displaying muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies, initiating rituximab treatment from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, and patients with new-onset disease initiating conventional immunotherapy from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, with 12 months or more of observation time. The present study was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Exposures: Treatment with low-dose rituximab (most often 500 mg every 6 months) or conventional immunosuppressants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to remission (main outcome) as well as use of rescue therapies or additional immunotherapies and time in remission (secondary outcomes). Results: Of the 72 patients included, 31 patients (43%) were women; mean (SD) age at treatment start was 60 (18) years. Twenty-four patients had received rituximab within 12 months of disease onset and 48 received rituximab at a later time, 34 of whom had therapy-refractory disease. A total of 26 patients (3 [12%] women; mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years at treatment start) received conventional immunosuppressant therapy. Median time to remission was shorter for new-onset vs refractory disease (7 vs 16 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.26-5.07; P = .009 after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity) and for rituximab vs conventional immunosuppressant therapies (7 vs 11 months: HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.43-6.18; P = .004 after adjustment). In addition, fewer rescue therapy episodes during the first 24 months were required (mean [SD], 0.38 [1.10] vs 1.31 [1.59] times; mean difference, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.56; P < .001 after adjustment), and a larger proportion of patients had minimal or no need of additional immunotherapies (70% vs 35%; OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.40-21.43; P = .02 after adjustment). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with rituximab compared with conventional therapies (3% vs 46%; P < .001 after adjustment). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical outcomes with rituximab appeared to be more favorable in new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis, and rituximab also appeared to perform better than conventional immunosuppressant therapy. These findings suggest a relatively greater benefit of rituximab earlier in the disease course. A placebo-controlled randomized trial to corroborate these findings is warranted.
Importance: Use of biologic agents in generalized myasthenia gravis is generally limited to therapy-refractory cases; benefit in new-onset disease is unknown. Objective: To assess rituximab in refractory and new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis and rituximab vs conventional immunotherapy in new-onset disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data was conducted on a county-based community sample at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. Participants included 72 patients with myasthenia gravis, excluding those displaying muscle-specific tyrosine kinase antibodies, initiating rituximab treatment from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, and patients with new-onset disease initiating conventional immunotherapy from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2012, with 12 months or more of observation time. The present study was conducted from March 1, 2019, to January 31, 2020. Exposures: Treatment with low-dose rituximab (most often 500 mg every 6 months) or conventional immunosuppressants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to remission (main outcome) as well as use of rescue therapies or additional immunotherapies and time in remission (secondary outcomes). Results: Of the 72 patients included, 31 patients (43%) were women; mean (SD) age at treatment start was 60 (18) years. Twenty-four patients had received rituximab within 12 months of disease onset and 48 received rituximab at a later time, 34 of whom had therapy-refractory disease. A total of 26 patients (3 [12%] women; mean [SD] age, 68 [11] years at treatment start) received conventional immunosuppressant therapy. Median time to remission was shorter for new-onset vs refractory disease (7 vs 16 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.53; 95% CI, 1.26-5.07; P = .009 after adjustment for age, sex, and disease severity) and for rituximab vs conventional immunosuppressant therapies (7 vs 11 months: HR, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.43-6.18; P = .004 after adjustment). In addition, fewer rescue therapy episodes during the first 24 months were required (mean [SD], 0.38 [1.10] vs 1.31 [1.59] times; mean difference, -1.26; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.56; P < .001 after adjustment), and a larger proportion of patients had minimal or no need of additional immunotherapies (70% vs 35%; OR, 5.47; 95% CI, 1.40-21.43; P = .02 after adjustment). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were lower with rituximab compared with conventional therapies (3% vs 46%; P < .001 after adjustment). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical outcomes with rituximab appeared to be more favorable in new-onset generalized myasthenia gravis, and rituximab also appeared to perform better than conventional immunosuppressant therapy. These findings suggest a relatively greater benefit of rituximab earlier in the disease course. A placebo-controlled randomized trial to corroborate these findings is warranted.
Authors: Michael K Hehir; Lisa D Hobson-Webb; Michael Benatar; Carolina Barnett; Nicholas J Silvestri; James F Howard; Diantha Howard; Amy Visser; Brian A Crum; Richard Nowak; Rachel Beekman; Aditya Kumar; Katherine Ruzhansky; I-Hweii Amy Chen; Michael T Pulley; Shannon M LaBoy; Melissa A Fellman; Shane M Greene; Mamatha Pasnoor; Ted M Burns Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Nils Erik Gilhus; Socrates Tzartos; Amelia Evoli; Jacqueline Palace; Ted M Burns; Jan J G M Verschuuren Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Gavin Giovannoni; Helmut Butzkueven; Suhayl Dhib-Jalbut; Jeremy Hobart; Gisela Kobelt; George Pepper; Maria Pia Sormani; Christoph Thalheim; Anthony Traboulsee; Timothy Vollmer Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Peter Alping; Thomas Frisell; Lenka Novakova; Protik Islam-Jakobsson; Jonatan Salzer; Anna Björck; Markus Axelsson; Clas Malmeström; Katharina Fink; Jan Lycke; Anders Svenningsson; Fredrik Piehl Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: D C Hargreaves; P L Hyman; T T Lu; V N Ngo; A Bidgol; G Suzuki; Y R Zou; D R Littman; J G Cyster Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2001-07-02 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Juan Carlos López-Hernández; Javier A Galnares-Olalde; Enrique Gómez-Figueroa; Adib Jorge de Sarachaga; Edwin Steven Vargas-Cañas Journal: Cureus Date: 2021-02-08
Authors: Fredrik Piehl; Ann Eriksson-Dufva; Anna Budzianowska; Amalia Feresiadou; William Hansson; Max Albert Hietala; Irene Håkansson; Rune Johansson; Daniel Jons; Ivan Kmezic; Christopher Lindberg; Jonas Lindh; Fredrik Lundin; Ingela Nygren; Anna Rostedt Punga; Rayomand Press; Kristin Samuelsson; Peter Sundström; Oskar Wickberg; Susanna Brauner; Thomas Frisell Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 29.907
Authors: Michael Schroeter; Benjamin Berger; Franz Blaes; Tim Hagenacker; Sebastian Jander; Julia Kaiser; Petra Kalischewski; De-Hyung Lee; Tobias Ruck; Ulrike Schara; Peter Urban; Andreas Meisel Journal: J Cent Nerv Syst Dis Date: 2021-02-01